Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 356 / Noes: 219 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The covid-19 pandemic has tested our country like never before, and nowhere more has this been seen than in our health and care system. Everyone delivering health and social care in this country has risen to meet these tests in remarkable new ways. We have seen bold new ways of working, of overcoming bureaucracy and of people working seamlessly across traditional boundaries. New teams were forged, new technologies adopted and new approaches found.
There is no greater example of this than the extraordinary success of our vaccine roll-out, where health and care colleagues have been able to draw on the collective scale and strengths of our Union to deliver one vaccination programme for the whole of the United Kingdom. Today, I can confirm to the House that two thirds of adults have received both jabs against covid-19 one week earlier than planned. It is a remarkable achievement. Everyone working in the NHS and social care can be proud of what they have achieved, and we are all in this House very proud of them.
As we look to the post-pandemic world, we know there is still no shortage of challenges ahead—an ageing population, an increase in people with multiple health conditions and, of course, the chance to embrace the full potential of data and technology.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jim Shannon
It is just, Secretary of State, because you mentioned the issue I wanted to bring up about people getting older. I spoke to your colleague, the Minister for Health, yesterday and I am appreciative of that—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member really must not refer directly to the Secretary of State; it is through the Chair.
Jim Shannon
Recent statistics show that over 40,000 people under 65 in the UK have dementia, and many more have not been diagnosed as of yet. It would seem that these figures are not addressed in the Health and Care Bill, so can I ask the Secretary of State what more will be done to offer support to those suffering with dementia and Alzheimer’s in the UK through this social services care Bill?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman as he raises a very important issue. In this Bill, as I will come to, one of the central themes is integration. When I come to that, I hope he will see how that integration between NHS and social care will help to deliver a better service for those with dementia.
Everything I refer to—these challenges—are all in addition to the challenges of the pandemic that of course we still face and the elective backlog that we know is going to get worse before it gets better. Meeting the future with confidence relies on learning lessons from the pandemic—what worked and what did not work—and building on a decade of innovation in health and care.
Sometimes the best intentions of the past cannot stop what is right for the future. Bureaucracy can still make sensible decision making harder, silos can stifle work across boundaries and sometimes legislation can get in the way. We have seen how unnecessary rules have meant contracts have needed to be retendered even where high-quality services are being delivered, we have seen the complicated workarounds needed to help the NHS and local government to work together, and we have seen the uncertainty about how to share data across the health and care system. People working in health and social care want the very best for people in their care. That is what they have shown time and again, not least in the way they have embraced integration and innovation to save lives through this pandemic. They want to hold on to the remarkable spirit of integration and innovation, but they want to let go of everything that is holding them back and we want to help them to do it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On that point of bureaucracy, I recently saw the apotheosis of the NHS, where an Anglican church had draped an altar with a flag saying, “O Praise the NHS”. So when we have a new Secretary of State, can we have a really hard-hitting attitude to NHS bureaucracy? We all praise our doctors and nurses, but the fact is that, like any other bureaucracy, it is prone to underperformance, waste and incompetence. There is no harm, as long as we preserve the principle of being free at the point of delivery, in having innovative private sector solutions.
Sajid Javid
I hear what my right hon. Friend has said and I think that, as I progress through my opening remarks, he will like what I have to say about integration and cutting bureaucracy.
All these things that I refer to and all these changes we want to make are exactly what this Health and Care Bill will do. I want to thank the thousands of hard-working staff who, through two years of consultation and engagement, have come forward and told us what they think works and what they think needs to change. In the words of Lord Stevens, chief executive of the NHS, the overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes that the health service has asked for. The Bill supports improvements that are already under way in the NHS. It builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan. It is a product of the NHS, it is for the NHS, and it is supported by the NHS.
I am grateful to all the organisations that have helped to shape these important proposals—everyone from the NHS Confederation to the Local Government Association. I have spent many of my early days in this job talking to them, and they have all told me the same thing, which is that they are ready to take forward the reforms. I want to continue to work with them and to listen to their specific concerns, just as much as I want to listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members across the House and by Members in the other place.
Sajid Javid
With that, I want to listen to this particular hon. Member.
Munira Wilson
The Secretary of State referred to Lord Stevens and what the NHS has asked for in trying to get rid of things that stand in its way. Something that it has not asked for is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State, which is in the Bill and will lead to political interference in day-to-day operational and reconfiguration decisions, which may not always be in the best interests of patients. Why does he think that that is a sensible way forward and something that the NHS wants?
Sajid Javid
Clinical decisions should always be made by those with clinical expertise—I think everyone in the House would agree on that—and that should be independent of any outside interference. The Bill does nothing to alter that. What it does is recognise that the NHS is one of the public’s top priorities. We spend over £140 billion of taxpayers’ money on the NHS, and it is right that there is proper accountability for that spending to Ministers and therefore to the House. I think that most people would welcome that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State has talked about people he has consulted, so would he confirm that he has consulted the trade unions, particularly on schedule 2, which says that integrated care boards may appoint employees to address remuneration, pensions and terms and conditions. Can he confirm that that is a departure from Agenda for Change terms?
Sajid Javid
There have been wide-ranging consultations on the Bill, as I mentioned, which have taken place over the past two years. While I cannot say specifically which trade union or which particular organisation has been spoken to, as I was not in the Department at the time, I know that the conversations have been wide ranging.
The Bill is not the limit of our ambitions on the nation’s health. We are also transforming public health; we are bringing the Mental Health Act into the 21st century; and, by the end of this year, we will set out plans putting adult social care on a sustainable footing for the future.
We are also ambitious for our workforce. I have commissioned Health Education England to refresh its strategic framework for health and social care workforce planning. HEE will work in partnership across the sector and gather views from the widest possible range of stakeholders to help us to shape a workforce with the right skills, the right knowledge and the right values for the year ahead.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has set out his plans to introduce a plan for social care by the end of the year, and I know that he is looking for a cross-party solution. In a joint inquiry by two Select Committees—the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee—one of the recommendations was a system with a German-style social care premium. Would that potentially feature in his recommendations, and does he agree that that is a much fairer system than a Dilnot-style system that incentivises people to spend their assets or move them somewhere where they cannot be touched?
Sajid Javid
First, my hon. Friend is right to say that it would be great if all or most Members of this House, and certainly the different parties, could agree on a new system. I look forward to speaking to all hon. Members about what a future social care system could look like. In terms of the detail, I am afraid that he is just going to have to wait a moment longer, but I agree that the work by the Select Committees will, of course, inform our decisions.
I turn in a little more detail to the measures and themes that are captured in the Bill. The first is more integration. We know that different parts of the system want to work together to deliver joined-up services, and we know that, when they do that, it works. We have seen that with the non-statutory integrated care systems in the past few years. They have united hospitals and brought together communities, GPs, mental health services, local authority care and public health, and it works. We recognise that there are limits on how far this can go under the current law, so this Bill will build on the progress of integrated care systems by creating integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships as statutory bodies. England’s 42 ICSs will draw on the expertise of people who know their areas best. They will be able to create joint budgets to shape how we care for people and how we promote a healthy lifestyle. With respect to the specific geographies of the ICSs themselves, as I have said elsewhere, I am willing to listen.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In passing, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? I also very much welcome part 4 of the Bill, which introduces the health services safety investigations body. This is a great innovation that was promoted by the Public Administration Committee and scrutinised by the Joint Committee that I chair. Can I just reinforce the points that I know he is now receiving from NHS England with a warning about changing the boundaries of the integrated care systems that are already operating? In Suffolk and north-east Essex, we have a very high-functioning de facto integrated care system operating already. Please will he not change it?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and this may be on the minds of other hon. Members as well. It is important to point out that several factors will be helpful in fostering stronger partnerships between the NHS and local authorities, including the alignment of boundaries. Earlier this year, the former Secretary of State asked NHS England to conduct a boundary review of integrated care systems, to understand the best way forward and the best alignment where local authorities currently have to work with more than one ICS. I have met my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, and I know that hon. Members may have made representations to my predecessor. I have been informed of those, and where the information might not be remembered easily, I am sure we can get hold of some video evidence. [Laughter.] I want to thank all hon. Members for their input into this, and I stress that no final decisions have yet been made on the boundary review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Just a reminder that interventions need to be short and to the point, because there is a lot of pressure on time in this debate.
Tim Farron
My point is about boundaries. Lancashire and south Cumbria have a perfectly reasonable boundary, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is concern that, because most rural communities are attached to bigger, more populated urban ones, that can lead to an imbalance in decisions? One of the proposals that our community faces is that the Preston and Lancaster hospitals could be replaced by a single super-hospital somewhere in the middle. HIP2—the health infrastructure plan 2—is a good thing, but that would be very bad thing, because it would mean that people in south Cumbria could have a two-hour round trip just to get to A&E. Will he intervene and ensure that any proposals under HIP2 that undermine access to healthcare in rural communities are taken off the table?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As I have said, no final decisions have been made, but if he would like a meeting with a Health Minister, we can arrange that so that the matter can be discussed further.
I am also very grateful to another of my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), first for his leadership of the Health Committee, whose valuable report and recommendations we have taken on board, and secondly for his tireless dedication to the cause of patient safety, which sees its culmination in the Bill’s creation of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. We must continue, in his words, that quiet revolution in patient safety. I have asked my officials to consider whether the Care Quality Commission could look broadly across the integrated care systems in reviewing the way in which local authorities and providers of health, public health and social care services are working together to deliver safe, high-quality integrated care to the public.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks of patient safety. May I ask him why the Bill contains none of Sir Bruce Keogh‘s recommendations on the cosmetic surgery industry, which are now 10 years old? In response to questions that I have asked, Ministers keep saying that the recommendations are going to be implemented. Could this not be an opportunity to improve patient safety in that area?
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. There are issues surrounding the cosmetic surgery industry, and I know that he has spoken eloquently about them in the House before. I do not necessarily agree that this Bill has to be the vehicle for any change, but if he wishes to discuss the matter further, I should be happy to meet him in due course, because it is important and it does require a fresh look.
Whenever the NHS is subject to change, it is tempting for some, who should actually know better, to claim that it is the beginning of the end of public provision. We know that that is complete nonsense, and they know it is nonsense, but they say it anyway. So let me very clear: our integrated care boards will be made up of public sector bodies and those with a social purpose. They will not be driven by any private interests, and will constantly make use of the most innovative potential of non-NHS bodies.
The spirit of this Bill is about holding on to what is best about the NHS and removing what is holding it back. That is something that we all want, and I am looking forward to a mature debate—[Laughter.] Perhaps that is too much to ask in this Chamber with this Opposition Front Bench, but I hope for, and I think the public expect, a mature debate on the Bill and on how we can achieve these sensible changes together.
In that spirit, the second theme of the Bill is cutting bureaucracy. As we have been tested during these past months, we have looked at the rules and regulations through new eyes. It has become increasingly clear which of them are the cornerstone of safe, high-quality care, and which are stifling innovation and damaging morale. It is that second group of rules and regulations that the Bill strips away, removing the existing procurement regime and improving the way in which healthcare services are arranged. Yes, this is about how we deliver better value for the taxpayer, but fundamentally it is about how we can free up NHS colleagues to deliver better care. We know that patients are better served when experts are free to innovate unencumbered by unnecessary bureaucratic processes. That is why the Bill will repeal section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, giving the NHS the flexibility for which it has been asking. I know that this is a point of agreement with the Labour party—
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We said it 10 years ago.
Sajid Javid
The Labour party said it not just 10 years ago but in 2015, 2017 and 2019—in all those manifestos—so I am sure that its members agree with this direction. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. If Members want to intervene, let me say to them that the Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way, but just shouting at him is not working.
Sajid Javid
They are excited, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I understand that. Let me excite them much more.
The third theme of the Bill is greater accountability. We have never seen so clearly as we have in the past 16 months how critical the health of our constituents is for the House. The Government of the day always work hand in hand with the NHS to deliver that priority. That is what people would expect from a responsible Government. People also rightly expect there to be clear lines of accountability for how this priority is delivered. Accountability is the foundation of our democracy, and on that I hope we all agree.
On the nation’s greatest priority, our health, this Bill sets out clear lines of accountability to the people we all serve. The Bill simplifies what has been a complex structure, bringing the three different bodies that oversee the NHS into just one, as NHS England. NHS England will continue to have clinical day-to-day operational independence, but it is right that the NHS must be accountable to Ministers, and Ministers must be accountable to Parliament, where we are all accountable to the people we serve.
Naturally, that accountability will extend to these integrated care systems. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is on the record, in an interview with the Health Service Journal in December 2019, as saying that he agrees with the principle of the legislative changes that had been put forward by the NHS for “democratically accountable” ICSs. He cannot have any objection to this point. We will see what he has to say from the Dispatch Box.
I hope we can all agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic step. Let me quote once more:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
Those are not my words but the words of the 2017 Labour manifesto. I look forward to working with the shadow Health Secretary on this and other aspects of the Bill, and I urge him to set aside petty party politics and point scoring and do what the NHS wants him to do, which is to back this Bill.
Before I finish my opening remarks, I turn to the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and other Opposition Members. What is claimed by the reasoned amendment is entirely wrong. This is exactly the right time for these reforms. The response to covid-19 has quickened the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we all work together, when we adopt new technology and when we set aside bureaucratic rules. The pandemic has also brought home the importance of preventing ill health in the first place. The Bill lays the framework to achieve all that.
More than that, this Bill is what the NHS has been asking for. It builds on the NHS’s long-term plan and the work the NHS has already started to do voluntarily. We have invested record sums in the NHS, both before and, of course, during this pandemic, and we will continue to do so.
The systems are telling us that they are ready, that they want us to go ahead with this Bill. They do not want to see any delay, which is why this is important work for all of us. Hopefully Parliament can deliver what the NHS is asking for.
The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic have only deepened our affection for the NHS, and it has reinforced the noble idea that the NHS is there for all of us when we need it. I started learning about the NHS from a very early age when I used to go to check-ups with my mum and translate for her. It was there for her, it has been there for me, it has been there for my family, it has been there for my children and it has been there for all of us and our constituents.
Even in this fast-changing world, with the new and evolving threats to our health, the founding principles of the NHS are as true today as they ever were. It is our responsibility to build on this incredible inheritance. Our NHS is the envy of the world, so it is right that this Government should work across health and care to shape a system that is truly fit for the future. Our colleagues in health and social care have achieved extraordinary things in the most extraordinary times, and we in this place must give them the firm foundations they need to build back better in the years that lie ahead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I bring in the shadow Secretary of State, I remind hon. Members that there will be an immediate three-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. There is a countdown clock for those in the Chamber, and for those participating virtually, there will be a clock on the screens.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Health and Care Bill, notwithstanding the need for a plan for greater integration between health services and social care services and for restrictions on junk food advertising to improve population health outcomes, because the Bill represents a top down reorganisation in a pandemic leading to a loss of local accountability, fails to reform social care, allows further outsourcing permitting the private sector to sit on local boards and fails to reinstate the NHS as the default provider, fails to introduce a plan to bring down waiting lists for routine NHS treatment or tackle the growing backlog of care, fails to put forward plans to increase the size of the NHS workforce and see them better supported, and fails to put forward a plan that would give the NHS the resources it needs to invest in modern equipment, repair the crumbling NHS estate or ensure comprehensive, quality healthcare.”
Well, the Secretary of State talked a lot, but he did not say very much. Look at the context of where we are. Yesterday, we recorded 36,000 covid infections. Hospital admissions have increased to over 500 a day, up 50% in a week. Waiting lists are at the highest level on record, currently at 5.3 million. Some 336,733 people have been waiting over a year for treatment, over 76,583 people are waiting over 18 months, and over 7,000 people are waiting over two years. Some 25,889 people are waiting more than two weeks from urgent referral to a first consultant appointment for cancer. Emergency care is grappling with some of the highest summer demands ever seen. Two hundred and fifty thousand people are waiting for social care. NHS staff are exhausted, facing burnout. We went into this pandemic with 100,000 vacancies across the NHS and a further 112,000 vacancies across social care.
The answer from the Secretary of State is to embark on a top-down reorganisation when we are not even through the pandemic—a reorganisation that will not deliver the integration needed, because reforms to social care are delayed again; a reorganisation that will not deliver more care but in fact, in periods of stretched health funding, could well deliver less care; and a reorganisation that is, in effect, a Trojan horse to hide a power grab by the Secretary of State.
Let us be clear why this reorganisation is taking place. The Government have come forward with this Bill because of the mess of the last reorganisation—the mess that the Secretary of State supported and voted for, and the mess that he spoke out for in this House, saying that it would modernise the NHS and that the
“concept of GP commissioning has been widely supported by politicians from all parties for many years. May I urge my right hon. Friend to keep putting patients first by increasing GP involvement in the NHS?”—[Official Report, 4 April 2011; Vol. 526, c. 773.]
Why, if he believed that then, has he U-turned now? And it was a mess that we warned of. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who opposed that Bill in this House, warned the Government that it would increase bureaucracy and increase the fragmentation that the Secretary of State has just complained about from the Dispatch Box.
Ministers said that that reorganisation under Lord Lansley would reduce bureaucracy, and Back Benchers told us that it would reduce bureaucracy, but what ended up happening? Billions were wasted and thousands of NHS staff were made redundant. That was the Government’s priority then, and now they are asking us to clean up their mess today. They also told us that that reorganisation would improve cancer survival rates, and where are we today? We are still lagging behind other countries on cancer survival rates. Perhaps the Secretary of State could have come to the Dispatch Box and apologised for that Lansley reorganisation and 10 wasted years.
The Secretary of State talked about NHS leaders, but the truth is that NHS leaders asked for a simple Bill to get rid of the worst of the Lansley restructuring and instead re-embed a sense of equity, collaboration and social justice in our NHS structures. That is not what this Bill is. Of course, the Secretary of State secretly agrees with me. According to The Times, he wrote to the Prime Minister saying that there were “significant areas of contention” that were yet to be resolved with the Bill, and that he wanted to delay it. The Secretary of State was only back five minutes and already Downing Street was overruling him. When it overrules him on his choice of spin doctors, he walks; when it overrules him on the future of the NHS, he puts his career first and stays in the Cabinet.
I listened carefully to the case made by the Secretary of State. He talked of the need for greater integration between health and social care and the need to provide better co-ordinated care, and he referred to an ageing population.
To be frank, that was a speech that Health Secretaries and their predecessor Social Services Secretaries have been making more or less since 1968, when Richard Crossman proposed the first set of NHS reorganisations. Indeed, there were echoes of the Secretary of State’s speech in that made by his predecessor Keith Joseph, when he came to this House in 1972 to set up the area health authorities, bringing together hospitals and community care and working more closely with local authorities because we needed seamless care. Those authorities were of such a size that, within a year, they were rearranged again into district health authorities. Given the size of some of the integrated care systems that the Secretary of State is proposing, I suspect that the seeds of the next reorganisation are being sown today.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told the House that his
“three pressing priorities for these critical…months”
were
“getting us…out of this pandemic…busting the backlog”
of non-covid care, and
“putting social care on a sustainable footing for the future.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 163.]
But absent from his speech was any credible explanation of how this reorganisation will meet his objectives that he outlined to the House yesterday. In fact, in the last 30 years, we have seen around 20 reorganisations of the NHS. Have any of them delivered the outcomes that Health Secretaries have promised from the Dispatch Box? Well, not according to analysis in The BMJ, which observes:
“Past reorganisations have delivered little benefit”.
Why should this one be any different?
The question for me is: how will the 85-year-old with multiple care needs experience better whole-person care as a result of the restructuring that the Secretary of State is embarking upon? How will waiting times for elective surgery for cancer and mental health be improved by this reorganisation? How will health inequalities that have widened and life expectancy advances that have stalled be corrected by this reorganisation? To those questions, the Secretary of State had no answer today: the Bill fails those tests because it is a badly drafted Bill and could in fact even worsen health outcomes.
Let me outline our specific concerns. On the proposed integrated care boards, the Bill collapses the remaining 100 or so clinical commissioning groups into 32 integrated care systems differing in geographical size and with some covering populations up to 3 million or 4 million. In some parts of the country, the ICSs are not based on the NHS agreed boundaries, but currently on centrally drawn-up boundaries for political reasons. We know that Cheshire will be combined with Merseyside. Glossop is cut off from Greater Manchester and allocated to Derbyshire. Frimley is split up, leading the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), to complain in an Adjournment debate recently:
“Do not break up Frimley ICS. Just for once, let common sense prevail.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 238.]
These boundaries and the way in which they were proposed by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), prompted NHS Providers to warn that the disruption could lead to
“a worsening of patient care”.
And then, of course, we have the design of the integrated care system, split across two committees—a partnership board containing people from local authorities, the third sector and others, and then an NHS board responsible for spending the money, for commissioning. The Secretary of State has moved away from GP commissioning, of course; he wants the NHS board to commission now. Those two boards will probably have different chairs, but the NHS board only has to have “regard” to the partnership board strategy. Nor is it clear how local authority seats—the one local authority seat—will be decided when they cover more than one council and possibly even councils of different political persuasions, so we will see how a consensus can be built then.
Other important voices are left out. Mental illness accounts for roughly a quarter of the total burden of illness, yet there is no guarantee that mental health providers will get the seats on these boards, when we know that mental health services are under pressure and the Secretary of State tells us that the mental health backlog is one of his personal priorities. The pandemic has also reminded us that the health and wellbeing of our community is not just in the hands of large hospitals or general practice. It is also in the hands of our directors of public health, who have shown exceptional local leadership throughout this crisis, standing on the shoulders of their forebears, who in the past confronted diseases such as cholera, smallpox and diphtheria. Test and Trace would have been far safer in their hands from the outset, by the way, and what is their reward? They are sidelined. Public health, again, should be properly represented on the NHS boards and we will table amendments to that effect.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just about their being sidelined; it is actually about the budgets for public health, which have been pushed off into the autumn? If the consultation paper that went out last year is anything to go by, County Durham would lose 19% of its budget. How can we effect these changes without its being divorced from what will be provided in terms of cash?
Jonathan Ashworth
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the financial flows in a few moments. But how on earth can we have a triple aim of trying to improve health outcomes for a population and not even give public health a voice and a seat on the decision-making body that decides health plans for an area?
The Secretary of State talks about integrating health and social care. There is no seat for directors of adult social services on these committees, either. And what about patients? Patients were not mentioned very often by the Secretary of State in his speech. Patients will always come first for the Opposition. They have no mandated institutional representation, either—no guaranteed patient voice—so we have yet another reorganisation of the NHS whereby patients are treated like ghosts in the machine. It is utterly unacceptable. This is fragmentation, not integration, with a continued sidelining of social care.
There is a loss of local accountability as well, because there is no explicit requirement that the boards meet in public or publish their board papers. Although NHS England has stated that that is its preference, it is not required; nor is there any commitment, despite the wide geographical spread of some ICSs, for meetings to be made accessible online. But, of course, the White Paper did indicate that the independent sector could have a seat on an ICS, and the explanatory notes to the Bill state that
“local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further representation.”
Kevin Hollinrake
The right hon. Gentleman talks about solutions to social care. Will he come on to his own solutions to social care? Will they potentially include the recommendations of the Select Committees about that German-style social care premium—recommendations made by members of his own party who were elected by his party to serve on those Committees? Is that something that he is now willing to explore? He has ruled it out time and again on the Floor of the House.
Jonathan Ashworth
I have. The hon. Gentleman is a dogged advocate for that proposal for social care, and he is quite right: he always raises it with me. I am unpersuaded but I am more than happy to sit down with the Secretary of State and with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West to discuss a solution to social care. We keep being told that there are going to be cross-party talks, but I think I missed the Zoom link, because they have not happened so far.
As I was saying, these committees do permit a seat, if the committees want it, for the independent sector. In Bath, in Somerset, we have seen Virgin Care get a seat on the shadow ICS. The Opposition think that is unacceptable and we shall table amendments to prohibit it.
I welcome the removal of the section 75 competition and procurement rules, finally scraping the remnants of the Lansley competition rules off the boots of the NHS. We did warn him and others that this compulsory competitive tendering would lead to billions going to the private sector, would be wasteful and bureaucratic, and would be distracting—and it even led to the NHS getting sued by Virgin Care when it did not win a contract. But this is not the end of contracting with the private sector. Without clauses to make the NHS the default provider, it would be possible for ICBs to award and extend contracts for healthcare services of unlimited value without advertising, including to private companies. Given the past year, when huge multibillion-pound contracts have been handed out for duff personal protective equipment and testing, we naturally have concerns about that and will seek safeguards in Committee. We are worried about further cronyism.
We are particularly concerned about the Bill because of the power grab clauses for the Secretary of State. He is creating 138 new powers, including seven allowing him in effect to rewrite the law through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between arm’s length bodies without any proper scrutiny. He has not explained why he needs these powers or given any guidance on how he expects to use them. These powers also include a requirement that Ministers be informed of every single service change, every single reconfiguration, and the Secretary of State will then decide whether or not to call them in for ministerial decision. Are you sure you want that power, Secretary of State?
The Government have gone from wanting to liberate the NHS under Lansley to now listening out for the clang of every dropped bedpan echoing through Whitehall. This is not a plan for service modernisation; it is a “Back to the Future” plan and it will mean more inertia. Instead of powers to interfere at every level, resetting the mandate for the NHS within years, we instead would want the duties on the Health Secretary, and therefore on the 42 ICSs to which he delegates those responsibilities, to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service, as per the National Health Service Act 2006, to be fully reinstated and made explicit.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As ever, I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. If this is the “Back to the Future” Bill, presumably it puts right what once went wrong. Does he support the clauses on foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and the watershed proposals for advertising?
Jonathan Ashworth
Yes, although I am disappointed that they are in this particular Bill. I think they should be part of a stand-alone Bill. In my concluding remarks, I will make a point or two about other public health interventions, which I imagine and hope that the hon. Member, as a great champion of public health, would support.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State’s duty to provide comprehensive healthcare is reinstated, rather than the duty to meddle in the NHS at any time he wants, because there is a lack of clarity about how the funding flows work in this system. The talk is of moving to capitated budgets for an area to provide holistic care to meet the complicated care needs of individual. But when waiting lists are increasing at the current rate, and when cancer waits and mental health referrals are going up, how is an area going to fund the episodic care for each unit of extra care that is needed—often care that is expensive and more complicated because it needs to be done in the acute sector?
We have worries. Clauses 21 to 24 on the financial duties on ICS boards, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are alarming, because they put in place a duty to ensure financial balance across the ICS area, but there is no clarification of how that balance should be achieved and enforced. Local health budgets have been stretched to breaking point after years of underfunding, so what does this duty mean for existing deficits? At the moment, trusts have a combined deficit of £910 million. King’s has a deficit of £111 million. Worcestershire has a deficit of £81 million. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust has a deficit of £80 million. Will the ICBs need to fill this £900 million black hole before they are even up and running How exactly will trust and ICS board deficits be dealt with at the end of each financial year?
This could well be a return to the days that we saw in the ’80s, which some Members in the House may recall, when health authorities would close beds and put off paying bills from January onwards in order to hit financial balance. If health authorities have to hit this financial balance year by year, will it result in a postcode lottery of more rationing and an even longer list of treatments being removed from the NHS through the decisions of ICBs because they have to hit balance, effectively forcing patients either to go private or go without? I hope that the Minister, in summing up, can clarify what the situation will be.
If a set of providers, trusts and an ICB feel that the financial settlement they have been given by NHS England will not allow them to deliver the levels of care to bring down the waiting lists, which the Secretary of State said is one of his top priorities, or to improve mental health outcomes, which he has also said is one of his top priorities, what is their appeal process? How will the arbitration process work on an area’s financial settlement under the current plans to bring together NHS England and NHS Improvement, not split them out?
The Bill is spun as an attempt to integrate health and social care, but there is nothing in it actually to integrate health and social care, because there is nothing in it to fix social care. If it is about integrating health and social care, where is the long-promised Bill to reform social care? The Bill will repeal provisions in the Care Act 2014 that require patients to be assessed for their social care needs before they are discharged from hospital. Without long-term funding in place, that could mean a patient being sent home, left out without support and waiting for an assessment. Will the Secretary of State, or the Minister who responds to the debate, guarantee that that will not be the case? Will they put in place the necessary funding alongside the Bill?
A number of royal colleges and health bodies have said today that the biggest challenge facing the NHS is workforce. The Bill proposes a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce once every five years. That is simply not good enough. We need a solution to workforce now; we need a solution to recruitment now; staff need a fair pay rise now; we need more investment in training and professional development budgets now; and we need safe staffing legislation now. We will therefore look to amend the Bill, hopefully on a cross-party basis and perhaps working with others who put forward proposals to improve the workforce sections of the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked the Secretary of State, what does the Bill mean for “Agenda for Change”? The Bill suggests that an integrated care system will be able to change “Agenda for Change” terms; we disagree with that.
Finally, on public health, the Bill introduces restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink. We welcome this step—it, too, was in our 2017 manifesto, which the Secretary of State has been reading—but we would go further. Why can we not have more restrictions on the advertising of unhealthy food around schools? Our public health crisis is about not just obesity but smoking and alcohol, so why are there no provisions in the Bill on smoking services and to ensure alcohol calorie labelling? We will table amendments on those issues in Committee.
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. Will the person with learning difficulties or the older person who needs social care experience improved care? No. Will social care be brought back in from the wilderness? No. Will the cancer backlog be tackled more effectively? No. Will health inequalities be narrowed? No. Will parity of esteem for mental health be delivered? No.
Instead of this being a simple Bill to end competition and foster local collaboration, NHS staff will be left trying to second-guess where the Secretary of State will interfere next in the safe running of their local NHS with his in-year changing mandate. The rules on funding could result in more rationing and cuts, so we cannot possibly support the Bill. We have championed integrated care for many years, but the Bill does not deliver it and we urge the House to accept our reasoned amendment.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
To reorganise the NHS as one of your first acts as Health Secretary is what Sir Humphrey would describe as brave. I support this Bill, because it contains changes that the NHS has asked for. I take the Secretary of State at his word that there is more to come on social care, and he has said that he will pursue the idea of independent safety and quality inspections of the new integrated care systems to make sure that they are outward facing and focused on the needs of patients.
When it comes to the biggest challenge facing the NHS today, which is workforce gaps, the Bill says little or nothing. Independent forecasts say today that we are currently short of 400 psychiatrists; 1,400 anaesthetists; 2,000 radiologists; 2,000 midwives; 2,000 to 2,500 emergency care consultants; and 2,500 GPs. We have more nurses but we are short of learning disability, mental health and community nurses.
Steve Brine
It is unquestionable that we have a challenge with the GP workforce. It is about numbers, yes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that constituents have a big challenge with access to general practice? We currently do not have the right balance between telemedicine and in-person medicine.
Jeremy Hunt
There is a big issue, and my hon. Friend is aware from his time at the Department of Health that its root cause is capacity in the system. These capacity issues taken together are why the Health Foundation says that, in just over a decade, we risk a workforce gap in the NHS of about half a million people. That is why this is such a big issue. I urge the Secretary of State to think about that during the Bill’s passage.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is also the case for the rehabilitation services used by stroke victims? There is a vital link between occupational therapists and physios, but we do not have the proper workforce in place for at-home care after a stroke.
Jeremy Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These issues are about not just doctors but all associated health professionals, allied health professionals and indeed the social care workforce. It is important to note that they predate the pandemic. That is why, when I was doing the job of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I set up five new medical schools and increased the number of doctor, nurse and midwife training places by a quarter, but we need to go further.
When the number of clinicians we train is decided by haggling between the Department of Health and the Treasury in a spending round, there is always the risk that it will be eclipsed by more short-term considerations. The truth is that we have a short-term emergency with workforce burnout, so I urge my right hon. Friend to look at the simple and sensible solution proposed by the Health Foundation and all the royal colleges in The Times today to legislate for Health Education England to have a statutory responsibility to publish annual independent workforce projections across the health and care system for the next five, 10, 15 and 20 years. That would show how many training places are needed, which would start to tackle this problem and the obscenity of spending £6 billion every year on locum doctors and agency workers. That cannot be the best use of funds.
Frontline health and care workers are exhausted. They know that there is not an instant solution, because they know it takes three years to train a nurse and seven years to train a doctor, but we can at least give them the reassurance that there is a long-term plan in place. That is not in the Bill, but it needs to be. Given the dedication that we have seen from health and care staff over the last year, it is the very least that we owe them.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 was what got me involved in politics, as I followed the Lansley proposals in sheer disbelief that anyone could think that breaking the NHS in England into pieces and making them compete with each other would somehow improve patient care. So here we are, less than a decade on, and the Government are having to unpick some of the worst aspects of their legislation, which drove competition instead of collaboration and led to the fragmentation of the NHS in England.
Many will be glad to see the back of section 75, which forced services to be put out to tender to commercial companies, but the Government’s covid response does not exactly suggest that they are any less keen on outsourcing. In the last year, we have seen the establishment of parallel systems of laboratories and contact tracing instead of investment in the expansion of NHS labs and public health teams. Health and care services need collaboration and integration with the patient and their family at the centre. That was key to the NHS requests that led to the Bill.
This is obviously a bit of a kitchen sink Bill, with many disparate components. The main aim is meant to be removing some of the barriers to local collaboration, and to some extent it will do that. Achieving integration, however, will still depend on the establishment of a culture of genuine co-operation within integrated care systems and partnerships. They should be statutory public bodies focused on how to provide the best services to their local population, including working with local government to provide social care and tackle the social determinants of health. Instead, private companies can sit on the integrated care partnership boards, as is the case with Virgin Care in Bath, Somerset, and could influence the commissioning of services for which they are hoping to win contracts. It is hard to see how this is anything other than a blatant conflict of interest and suggests that private providers are moving higher up the ladder and could exert influence on a larger scale.
One issue is transparency, as private companies hide behind commercial confidentiality and do not publish accounts of how they have spent public money. Instead of taking the opportunity to return to a publicly funded and delivered health service, as we are lucky enough to have in Scotland, the purchaser-provider split remains and the principle of commissioning and procurement means that financial competition continues. The administrative costs of such transactional systems waste funding that would be better spent on direct clinical care. Unfortunately, the Government are still wedded to the flawed idea that financial competition drives up quality, yet there is no evidence of that. Indeed, financial competition can mean that, when a service starts to struggle, the loss of funding makes its failure become inevitable. It is actually a relentless focus on safety, clinical audit and peer review that can drive improvement in the quality of patient care.
Thanks to devolution, our NHS was spared this destructive experimentation in marketisation, but we inherited a system of competing hospital and primary care trusts, which were then abolished and replaced with statutory public health boards. These are funded to deliver primary, community and hospital care to the population of their geographical area, and work with local authorities on integrated joint boards to deliver public health and social care to the same population.
The long-term Scottish policy of integration was one of three aspects of our healthcare system that was praised in the Nuffield Trust report, “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” that it considered the NHS in England might want to look at. The other two aspects were quality improvement and patient safety. I was honoured to lead the development of the Scottish breast cancer standards in 2000, and, through our yearly audit and peer review, saw outcomes in all units improve in the following years. We now have regular prospective audits of clinical care in 19 of the most common cancers, as well as standards in a broad range of medical conditions and services as diverse as diabetic retinopathy, bowel screening and forensic medical services.
In contrast, many clinical outcome audits have disappeared in England, and publication of the “Getting it Right First Time” audit into breast cancer services has been held back since December 2019. The whole point of such audits is to identify weaknesses and drive clinical improvement. They should not be delayed for political reasons, because they highlight issues that need to be tackled.
With regard to patient safety, I am very glad to see the proposal for the Health Service Safety Investigations Body make it into the Bill after a four-year delay. The agency will take a similar approach to that used in air accident investigations and share the learning from significant healthcare failures to try to prevent similar episodes in the future. Having been on the pre-legislative Committee, it will be interesting to see how that innovative system evolves.
However, I find it surprising that more has not been taken from Scotland’s national Patient Safety Programme, which promotes a whole-team approach to patient safety to try to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. I remember it being introduced to surgical theatres in 2008 and it reduced post-operative mortality by over a third within two years. It has been extended to almost every division of our health service, leading to a significant reduction in standardised hospital mortality and morbidity, such as sepsis or pressure sores. A key principle at the core of both the patient safety and quality improvement programmes has been the involvement of frontline staff and patients in their design and development. I am sure that the Secretary of State or Health Ministers would be made very welcome by me and my colleagues in the Scottish Government should they wish to visit Scotland to see the programmes in action.
Several clauses of the Bill apply to the devolved nations, but although some relate to traditionally reserved issues such as professional regulation, others are less clear. There is growing concern in Scotland and Wales about how this Government are using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to undermine devolution and about how the data-gathering or procurement aspects of the Bill might be widened to apply to our health services.
In 2015, NHS England’s five year forward view highlighted the critical dependence of the NHS on a well-functioning and resilient social care sector. That is still the gaping hole in this legislation. With the funding gap in England now between £8 billion and £10 billion a year, a failure to properly fund social care will undermine the whole integration agenda, as providers are unlikely to be willing to share financial risk with a woefully underfunded service.
Not only has the pandemic highlighted the vulnerability of the social care sector, particularly care homes, but it has brought home the important role played by care staff. The Feeley review for the Scottish Government proposes the development of caring as a profession and proposes taking a human rights approach to social care, valuing it as enabling participation in society rather than looking on care support always as a burden. At the 2019 election, the Prime Minister boasted that he had a fully prepared social care plan, but it has yet to see the light of day. It is hard to see how any integration agenda will succeed without it.
Lord Stevens’s plan stressed the importance of preventive public health to reduce the burden on the NHS, but public health budgets in England have been slashed over the past five years. While policies on tackling obesity are welcome, they are quite narrow and there is little recognition of the role that food poverty plays. Healthy foods are often more expensive. Indeed, poverty is the biggest single driver of ill health. With another decade of Tory austerity due to begin with the cuts to universal credit in September, there is little chance of improving health and wellbeing, particularly among the most disadvantaged.
Wellbeing is not about healthcare, and it is more than just an absence of physical or mental illness. Developing a wellbeing economy would require a total change in philosophy from this Government—and there is little sign that they are interested in taking up the challenge.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I want to make three quick points in my short contribution today.
The NHS is a great institution because it has wonderful, dedicated and selfless people working in it. That was recognised by the Department in the people plan, on which clause 33 builds. I had wanted to make other comments about the workforce but, frankly, they have made more ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). I support exactly what he said. I encourage the Minister to listen to his comments about the need for a long-term plan and perhaps for the duty to be shortened in time, as well as about Health Education England. All my right hon. Friend’s comments were admirably sensible, as we have come to expect.
I welcome the new powers of direction, and I want to counter some of the criticism in the House about them. The newly merged NHS England and NHS Improvement have a range of new functions. Despite what the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), said, it is clear that the powers of direction will apply only if they are in the public interest and if they relate to the functions. Given the new scope and scale of those functions, it seems right that accountability—and possibilities for the accountability needed in the future—be put in place.
Likewise, I encourage the Secretary of State not to listen to criticisms of political expediency and political interference with respect to reconfiguration. All too often, it is not political expediency but political acrimony that trumps political need. All too often, reconfiguration that would benefit our constituents and the health of this nation is held up. Far from meaning that every bedpan in the NHS will be looked at, reconfiguration is a sensible move. Quite rightly, the reconsideration will still be done by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, and it is right that if the Secretary of State has the chance to look at those reconfigurations earlier, it should too. I strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to ignore the criticism and to proceed with that power.
My third point is on the prevention aspect of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. Obesity is a UK-wide health crisis. More than 60% of adults in the United Kingdom are above a healthy weight. Some of the measures may well be discussed in Committee, and there may well be some changes in Committee, but the thrust of the measures is correct. We in this country need to recognise that health outcomes and inequalities are affected by not tackling prevention. The Bill starts that; I warmly welcome it, and I will be happy to support it.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
I find it very worrying that the Government are choosing to reorganise the NHS during the third wave of the pandemic—a time of exhausted staff and huge pressure. The health service has been stretched to its absolute limits and the road back will be long and difficult. The NHS is scrambling to catch up, yet amid the chaos, the Government want to completely restructure it. Although I support the integration of healthcare and social care, that is not what the proposed integrated care boards and partnerships will achieve.
I am especially concerned that the Bill removes the duty to provide secondary care services, permits the deregulation of all health professions and encourages hospitals to discharge patients prematurely without the assessment of their care needs. In some areas, commissioning responsibilities are up for grabs or even promised to local authorities, which believe they can just use them without the benefit of NHS commissioning experience. There is no doubt that patients and staff will suffer amid the organisational chaos.
I am delighted that this appears to be the end of the disastrous competition of the Lansley Bill, but I doubt we can trust that the end of tendering will mean the end of privatisation. It could actually give rise to privatisation that is unregulated by the tendering process. The private contracts awarded in my constituency have been nothing short of a disaster. To be told that the culprit can have a voice in future decision making is simply unacceptable. How can we allow self-interested, profit-motivated company stakeholders to influence decisions that are supposed to be made with one person in mind—the patient? Remember, it is all about the patient.
I am very concerned about boundaries and the democratic deficit that they will throw up in my constituency. Primary care will be in the Lancashire integrated care system, while acute services will be in the Cheshire-Mersey ICS. My constituents will not be at the table at any point when their hospital services are discussed, as they are not in the Cheshire-Mersey footprint, although their hospitals are—so much for the primacy of place that everybody talks about.
This is a disaster waiting to happen. Many MPs voted for the Lansley Bill with deep and great misgivings. They were right then—the Bill is testimony to that. I implore them not to make the same mistake now.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Health Bills, rightly, do not come around too often, so when they do there needs to be good reason. My conclusion, from the necessary establishment of integrated care systems to the so-called triple aim, the removal of the competition aspect and the new power of direction, is that there is good reason for legislation at this time. This is obviously a vast Bill, but because Health Bills do not come around very often, it is understandable that colleagues and officials will use the opportunity to give legislative cover to things that they have been working on for a long time. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a very welcome example of that.
I want to focus on workforce and then on primary care, and in doing so I refer the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On workforce, I remember publishing the cancer strategy in 2018. The issue then was not our ambition but having the cancer workforce to meet it. Obviously, the chances of surviving cancer have improved significantly in recent years. There are many reasons for that, but detecting 75% of cancers at stage 1 or early stage, which must happen, needs the radiographers in post and demands an endoscopy workforce that can properly execute the FIT screening for the bowel cancer programme, as one example.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the necessary workforce in the NHS. Does he agree that if we were perhaps to offer indefinite leave to remain to the many thousands of frontline NHS workers in all departments who are here on visas and have worked hard through this pandemic, we would help to fill the gap that so desperately needs closing?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady makes a sensible point. There is obviously a process in place whereby that can happen, but if she is asking whether I agree with a liberal immigration policy to help our health service, then absolutely, yes I do. Addressing the cancer workforce and the wider NHS staffing picture is not an omission from the Bill—we cannot legislate staff shortages out of existence—but if we do not address that issue and face up to our long-term structural gaps, many of the reforms around tackling the backlog and building back better will not amount to a row of beans.
Jeremy Hunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the extraordinary work he did when he was a Minister on early diagnosis of cancer. Is he aware that the Health and Social Care Committee has just opened an inquiry—we had our opening session yesterday—into that issue, and into how we can get the right workforce in place to deal with those important matters?
Steve Brine
I was aware of that, and I am pleased to hear it. The Select Committee will soon have Cally Palmer before it—she is the national cancer director and one of the best in the business—and I look forward to following what she says. In advance of the comprehensive spending review, the Bill should include a requirement on the Government to publish modelling of the future supply of the entire healthcare workforce.
On primary care, I welcome the formal creation of integrated care systems, but we need them to realise their potential, and to do so fast. If they are going to work, general practice needs to embrace the wider primary care family, which means finally to recognise the potential of community pharmacy, ophthalmology and dental services as vehicles of prevention as much as of treatment.
Finally, if we move upstream of the Bill, what we do must be about prevention. We hear talk this weekend of a waiting list touching 13 million people. Let us tackle that for sure, but let us also get behind the food and drink clauses in part 5, and think about the future and our children as much as about the present. Several years ago I was fortunate to write up the high fat, sugar and/or salt proposals as part of chapter 2 of the child obesity plan, and I am pleased that the 9 pm watershed is legislated for in the Bill. I pay tribute to Jamie Oliver and his Bite Back 2030 campaign, and the young people involved with that, as well as to Cancer Research UK for its support. I realise that not everyone on these Benches, or perhaps outside, supports that move, and I agree that it will have little impact if that is its grand sum. Ministers need to take the tackling obesity strategy that was published last year, implement it all, and then go again.
I welcome the clauses on the fluoridation of water supplies. Let us stop debating whether we do that and —to borrow a phrase—follow the science.
In conclusion, the Bill is worthy of support on Second Reading. There will be an awful lot of work to do in Committee and the other place, but I will certainly support it this evening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Our NHS is built on the values that Britain holds dear: each of us is equal, and we will be treated on the basis of our need, never on our ability to pay. It is part of our national heritage, so much so that even the Tories have to pretend that they believe in its founding principles. Those are principles of fairness for all, and from each according to their means, to each according to their needs. Those are the values that led to the creation of the Labour party over a century ago. If the Tories hold those values so dear, why have they failed to apply them everywhere else?
This is the Tory Government who left children without food during the school holidays, and who are failing to pay for children to catch up with their education. They are cutting £20 from universal credit for the poorest households in the country. Why did we have 11 years of austerity, when billions were taken from public services, hitting the poorest communities hardest? There was no sign of levelling up there.
In the past 40 years our NHS has come under threat on two occasions: first during the Thatcher years when it was starved of resources to breaking point, and again from 2010 with the Tory austerity years and the Lansley Health and Social Care Act 2012. Now the Tories are at it again. Integrated care systems are nothing short of capitulation to the forces of the market.
This Bill will give the private sector the freedom not only to plan services but to do so in their commercial interests above those of patients and to cover their tracks by hiding the records of meetings where they have intervened. For too long, there have been those within the NHS who believe that it can only be improved if it is exposed to the rigours of the marketplace. The rigours of the NHS are saving lives and healing patients. There is no higher market test for the skills and dedication of health workers and none is needed. Where the private sector is used, it should be to support NHS services, not replace them.
Nye Bevan said:
“The NHS will last as long as there’s folk with faith left to fight for it.”
The Labour party breathed life into the NHS. This Bill is one of those occasions where we have to fight for the NHS again, and the Labour party will lead that fight.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I was almost three when I was lying in a hospital bed and my parents were told that I only had two hours to live and they should start preparing for the worst. It was the brilliant doctors and nurses of the NHS who saved my life. The paediatric surgeon who saved my life still refers to me as his miracle.
Only five weeks ago, I became a father for the first time. Thank God for the amazing doctors and midwives at Warwick Hospital, who displayed the highest degree of professionalism. While I do not want to say that they made the journey as painless as possible, mainly because I was not the one giving birth, they certainly made it a little bit easier. I want to thank the midwives, Sharon Lester, Gemma Fletcher and Nadine Morley, and the doctors, Samir Sadanandappa and Giles Coverdale, for all that they did.
I am a believer in the NHS. I am grateful for it. I want to do everything I can to preserve its status as one of the foremost healthcare services in the world. To do this, we must not shy away from reform. We cannot stop in the journey to make the NHS better, fixing what is broken, revolutionising old practices and evolving into a healthcare system that continues to be free at the point of access but delivers world-leading healthcare.
In this Bill, I am particularly supportive of the integrated care systems approach and putting ICSs on a statutory footing. In Birmingham and Solihull we have an ICS on a non-statutory footing. In my experience, while clinical commissioning groups do many good things, when they do not, there is no clear line of accountability. I believe that the Bill will fix that. When I have not been happy with the CCG, I have found myself getting lost in an opaque quagmire of passing on responsibility and lack of accountability, and ultimately it is my constituents who suffer. I am therefore pleased with the ICSs’ place in the Bill, with clear lines of communication straight to the top and putting patients at the heart of everything we do, as we will then have a more tailored and better healthcare service.
In particular, I am keen for us to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. What works for the urban part of my constituency does not necessarily work for the rural parts. Will the Minister give consideration to what ICSs can do to provide a much more adaptable approach to different communities and different patient needs?
I am concerned about the impact of the past 16 months on the mental health of our population. One charity I spoke to this week said that one in four people will suffer from a diagnosable mental health problem in the next 12 months. I have spoken to a number of charities that have equally great concern about the situation that we are facing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on what the Bill does in terms of improving mental healthcare provision and hopefully get some clarity on that.
I believe that this Bill will improve the NHS. I am optimistic for its future and for the healthcare of this country, as long as we put patients at the heart of everything we do.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and to congratulate him on the birth of his child.
First, I am going to vote against giving this Bill a Second Reading. I cannot believe that the Government are going ahead with the Bill at this time. It is irresponsible and without any consideration to those who have worked to save our lives and continue to save our lives. The Secretary of State is going to have to assert himself, because he is only just in the job and he seems to have been bounced into this legislation.
Why is this happening now? We have been through this before. I was on the Health Committee from 2010 to 2015. The right hon. Stephen Dorrell was its Chair. On a cross-party basis, we heard evidence that the Bill introduced in 2012 was not the best solution for the NHS. We managed to pause the Bill but the Government continued to press ahead.
Integrated care is Labour party policy. We have seen it. We visited Torbay, where the fictitious Mrs Smith had a single point of entry and everyone was able to track her all the way through the system—through hospital and out—for all her needs. But the 2012 Act stopped that. It stopped the pooling of resources. Integrated care can work only if there are adequate resources for local authorities. Austerity measures since 2010 have starved local authorities and other public services of funding. That is what is making people angry. But the governance of the integrated care system has no clinicians and no patients. People who use it or work in it do not get a say. All sorts of other people can be added on.
My second point is that we do not trust the Government on contracts. Look what happened during the pandemic: £347 million to Randox, the Tory-linked private healthcare company whose testing kits had to be recalled over the summer because of concerns about contamination. We warned them about section 75 and opening this out to tender. The transaction costs associated with that drain the NHS of resources. There is fragmentation and destabilisation. Just ending section 75 is not sufficient; the NHS must become the first and the default option, and private providers cannot be involved in the ICS or in commissioning decisions. We cannot have a select group of fast-tracked friends.
My third point is about the workforce and it has already been raised. They have been magnificent. They have already had a slap in the face with a 1% pay rise and now they are facing further reorganisation. Workforce planning is key to a smart organisation. Clause 33 says who is responsible, but not what must be delivered. Instead of reporting once every five years, how about laying that before Parliament every year? The modelling will have to be done on the workforce assessment, so why can it not be made transparent and available? As the British Medical Association said, we need independently verified projections of future workforce supply so that local and regional decisions can be made on safe staffing levels. That phrase is not even in the Bill, post Francis.
The Secretary of State should think again, as this is the wrong time. The graphs are going up. The BMA and the royal colleges are against this Bill. The main point about healthcare—the right to healthcare—has not been enshrined in the Bill. It must be stopped now, and people and patients should be put first.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I thank Neil from Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, Buckinghamshire County Council, the local Bucks clinical commissioning group, local GP surgeries, REACH care homes and care workers across South Buckinghamshire, Thames Hospice and Jayne from the Care Campaign for the Vulnerable? They are all already modelling integrated care, which is promised and promoted through this Bill, and I just want to thank them for their tireless service.
I also need to declare an interest: I am now a carer for a very disabled relative, who became disabled through the pandemic and now requires 24-hour care. So I am fully aware of how broken the care pathways are. I want to speak on behalf of disabled adults and their access to care, and the carers who struggle with the demands of finding ways of advocating for their loved one in the current system. I welcome any changes to integrated care because of that. I want to share examples from my personal experience, not because it is important; it just chimes with what I keep hearing from patient advocacy groups, Age Concern, Mencap and other charities. The problem we see is: when a patient is discharged from hospital, who then takes up the duty of care? I have countless examples of my relative being discharged with open bleeding wounds or bed sores, of waiting four days for a nurse to come to attend to them, of being given the wrong medication, of being unable to access—
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I just wanted to give the hon. Lady a bit more time. Does she agree that we would want to see more in this Bill on how social care is going to be accounted for? Currently, I feel that is lacking.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Lady for the point she has raised. I have had reassurances from the Minister that we are going to address the social care issues, but I agree that we need parity of esteem between health and adult social care. We need to see those who are delivering those care pathways—local authorities—given the parity of esteem that the NHS and other care providers now have. I hope that we will look at this further as the Bill progresses.
Parity of esteem is very important because there is a difficulty with collaboration and co-ordination of care, and it is the major driver of health inequality and avoidable deaths for people with learning disabilities. Many people with learning disabilities have very complex health needs that require healthcare professionals to collaborate and to co-ordinate interventions. On top of that, healthcare staff need to work together to deliver the healthcare that those vulnerable patients need, which requires effective communication and understanding, as well as resource. How those funding streams are co-ordinated and improved in future is something that should be looked at.
I have seen at first hand, particularly with stroke victims who leave hospital with varying levels of cognitive and physical impairment, the need for critical rehabilitation services to be co-ordinated and put in place the moment people leave hospital, but that is often difficult. Many Members have raised the issue of workforce capability—I echo that. We need to look at how we can work together collaboratively to put patients first and deliver the vital services that many disabled adults need. We have an ageing population, and we face a crisis in adult social care that will eclipse all other things in healthcare. If we work to deliver solutions now—I welcome what is in the Bill—to the hard problems that we face in integrated social care, we can find the solutions that we need for the future.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
With the climate crisis and the reality of an ageing population, there has never been a better time for the Government to centre the wellbeing of people and planet and the way in which public services and the economy are run. Sadly but unsurprisingly, the Bill fails in this context, so I will vote against it, because it does not fundamentally deal with the very real issues facing our healthcare system. It does not address the desert of NHS England providing oral and dental healthcare, which has made it impossible for my constituents to get an appointment. It does not guarantee fair pay and conditions for the key workers who have seen us through the pandemic, and it does not deal with the scandalous state of mental health- care. Patients in my constituency are in crisis, are discharged too early, or not admitted at all, while for a decade, Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust has failed to end the practice of sending patients out of area.
What the Bill does do is transfer yet more centralised power to the Executive—rightly described as a power grab by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth)—and, of course, to the private sector. Clause 13, which provides for the establishment of integrated care boards, opens the door to private companies having a say in where funding is allocated and what services are delivered. Clause 3 gives greater political control to the Secretary of State over the NHS England mandate without creating a duty to provide universal, comprehensive and free healthcare to all. Clause 38 empowers the Secretary of State to intervene in the reconfiguration of services, opening the door for politicised interference and gridlocks on decision making.
Where is the democracy, accountability and transparency in the Bill? How will the right of my constituents to healthcare be guaranteed over and above the interests of private companies and the political whims of the Secretary of State? To see what happens when private companies have any role in delivering care, we need only look at the social care crisis. In England, 84% of care home beds are managed by private companies, and three of the five largest care home companies are owned by investment firms whose main priority is economic rent seeking, not the long-term care of our elderly. That model has, unbelievably, led to a cut in the number of care home beds, despite an ageing population, meaning that demand is only growing.
I therefore urge the House to vote against this legislation on what remains of NHS England. It extends the same failed ideology that puts profit before people and which has driven our planet and public services to breakdown.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Today’s Bill will help our healthcare system to become more accountable and less bureaucratic, allowing our brilliant healthcare professionals to focus on their job of providing world-renowned care to patients, rather than filling in unnecessary paperwork. It allows our healthcare system to be flexible, adapting to meet future and local needs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) said earlier, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely the most effective, and today’s Bill will mean local areas can develop practices that best suit their needs.
Rob Roberts
No.
This is something we are acutely aware of in Delyn, as we have a much higher proportion of over-65s than the national average. Sadly, the Welsh Government’s funding to the north Wales health board is significantly lower per capita than that enjoyed by the health board in south-east Wales, but that is a debate for another time and place.
Rob Roberts
No.
Sadly, one of the major elements of today’s Bill that should be praised falls a little short for my constituents in Wales. The Bill will lead to greater collaboration and integration between the NHS, local authorities and care providers in England, and ultimately this will deliver more joined-up working and the best outcomes for patients, yet this move towards greater collaboration needs to go further. We need to see collaboration in healthcare across all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.
The NHS is not limited to one part of our country; it is nationwide. When someone is treated in their local hospital, they are treated by the NHS—not NHS England, or NHS Wales but the national health service. People do not see that there should be a difference and, frankly, they do not care.
Just as we should be united in our response to covid-19, it is now time for our healthcare system to work together across borders for the good of all UK residents. Despite holidaying within the same country, as so many people are doing this year, if a constituent from Delyn holidays in Cornwall and needs NHS treatment, their medical records will not be on file and will be difficult to access. Without immediate access to those medical records, I cannot help but worry that it could affect the outcome and care they receive, demonstrating the need to share records between all four nations. This issue is one of many that could be resolved through greater collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on healthcare, just as we saw with the fantastic vaccine roll-out.
I urge the Government to remember that they are the Government of the whole United Kingdom, which should come with an overarching responsibility to care for and look after all their UK citizens, regardless of the nation in which they reside. As this Bill progresses through the House, I hope the Government draw on the lessons they learned from working together on the covid-19 vaccine programme to consider how greater collaboration in healthcare can be achieved between all four constituent parts of the UK to tackle the public health issues that we collectively face.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I previously had a role within the NHS, and I have family members who work in the NHS, of whom I am very proud.
Nine years ago the Conservative party passed the Lansley reforms, and for nine years the NHS has suffered the consequences of that disaster. We have seen creeping privatisation, fragmentation of services and a lack of adequate funding. For patients that has meant disjointed care and soaring waiting lists, made worse by covid. For healthcare professionals, it has meant the NHS is no longer a hospitable place to work.
Before the pandemic, the national health service had a vacancy rate of 8%, which is 100,000 vacancies. I know from discussions with a variety of professional bodies and unions that there are significant skill shortages that will only get worse. Last year, a survey by the BMA found that 45% of doctors across the UK experience depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and other mental health conditions. How is it right that our NHS professionals are so over-represented among those experiencing mental health problems?
The Royal College of Nursing has found that 36% of nurses are thinking of leaving the profession, and YouGov reports that a quarter of NHS workers are more likely to quit their job than they were a year ago, due to low pay and understaffing. While Ministers have clapped for carers on their doorsteps, many of my constituents who have worked in the NHS rightly say that they do not want platitudes. They want to be heard. They want a proper pay rise and an end to top-down reforms that do nothing to address the real needs and their real concerns.
For them, this Bill is more of the same, but it is also an indictment of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is the Government admitting that they have failed. Rather than learning the lessons, they have doubled down on the failures. There is nothing on waiting lists, nothing on vacancies and, despite the Prime Minister’s promise of a plan for social care, nothing on fixing the system that the pandemic has shown is not fit for purpose.
Rather than reinstating the duty on the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service, reversing the privatisation of the NHS or reinstating the NHS as the default provider, the Bill allows private providers to sit on the boards that decide how NHS money is spent. It is astounding, but not surprising. After nine years of failure and after a year of handing millions of pounds to Tory cronies for useless PPE and a failed privatised test, trace and track system, the Government are now proposing to increase the influence of private companies in the health service. Unfortunately, on all these issues the Bill has nothing good to say, and even worse, it says all the wrong things.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In opening this debate, the Secretary of State said that the Bill would improve patient safety. One area in which it does not do that is the area of cosmetic surgery. In April 2013, the Government commissioned Sir Bruce Keogh to do a review of this industry following the PIP—Poly Implant Prothèse—implants scandal. He came forward with some very sensible and clear recommendations to improve safety in the cosmetic surgery industry and to make sure that patients were protected. The review highlighted the fact that those buying a ballpoint pen have more protection than people having non-surgical procedures in this sector. These recommendations have sat on the shelf in the Department of Health since then. I have asked numerous times when they are going to be implemented, only to be told tomorrow, but tomorrow never seems to come.
We did see some change with the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 —which, for example, limited botox for under-18s, but this business is a wild west when it comes to regulation. There is a missed opportunity in this Bill not only to get proper patient safety, but to implement Sir Bruce Keogh’s recommendations, which the Government say they support but somehow do not want to implement. This is a multibillion-pound industry, and patients are being put at risk. It is mainly women who, in this sector, need protection. I hope that the Government will implement the Keogh recommendations in this Bill, and I put the Minister on warning now that I will be tabling amendments for that. This is important, and I do not yet understand the reason why the Government are not doing it, because the royal colleges support this and a large number of Members of Parliament have backed these reforms. They do need to be implemented, and we are missing an opportunity to do so.
May I touch on one last thing about public health? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that public health, strangely enough, has been forgotten about in this crisis. If we had actually concentrated on putting the main focus on public health and supporting directors, I think we would have had a better outcome. This is not just about this Bill forgetting about public health; it is about the money that goes with it. Under the fair funding formula being touted last year, County Durham would have lost £19 million in public health funding, while Surrey would actually have increased its budget by £14 million a year. That cannot be right. Public health now needs to be at the centre of our healthcare locally, and the Government have to ensure not just that it gets a voice in this Bill, but that local directors of public health get the finance and support they desperately need.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
In the short time I have to speak, I would like to comment generally on the Bill and specifically on one part of it. This is a Second Reading debate, and I see much merit in many of the provisions of this Bill, and the general thrust and direction of it. I understand much of the thinking behind it, as it is a real opportunity to improve the overall performance of our health service, remove some of the unnecessary bureaucracy that has grown up around it and rationalise some of the geography through the ICSs—a very relevant issue to Cumbria—as well as to improve the decision-making process through the boards and encourage collaboration within the health service, although we must still be open and transparent. These are all very welcome changes that have broad support, including from the health professionals in my community with whom I have already had discussions. This will be on top of the additional financial commitment to the health service that this Government have already made, and of the commitment to more doctors and nurses, all of which is very welcome.
I would, however, like to focus on an area of the Bill where I have some concerns. Clause 125 and schedule 16 relate to advertising, and they have the potential to adversely affect our food and drink sector. I remind the Minister that that is the largest manufacturing sector in the country. It employs a significant number of people up and down the country, it makes a huge contribution to our economy and our exports and—this is a key point—it is an innovative sector with considerable research and development and investment. It has already done a huge amount of reformulation to take sugar and salt out of our foods and it continues to do much on this.
I fully appreciate that obesity is a major concern for our society, and rightly so. Everybody wants the UK to be a fit and healthy country, but we have to tackle this issue in a sensible and proportionate manner. I am not convinced that schedule 16 in its present form will achieve very much. What it will do is reduce investment, resulting in fewer products coming to the market, including fewer healthy products—and those are what we want to see those. There would be less incentive to innovate and ultimately fewer jobs and less money in our economy, and all for very little gain in many respects. Also, as an aside, we need to remember that our own health and wellbeing are our own responsibility. I shall therefore be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill today, but in Committee and on Report, I and I am sure other hon. Members will seek amendments to schedule 16. That is so we get the right balance between our health agenda, the food sector and our individual freedoms and responsibilities.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I would like to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have long supported the aim of integration between health and social care, and the far greater involvement of local authorities in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services. We recognise that the pandemic has forced many of these bodies to work closely together in a much more collaborative way, and that is welcome. However, the Bill pays lip service to social care. It is largely a Bill about NHS reform, with yet another acronym-laden reorganisation that seeks to provide the legislative basis to integrate NHS services, currently in crisis mode, with a broken, underfunded and fragmented social care system. It is a massive power grab by the Secretary of State for political interference in operational and local service reconfiguration decisions and in who runs integrated care boards. The Bill is woefully inadequate in ensuring that the plans and resources are in place to ensure that we have sufficient doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals and carers to deliver care, both now and in the future. This is all against a backdrop of record waiting lists and staff who are burnt out, stressed and struggling to cope with the third wave of the pandemic while dealing with surging A&E visitors and tackling the enormous backlog of care.
Without meaningful social care reform, this Bill cannot realise its aim of providing citizens with better joined-up care. With over 100,000 vacancies in the workforce, 1.5 million people are currently missing out on the care they need, putting additional burdens on the NHS and, importantly, on 9 million unpaid carers. The Government have promised—at the moment I take them at their word, though they have broken it many times—that they will bring forward social care reforms later this year. So why not delay the Bill for a few months and take account of the new model of social care, rather than doing a half-baked job now?
It really beggars belief when we look back over the past 16 months of the pandemic that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who was the architect of the proposals, seriously thought that granting himself more powers over the day-to-day running of the NHS was a good idea. We only need to look at the PPE fiasco and the failures of test and trace, both of which were run centrally, to see that handing back power to the Secretary of State is the very opposite of what we need. Allowing him or her to meddle in the day-to-day running of our NHS seems to fly in the face of the desire for more local and regional decision making.
I fully support and endorse the proposals of the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) on the health and care workforce independent planning proposals. They need to be properly resourced and annually reported to Parliament. Without a workforce plan, without wholesale reform of social care and while waiting lists are skyrocketing and the Health Secretary is embarking on a power grab that is his predecessor’s vanity project, this Bill will fail in its fundamental aim, shared by most Members of this House and health and care leaders—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Lady’s time has run out.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I declare my interest and my family’s interests in healthcare service.
I welcome the Bill. Those concerned about it should realise that it is an evolution, not a revolution, coming from the ground up. Do not take it from me; take it from the evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee from Simon Stevens, who said:
“We have been working so closely for a number of years with colleagues across the health service and our broader partners. Genuinely, I think this is unusual, if not unique, in having come from the NHS as a series of asks to Parliament rather than something that Parliament is perhaps imposing on the NHS.”
That is the leader of the NHS.
Three minutes is a very short time to try to pull this Bill apart, so I am going to use my time to set out some amendments and new ideas that I would like the Minister to consider. Some are practical, some are short and some are much bigger. The first is simple: annual virus drills for care homes. We have fire drills regularly, but, given the pandemic, care homes may well benefit from being further prepared for future pandemics.
I would like mental wellbeing to be seen as a public health issue. Everyone suffers with their mental wellbeing; not everyone has mental ill health, and this House often gets confused between the two. That is really important, because until we label mental wellbeing as such, it becomes very hard to implement education and protective policies. Many Members will know that my particular interest is body image—the labelling of altered images, just as we label calories on food, so that we have parity between physical health and mental health.
My final idea—this is probably the most revolutionary piece I would like to put across—is to have a named person for change on the frontline. We have named bodies for whistleblowers, and we have protected people who are guardians for data, but fundamentally, change has to come from the bottom. All too often in my career, I was told, “You’re too junior” or “This is the way we’ve always done it.” We want to empower the people on the frontline who understand how the system works to make changes, and I think there is a chance to amend the Bill to do exactly that. I am happy to meet the Minister to explain further.
As I have a little more time, I am keen to comment on the reduction of bureaucracy. It is all very well making sure that there is not a problem when we are commissioning, but fundamentally, we need to look at the admin on the health service side—the barriers between primary care and secondary care. About 5% to 10% of a GP’s workload is dealing with chasing admin. That is not time well spent; it takes services away from the clinical frontline, and it is something that could be remedied, possibly even without legislation.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]
We all know that the last top-down reorganisation of the health service was a disaster for our people and those who work in it, so I was quite excited to hear of the plans to sort it out. I must have been mad. Instead of bringing forward a Bill to deal with their own mess and sort out the health crisis they have created, the Government have introduced a hotchpotch, which will do neither and could make it worse.
The Prime Minister’s response to decades of regional inequality and underfunding of communities such as mine is pathetic. It seems that, instead of introducing robust proposals to reskill our people, invest in our services and tackle their homemade crisis in the NHS, the Government are telling us that an increase in al fresco dining and an extension to the service of takeaway pints are the answers. That sort of trite nonsense is downright insulting to people who live in constituencies such as mine.
People in Stockton North live shorter, less healthy lives than others in more affluent areas by virtue of geography alone. As Cancer Research UK has said:
“If the UK is to tackle inequalities and make sure no community is left behind…then health must be hardwired into the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.”
If the Government are serious about levelling up for communities such as mine, they will have to take meaningful action to tackle the health inequalities that plague them.
In Stockton North, 7.4% of the population suffer from asthma, higher than the 6.5% who suffer across England. In England, the level of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among the population is 1.9%; that rises to 3.1% in my constituency. There are other inequalities, too, and we need action now. Will the new Secretary of State come good where others have failed and provide Stockton with the new hospital it desperately needs?
Some 13.2% of adults in Stockton-on-Tees are smokers, and smoking-attributable hospital admissions and deaths are increasing, yet Government action to reduce smoking has generally stagnated. Measures in the Bill to tackle obesity are welcome, but smoking is the leading cause of preventable premature death, and yet there are no proposals to tackle it. The Bill represents an ideal opportunity to introduce a US-style “polluter pays” levy with tobacco control, as recommended by the all-party group on smoking and health, and which the Government promised to consider two years ago in their prevention Green Paper. The all-party group—I declare my interest as the vice-chair—has provided a model for this approach, and I am grateful to Action on Smoking and Health and others for their work. The all- party group published a comprehensive set of recommendations that would help the Government to achieve their ambition of a smoke-free 2030, including further regulatory measures to de-normalise smoking, but nothing has happened.
Cancer Research UK has estimated that, on current trends, we will not make England smoke free until at least 2037, and it will be longer for poorer communities. We need action now. The Government say that we need bold action; they should take it now. That is one step towards tackling inequalities that blight our country.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
In the past, successful reorganisations have been centred on patient care. We have seen that with cardio and we have seen that with cancer. The reason why this will be successful now is that the aspect of patient care that will improve, including the outcomes for patients, will be around accountability. There are three ways in which the Bill does that quite successfully, but there are also ways in which it could do more.
First, on the involvement of the Care Quality Commission, having the CQC inspect social care services will be crucial for increasing visibility and transparency in terms of the outcomes for patients. The criteria that the CQC uses when inspecting social care and focusing on patient outcomes will make a difference in terms of the quality of care that patients will get—that is also true for integrated care systems as well. We need to make sure that these services are not measured on bureaucratic targets, but on what they are actually doing for patients.
As a side note, let me say that we have talked a lot about GP surgeries today. The CQC, as we all know, inspects GP surgeries. There is a question as to whether these surgeries are doing enough, especially at the moment, when it comes to the outcomes for patients. I have a lot of very good GP surgeries locally, but the levers by which we as Members of Parliament can get them to improve the quality of services are somewhat lacking in many cases and this is something that could be looked at as part of that admirable proposal to increase the involvement of the CQC as part of the Bill.
The second area I want to touch on is to do with the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. We have seen through the Health and Social Care Committee how important it has been in terms of changing the culture within the NHS. What we have also seen, though, is the number of times that the recommendations have not necessarily been followed through. More focus on that within HSIB and a mechanism by which the Department of Health and Social Care can be mandated to follow through on the outcomes could really add to the accountability part of the Bill.
The final point is around the somewhat thorny issue of political control. I happen to think that my constituents have a right to be involved in decisions that are made by the health service on their behalf that are not clinically based. It is absolutely right that we have a health service that has to explain to my constituents why it wants to do a reorganisation in the area. If my constituents do not agree with it, I should have a mechanism by which I can go to the Secretary of State and say, “Do you know what? I do not agree with what you are doing here. This is not right for my constituents.”
I understand the arguments that are being made today, but the fundamental point about accountability is the one that will really shape the future of our health service. It is a very positive thing, and the mechanisms in the Bill will have a positive effect on the outcome of patients within my constituency and nationwide.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
During the pandemic, NHS staff, care workers and public health teams have all gone the extra mile, as they always do, in protecting and caring for people. Health professionals have been ably assisted by a number of former colleagues who had retired and by an army of volunteers, and I thank them all.
In government, Labour increased NHS funding by more than 9% a year. Let us compare that with the just 2.5% from the Conservatives before the pandemic, or the £8 billion cut from council social care budgets since 2010. In the Liverpool city region, 50,000 patients are waiting to start routine treatment at Aintree University Hospital alone, of whom a third have waited more than 18 months. Meanwhile, many people find it difficult to get an appointment at their local GP surgery. New facilities, including a new health centre in Maghull in my constituency, would help there.
Alongside dealing with the immediate challenges of the pandemic, Labour’s priorities involve addressing the problems caused by those Conservative cuts which predate the crisis: waiting lists, staff recruitment, social care funding, and yes, the need to give our staff a pay rise. After all, who will look after patients if we do not value our staff? Sadly, the Conservatives have rather different priorities. The pandemic has seen companies without a track record—companies that happened to know the right people—making their fortunes. As the National Audit Office confirmed, companies without political contacts had only a 1% chance of succeeding, while £10 million was handed out in contracts without competition. Then there is Serco Test and Trace: delays in returning test results, dependence on £1,000-a-day consultants, and unused call centre capacity.
All that waste and inefficiency prompts us to ask why Ministers were so committed to outsourcing. The Bill offers some answers. Private companies on new health boards and the centralisation of power point to a potential consolidation of the cronyism and privatisation that have characterised the Conservatives’ approach to the covid crisis. Every day that frontline NHS staff are forced to spend on top-down reorganisation is a day less to tackle waiting lists, address the challenges in social care, and cope with covid. Meanwhile, the reorganisation will take money away from local services, where it is most needed. A prime example is the cut of £253 per patient from Knowsley as a result of the Bill. One of the poorest boroughs in the country will face poorer health outcomes.
That is the reality of this Bill. How can it possibly be right?
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, particularly its intention to better integrate health and social care in England. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity, I am pleased to see the introduction of restrictions on the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar products online, and on television before 9 pm. I would, however, emphasise the need for a level playing field between the two. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I endorse the findings of our inquiry into the preceding White Paper, especially its comments on social care provision and workforce planning. I hope that these matters can be addressed as the Bill, and indeed the year, progresses.
The Bill also provides the opportunity to address some of the disparities in healthcare provision across the United Kingdom. Further to my constructive engagement with colleagues at the Department, I hope that the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), will consider four key proposals.
First, we should mandate the collection of an agreed set of UK-wide directly comparable data on NHS performance and outcomes, for clinical and research purposes. I am already engaging with the Office for National Statistics on how that could work in practice, and believe that the Bill could have an important enabling role to play. Secondly, data interoperability must be improved. It is unacceptable that the health service in Wales often cannot communicate in a fit-for-purpose way with services in England, and vice versa. Thirdly, my direct experience of working in the NHS leads me to feel strongly that inspection, safety and audit mechanisms should be introduced at a national level to ensure a minimum standard of care for all British citizens. Those who are managing inferior services must be able to learn lessons from more effectively run areas and, ultimately, be held to account.
Finally, I hope that the Bill can be used to provide people with equal access to and choice of secondary and tertiary healthcare services across the country, regardless of where in Britain they live. My constituent Ian Kightley was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. As a result of his treatment, he developed problems with his vision and required cataract surgery in both eyes. Like so many in north Wales, when he was advised of a two-year waiting list he was forced to pay for private healthcare, which he was able to do only through fundraising. Only in the last week, while working as a GP, I saw patients who had been advised of two-year waits solely for their first out-patient clinic appointments at Glan Clwyd Hospital.
This Bill provides a vital opportunity for us to level up healthcare and ensure that all our constituents can access the best treatment as soon as possible.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
When a Labour Government proposed a national health service after the second world war, promising free universal healthcare for all, it was a radical idea opposed by the Conservative party, which complained—I quote from an amendment tabled at the time—that it
“discourages voluntary…association…and undermines the freedom and independence of the medical profession”.
The Conservatives did not like it that the NHS was centralised, public and free for all. They condemned it as Marxist and voted against it 22 times. Fundamentally, they opposed the NHS for taking healthcare out of the market and for putting public good before private profit, but they saw its popularity and begrudgingly were forced to accept it.
Those fundamentals have not changed. This NHS corporate takeover Bill is another step away from the original truly public healthcare system, free from the corrosive influence of profit. The Conservative party still opposes that idea. Conservatives should not just take my word for it; they should take the words of their own Members. The Prime Minister, when he was a Back Bencher, slammed the NHS as “monolithic” and “monopolistic”, and called for privatisation. Four senior Cabinet members, when they were Back Benchers, wrote a manifesto in which they argued that two thirds of hospitals should be run outside of the NHS, and run privately or not for profit. We also have a new Health Secretary, who in the last year, alongside his role as a Back Bencher, has been on the books of US megabank JP Morgan. He has been making £150,000 a year from a company that—I quote from its literature—
“see the opportunities that lie ahead”
for private healthcare. The Health Secretary’s ideological hero, Ayn Rand—whose work he says he rereads every year—was an extreme right-wing libertarian philosopher, who detested socialised healthcare.
It is not just words; it is deeds too. The Government are breaking up the NHS, not all in one go, because they know that the public would not like that, but piece by piece. Privatisation by stealth—that is what they have been doing. Since coming into power in 2010, more than £96 billion has gone to non-public healthcare providers and nearly 20% of healthcare bids now go to private providers. This Bill will not reverse that. It will simply entrench it. It will put private companies on healthcare boards, giving them a say over our care and public funds. It will add steroids to the cronyism on steroids that we have seen in this pandemic, whereby Tory mates and donors have been handed billions of pounds in dodgy covid Government contracts. It will implement a healthcare model that incentivises cuts and closures, and rations funding to health boards.
This dangerous Bill is another step towards privatisation. In its place, we need to reinstate the NHS as a truly public service with a proper pay rise for its workers of 15%, making up for a decade of falling pay.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to focus on two main areas of the debate: the role of patients in accountability and transparency; and tariffs—the way in which we pay for procedures and care. I support the Bill, but I hope that we have the means to address the deep-rooted cultural issue of regarding patients’ views as less valuable than those who work in our national health service. Before I was elected, I was often involved in advocacy campaigns. Patient groups would want to challenge NHS England’s commissioning policies or service specifications. These policies govern the technologies and procedures that are used to treat conditions, but the patient groups would find the decision-making processes totally impenetrable, as would the clinicians and health policy experts advising them. What chance do individual patients and relatives have to make their voices heard?
The same impenetrability applies to clinical commissioning groups. Patient access to established procedures and technologies is blocked by local policies, but people have to be dedicated to find these policies on convoluted websites or page 178 of a 256-page document. For example, CCGs regularly restrict patient access to hip and knee procedures for patients with a body mass index of over 30. Extraordinarily, some CCGs allow procedures only for patients who have a BMI of less than 25. I would confidently predict that that would disqualify the vast majority of hon. and right hon. Members, and we should call it out for what it is, which is rationing.
Such rationing was routine before covid created massive backlogs in NHS waiting lists in some CCGs. Transparency and openness is the solution to these problems. A formal role for patients on ICS boards, a formal role for patients in the development of commissioning policies and creating a national appeals board for challenging commissioning decisions are all ideas that I hope Ministers might consider as the Bill progresses.
Finally, on tariffs, national tariffs are not perfect but they do incentivise providers to treat as many patients as they possibly can. The Bill states:
“NHS England must publish…‘the NHS payment scheme’”—
a document “containing rules for determining” the prices to be paid in future, including, for example, for hip and knee procedures. Tariffs have led to hip and knee procedures and other procedures being done at volume and at scale, certainly, at least, when commissioners agree to pay for them. High volumes of elective procedures have been a good thing and the current elective backlog is probably the biggest challenge that the NHS faces coming out of the pandemic, so whatever ends up in that document, it needs to be clear, transparent and provide incentives for high-volume procedures to be carried out at pace and at scale.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Government’s health strategy is clear: while health demand rises, the amount of resources being provided to the NHS is declining, which leaves well-heeled patients with nowhere else to go to avoid ill health except into the so-called independent sector. For example, a constituent told me that his opticians had said that he could wait six years for cataract operations, by which time he would be nearly blind, or he could pay for a cataract operation now in the private sector.
Even before covid, the Government had cut the health budget and spending. In Britain we were spending £2,000 per head of population less than was being spent in Germany. There were cuts to the numbers of staff and to their pay, 100,000 vacancies, 17,000 fewer hospital beds and over 100 fewer A&E facilities, with hospital waiting lists therefore doubling—even before covid arose—since the end of a Labour Government. The Bill continues all that process, as we would expect. It will make the NHS more remote because it is top-down, and it is a Trojan horse for elements of privatisation.
Newly remote administrators will have little sensitivity to local health requirements. Members should think of the differences in the health needs of former coalfield communities such as those I represent in West Yorkshire, the inner city of Bradford and the relative affluence of Harrogate, yet all that is to be covered by a single new board, and the centralisation of clinical services makes them less accessible. Some 20,000 people are living in my constituency with no car to their households’ name and with poor public transport, many of them with chronic health needs. How on earth will they be expected to travel to centralised services in Leeds or elsewhere under those circumstances?
There are two competing views of health provision facing each other. Either health is about an ethos of care or it is about making money. This Bill leads in one direction. The Government do not want to fund the NHS properly, so they are trying to entice more private money into health, often from sources, we note, from the Tory party. Privatisation puts one person’s wealth in front of another person’s health. We should look at the pages of the American health service providers today salivating at the prospect of growing NHS waiting lists, and now, so-called independent providers are to be invited to sit on boards that actually manage the NHS budgets. The idea of profiteering from someone else’s ill health is repulsive to most British people, yet it is intrinsic to this Bill. We can call it only one thing: parasitic capitalism. Along with the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and many other practitioners, we must resist the creeping destruction of our NHS.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Generally, the Bill is to be welcomed as it seeks to promote collaboration and the integration of local health and care services. It aims to give local people, local clinicians and those running local NHS and care services more control over the way that health and care services are delivered. The King’s Fund highlighted that the Bill will remove “clunky” competition rules and make it simpler for health and care organisations to work together and deliver more joined-up care to more people. That said, it is important to recognise that the last 16 months have been very challenging and very exhausting for those working in health and care, and in many respects, the last thing that they now need is yet another NHS reorganisation. Groups such as the BMA have concerns and I urge the Government to look at those closely in Committee.
I wish briefly to highlight two issues. First, I urge the Government to retain the existing boundaries, with the Waveney area remaining in an ICS with Norfolk. To change the boundaries to make them coterminous with the two counties would be highly disruptive and an unnecessary distraction, and it would demotivate hard-working staff. It would place at risk the health integration that has taken place in the area in recent years. To achieve better collaboration with care services, it is better to build on the existing foundations rather than to dismantle them. In many respects, boundary wars have been going on behind closed doors for the past seven to eight months, though I am grateful to both the Secretary of State and the Minister for listening to my concerns in recent weeks. I urge them to retain the status quo.
Secondly, the health issue that has taken up most of my time in recent weeks is NHS dentistry—or rather the lack of it. Many of my constituents are in agony and local NHS dentists urgently need the funds to see more patients. We are gradually moving towards a short-term solution, but it has taken far too long. In the longer term there needs to be greater accountability; dentists need to have a voice on integrated care boards; dental budgets should be protected; and steps must be taken to tackle the staffing crisis.
In conclusion, the Bill provides a statutory footing to ways of working that are in many respects evolving naturally. However, there are potential pitfalls, particularly —from my perspective—the changing of ICS boundaries, which I urge the Minister to avoid at all costs.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. To introduce a Bill like this when the covid pandemic is far from over and staff are on their knees shows a lack of understanding of what is needed.
I am concerned that this reorganisation of the NHS is being used as an opportunity to extend the involvement of UK and international private healthcare companies. The Bill proposes that private healthcare companies can become members of the integrated care boards, potentially meaning they will be able to procure health services from their own companies. Under the Bill, ICBs will have only a “core responsibility” for a “group of people”, in accordance with enrolment rules made by NHS England. There are concerns that this evokes the US definition of a health maintenance organisation, which provides
“basic and supplemental health services to its members”.
What is included in the core responsibilities?
Why is there no longer a duty but only a power for ICBs to provide hospital services? What does that mean for the thousands waiting for elective surgery? What about those waiting for cancer and other therapies? For those who say, “What does it matter who provides our healthcare as long as it meets the NHS principles of being universal, comprehensive and free at the point of need?” I say that not only is the Bill a clear risk to those founding NHS principles but there is strong evidence that equity in access to healthcare, equity in health outcomes and healthcare quality are all compromised in health systems that are either privatised or marketised, as the NHS has increasingly become.
That brings me to my third area of concern: health inequalities. It is notable that the Bill places the duties for the reduction of health inequalities with ICBs. The 2012 duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to reduce inequalities is repealed, showing the clear lack of commitment to levelling up and the reduction of the structural inequalities that have been laid bare by this pandemic and contributed to the UK’s high and unequal covid death toll. With this change, the Secretary of State is ignoring not only decades of overwhelming evidence that clearly shows that health inequalities are driven at national policy level, but the Prime Minister’s commitment to implement the recommendations that Professor Sir Michael Marmot made in his covid review last December to tackle inequalities and build back fairer.
My final point is on social care. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dementia, I express my profound disappointment that, 19 months since the Prime Minister pledged to fix the broken care system, it still has not been fixed. The Bill is a missed opportunity to set out the framework for social care reform in the context of an integrated health and social care system. For people with dementia and their family carers, who have suffered disproportionately from covid, this is a real blow. They deserve better. For me, the principle of health and social care—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Anything that starts to undo the damage done by the 2012 Act is welcome. Some of the Bill reflects what has been the reality on the ground for some years: our local health services have indeed been ignoring the competition elements. I applaud them for it; they sensibly recognised that the only way the NHS could cope would be to co-operate, not compete.
I put on record my thanks to those leading our health and care system in Cambridgeshire in recent years. They were brave—they should not have had to break the law to deliver the services that our people needed. I also give heartfelt thanks to all the staff, medical and non-medical, who go above and beyond. What they do not need at the moment, on top of everything else, is the uncertainty that now encompasses them.
The reason why those people were in that difficult position is what makes me oppose the Bill: I will never trust the Conservatives not to try to privatise the NHS. That is based on long experience, because Cambridgeshire was the test bed for many of the 2012 reforms, which of course were driven by Lord Lansley, the then MP for South Cambridgeshire. Long before I came to this place, I was working with other campaigners, particularly Unison, Unite and GMB colleagues, to tackle what felt like an endless onslaught.
I remember arguing over the lifting of the private patient cap. The then chief executive of Addenbrooke’s Hospital told me at an annual general meeting that where he came from, people were very relaxed about private healthcare. For years, Addenbrooke’s had land allocated for a private hospital, and the chief executive admitted that the future business model was to seek to bring patients from across the world.
The then chief exec of the Royal Papworth Hospital was on record as wanting to expand private care from 5% to 15%. Nearby Hinchingbrooke hospital was run as a private outfit by Circle Health, until it handed it back because it could not make it work; Circle was then run by Ali Parsa, now CEO of Babylon Health, whose app was so brazenly promoted by the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock). Then there was the UnitingCare fiasco, which I spoke endlessly about in this House: an £800 million five-year contract under which older people’s services were, effectively, privatised, until it collapsed in a huge waste of time, effort and public money. So there is form, and that is why I will always oppose this legislation.
There are other concerns, but time is limited, so I will cite just a couple. The British Association of Social Workers has highlighted the removal of social work assessment prior to hospital discharges. It is right to do so. The relationship between hospitals and some care homes has long been far too close, in my view—frankly, at times it borders on the corrupt. There is pressure to discharge too quickly, so the last thing we need to do is remove professional assessment. I am also concerned about clause 80 on data sharing, because I do not trust the Government on that either.
We have a wonderful NHS. It needs support, not reorganisation, but all past experience and evidence tells me that the Tories will always want to find a way of making money out of it. We will always try to stop them, because that is not what the NHS is about.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to support the Bill. It is the first significant reorganisation of healthcare in recent years, and only the second since the Conservatives came into office following 13 years of Labour Administrations who reorganised the health services nine times, so we should not be taking lessons from the Opposition on the timing or the fact of putting things right.
The Bill is very substantial legislation that learns lessons from the way in which the NHS has had to work during the covid pandemic. In particular, the flow-through of patients discharged out of the acute sector as a result of much closer working with social care and local authorities is an integral part of creating the new integrated care boards. I very much welcome the fact that they are being established on a statutory footing and that there will be representation from local authorities and a role for health and wellbeing boards to provide local oversight. That is an essential step to allow the healthcare economy across our communities to collaborate effectively, and to remove some of the artificial barriers.
I will touch briefly on three other points. On the measures proposed for reconfiguration, we in Shropshire have been at the wrong end of a protracted reconfiguration process for our acute hospitals. Streamlining the process by which decisions are made will benefit patients. In Shropshire, it has taken several years to reach the point at which decisions can be made, and at every stage obstacles are put in place that add to delay and uncertainty. As a consequence of that, it is hard to attract staff to a system not working as well as it should, and the system has gone into special measures. The provisions to streamline difficult decisions are therefore very welcome.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, said, the Bill is somewhat light on workforce, but it does include key measures to speed up the ability of physicians trained in other systems to be welcomed into the NHS or to return to the NHS and if they have retired. I urge Ministers in Committee to look carefully at what can be done—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid we are under huge time constraints.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This Health and Care Bill has been conceived in bunkers behind screens within echo chambers. It is straight from the US health market, and its architects are immune to objection from the frontline leaders who are expected to deliver a new health and care system. In case the Government had not observed it, those people are in the midst of managing a pandemic, its resurgence and its aftermath. They are holding together a fragile workforce, traumatised by the pressure and sacrifice of the covid war. They are vaccinating a nation while seeing others fall to preventable diseases. They are embracing those with broken minds as they try desperately to hold on to their own.
It is no time to strip out the NHS’s infrastructure and replace it—eager as we are to do so—with something as ill-defined, void of detail and illiterate as the Bill presents. The Bill will shift the blame for an imploding NHS and shattered care system from the impervious Prime Minister to NHS workers. The backlogs will be their fault. They will be to blame for service cuts, and the Government will shrug their shoulders at the postcode lottery and rationing. We have more than 5 million people waiting for hospital appointments. We are unable to see a GP for weeks. We are waiting longer than ever at A&E and, when the care system fleeces people for all they have and fails to restore their dignity in their fading years of life, the Bill scapegoats local health and care teams while the Government wash their hands.
We are in this mess because, in 2012, the Government—and, let us not forget, their Lib Dem chums—messed with our NHS, ignored clinicians and seeded the failures that we have witnessed throughout the pandemic. History repeats itself. The market-driven system enabled Ministers to sign away billions of pounds on crony contracts while frontline staff were wrapped in bin bags—and some, tragically, in body bags. The Bill lets the Government off the hook. When things go wrong, they will simply blame others as they avoid shame. But, worse, private companies are already sitting round the tables of the shadow integrated care systems to profit further. Nothing has changed. If the Bill changes nothing, we do not need it to further destroy the remnants of Labour’s precious NHS. At the one time we need certainty, there is none.
The Bill fails to provide the vital stability, funding, accountability or transparency that is needed. It fails on prevention and the advances that patients need. It has more private commissioning, not less, no workforce planning or vital staff pay and, crucially, no social care, yet the NHS will integrate with it. Labour believes that people deserve better. We must have integrated health and social care, free to all in need, wholly delivered in our public sector by fairly rewarded staff and accountable to this Parliament and to the people. Now is not the time and this is not the Bill. I will vote against it.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Bill, and I particularly welcome its aims and objectives to provide the best possible health and care to everyone in this country. However, to achieve that, things must change in the legislation. It must have explicit provisions for mental health, not just physical health. It must also include provisions for children’s social care, not just adult social care, and provide for the commissioning of not just medical services, doctors, nurses, infrastructure and hospitals but medicines and devices, which we know have been crucial in the fight with covid.
How are we going to do that? First, we need to include parity of esteem clauses—one for mental health and one for social care. We need to define what we mean by parity of esteem, which will be a first: what are we going to put in? Not just money; what processes will we promise to deliver? What healthcare outcomes are we looking to deliver? We need the same for mental health and social care—both are deserved.
As others have said, we need a proper workforce plan, but it must cover not just health but social care, and it must look specifically at how we will deal with recruitment. How will we deal with the career path in future? How will we look at training and retention for the future? There should be an integrated plan, not one for health and one for care. Our nurses, for example, work across both systems.
We need to provide for the commissioning of medicines and devices. Currently, it is a postcode lottery. The previous legislation on medicines and devices covered licensing, but not commissioning. Patient choice depends upon forming that system so that everyone gets access to the medicines approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Currently, that is not the case.
We must positively review the big-picture strategy. What do we need? What are the skills we need for health and care? We must look broadly, not narrowly. We must look at what greater role our pharmacists can play. How can we improve our training so that people have more general skills that we can use in a pandemic such as this, so that everyone in the health system can be used? To support that, we will need to rework the membership provisions for the ICBs and the ICPs. We will need to amend the data regulations to ensure that they can go beyond the boundary of the NHS, and we will need to look at our medicines directory—the sister of the devices registry—to ensure that it includes information from research through to patient experience. There is much to do; it can be done. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The NHS was established to provide equal rights to healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of income or personal health. Yet as we emerge from the pandemic in praise of the NHS, this Bill is yet another step towards dismantling and privatising the system.
With the highest vaccination rates, thanks to the NHS, England also has the highest infection rate of the delta variant, thanks to the Government going into lockdown too late and coming out too soon. With 128,000 people dead, 695,000 currently have the covid variant and there are record waiting lists. The Government should be investing in more capacity now—in the workforce and in beds. They should be reinstating the 12,000 empty beds. Instead, the Government are putting £10 billion into the private sector over four years, with the framework contract, when the private sector has only 8,000 beds in total. Doctors will have to leave NHS hospitals to go to private hospitals, further disrupting NHS services.
Coming out of the pandemic, we need a healthcare Bill that re-energises the NHS and rewards our nurses and doctors who saved the country from calamity. Instead, this Bill allows private health companies to sit on boards, deciding where the NHS funding is spent. It allows further outsourcing, opening the door to more taxpayers’ money being siphoned off to the profits of private contractors. The NHS is being fragmented. Talk of patient choice is disingenuous, as funds must be transferred in the internal market, so it is a postcode lottery. There has not been patient choice in England since the internal market was introduced.
In contrast, in Wales, the Labour Government continues with a planned system that has delivered the highest vaccination rate in the world and a 90% effective test, track and isolate system, wholly delivered by the public sector through councils and health authorities. Wales has a lower death rate over a five-year average—13% in Wales vs. 20% in England, despite Wales’s older population. There is public procurement in place of crony contracts to Tory donors.
Wales has shown that public money is used most effectively in the NHS by public sector delivery, so more people are treated equally, irrespective of income and personal health, true to Aneurin Bevan’s founding principles. Instead, the Bill is a back door for United States companies, via trade deals, to further break up our system, on the road to health insurance, which hits the poorest and sickest hardest.
This is a rotten Bill. It is bad for Britain’s health, bad for our wealth and bad for our most treasured achievement —our NHS.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I confess that I am wary of NHS reorganisations, but as Sir Simon Stevens told the Health Committee, this one is almost unique in being primarily a response to a series of requests from the NHS to Parliament. In delivering a more integrated health and social care system, the Bill will implement a number of proposals in the NHS’s own long-term plan and crucially, as other hon. Members have said, the Bill is accompanied by the commitment to raise NHS funding by £33 billion—the largest cash increase in its 73-year history.
I would hope that, in putting the integrated care systems on a statutory footing, Ministers will give them a strong mandate to conduct and fund research. The pandemic has shown the vital importance of research. Not only did the Oxford University scientists deliver a world-leading vaccine in record time, but their recovery trial established dexamethasone as the first effective treatment for covid, saving thousands of lives.
The report that I co-authored for the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform sets out a blueprint for a new regulatory architecture for clinical trials to replace the EU clinical trials directive. The Bill could be an opportunity to take those reforms forward, along with our ideas on a more modern approach to health data. These plans would improve the chances of discovering better treatments for life-threatening diseases and could unlock huge economic opportunities, capitalising on the abilities of our world-leading scientists and universities.
As many have said, the Bill must be used to improve workforce planning. As demands grow on the NHS, we must continue to expand capacity, and we cannot do that unless we are training and recruiting the people we need. In particular, we must have more GPs so that our constituents can get the care that they need when they want it. GPs are currently under unprecedented demand pressure. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Bill gives GPs a strong voice in the new structures to ensure that local input is given to those new structures.
Supporting the NHS will always be a key part of the work that I do as MP for Chipping Barnet, because I know how important it is to my constituents. Knowing that the NHS is there when we need it is one of the greatest advantages of living in our United Kingdom. The covid emergency has reinforced that a thousand times over, and I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of our NHS and thank them for their courage, dedication and professionalism.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
This month we marked the 73rd birthday of the NHS, and instead of celebrating it and giving it the homage that it deserves—the NHS, one of the very best things about our country—the Government have introduced a Bill that looks set to ramp up their long-standing attempts to continue to privatise it. I was proud to add my name to the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) because we do not need private healthcare companies to sit on boards deciding how NHS funding is spent, further outsourcing of contracts without proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability, or the introduction of a model of healthcare that incentivises cuts and the closure of services.
Forcing NHS staff to implement yet another top-down Conservative reorganisation would take people away from the task of tackling growing treatment lists and coping with rapidly rising covid cases. We need to fill our 84,000 vacancies, and we need a 15% pay rise across the board for our NHS staff. It is hard to see how ordering a reorganisation such as this while ignoring calls for increased funding and a plan for social care could be anything other than disastrous.
This corporate takeover Bill—which is exactly what it is—will put private companies at the heart of the NHS and pave the way to sell off our confidential health data to multinational corporations. Nobody wants that. It will normalise the corrupt contracting that we have seen during the pandemic. The money that we spend on our healthcare should go to the services that we need, not to the pockets of Conservative party donors or corporate shareholders. Over the path of the pandemic, we have seen what this outsourcing and privatisation has meant in practice. Contract after contract awarded without competitive process. People being failed. Failing contracts. Delivery failed on again and again. Now the Government want to open up new ways for that to happen, just as they have done throughout the pandemic.
Let us consider what happened with Track and Trace, which was a complete disaster in the hands of Serco. The system has been so ineffective that, recently, MPs concluded that it had ”no clear impact”—a £37 billion system with no clear impact. After a decade of cuts, it was our NHS and its staff and volunteers who led the vaccination roll-out. That was a success, but it was their success, not the Government’s success. That is a lesson that we can learn about exactly what happens when we give the NHS the funding it needs, but the Bill does nothing to do that. We do not need more overpaid consultants involved the NHS; we need to value the staff we already have, and put in the investment that made the vaccination programme a massive success. We must be clear—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We must move on to the next speaker.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I strongly support the Bill. However, although it contains strong measures to combat obesity, there is none to tackle smoking, which is the leading cause of preventable premature death, including cancer. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. The report we proposed suggested that we implement the “polluter pays” levy that the Government promised to consider two years ago. The Bill is the ideal opportunity to introduce such a levy. Analysis by Cancer Research UK shows that we will not achieve the Government’s aim of a smoke-free England until 2035—the Government target is 2030, so years later—in our poorest communities, so there is no time to waste. We must get on with the job.
In the Government’s recent paper on public health, they accepted that they have a responsibility not only to help people improve their own health, but to go further when it comes to industries that are based on addictions such as smoking. The Bill is the ideal opportunity, and I urge the Government to consider the recommendations laid out by the all-party group and table them as amendments in Committee, so that we tackle the most deadly addiction in our society.
We need to combat not only smoking rates but the long-standing, unacceptable health inequalities that exist across the country. The plan needs to be comprehensive, but it will not be effective without sufficient additional and sustainable funding. A smoke-free 2030 fund, using the industry to pay for it, but without industry interference, could pay for the comprehensive measures that we need to reach that ambitious target across all socioeconomic groups.
On the plan to combat obesity, there is a measure that will be harmful to many of our media companies, but it will not hit some of the social media and online companies. That runs the risk of having a two-stage process. Perhaps we could consider having limits at weekends to limit the impact of junk food advertising on TV when our young people are watching.
Overall, however, this is a good Bill. We should support it, and we should support our national health service that has brought it before us today.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone working in health and social care and to unpaid family carers. All of them have gone above and beyond in their caring roles during the pandemic. The Government’s response to that could have been to give NHS staff a proper pay rise, to publish plans to put social care on a sustainable financial footing, or to recognise fully the tremendous contribution made by unpaid carers. Instead we have this Bill, and a top-down reorganisation of the NHS that will concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, offering no guarantees of better outcomes for patients and removing rights from carers.
It is welcome that the Bill brings an end to every NHS contract having to be put out to tender and that some changes in the Bill reference unpaid carers, but further changes are needed. Change is needed to put a duty on the NHS to have regard to carers and to promote their health and wellbeing.
It is welcome that the Bill includes a duty on both NHS England and the integrated care boards to consult carers, but rather than just involve and consult them in relation to patients, the duty that is needed is for the NHS to consider carers in their own right, as proposed by the Health and Social Care Committee in its report.
It is worrying that the Bill undermines carers’ rights in relation to hospital discharge. Clause 78 removes carers’ fundamental rights by removing the need to assess a patient at the point of hospital discharge. The way that is done removes carers’ fundamental right to have an assessment to ensure services are provided to make sure the patient is safe to discharge into their care. This is an issue, as Carers UK quotes research showing that only 26% of carers were consulted about discharge and that a third were consulted only at the last minute.
The Bill proposes to extend the Care Quality Commission’s remit to cover the delivery of social care services. However, that excludes social care provided through NHS continuing healthcare. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found last year that people continue to be seriously let down by failings in how continuing healthcare is delivered. I ask the Minister to agree with the Continuing Healthcare Alliance that there should be an additional duty on the CQC to assess integrated care systems’ delivery of their continuing healthcare duties and to hold them to account where these duties are not being met.
The Care Quality Commission will have a remit to rate local authorities’ delivery of social care, but when £9 billion has been taken out of social care budgets and long-term reform is consistently delayed, the Government should recognise that inadequate social care services are a problem of their own making.
Finally, I question the timing of the Bill. Staff are exhausted and are facing another wave of covid infections over the summer. I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that and adjust the timeframes for implementing these reforms so that they do not end up distracting from the NHS’s real job of caring for patients.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, and I pay tribute to my NHS managers and social care managers in Cornwall. They have been straining at the bit for a long time to integrate more effectively and more successfully, and the Bill will help them to formalise that integration and do a good job of it.
In the short time I have, I want to talk about the patient’s perspective. We know that diabetes, for example, costs the NHS and social care a colossal amount of money, and we also know that across the UK we have pretty much all the tools, treatment, care, support and devices so that someone with diabetes can manage their condition and live, as much as possible, a full and good life. We also know that, because of the current situation, that care is not joined up and is not universal across the country. I hope the Bill delivers, for diabetes, a joined-up, clear pathway from diagnosis—I welcome the emphasis on prevention, too—through their lifetime, as they manage this lifelong condition. The Bill enables them to get every bit of support and care and every device they need to live full lives, to manage their care and to take an active part in society as a whole.
I am talking about people with diabetes because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes, which I should have declared, but the Bill also provides a blueprint for all sorts of lifelong conditions that enables people to live their lives successfully in their community.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In today’s debate we have heard from 37 hon. and right hon. Members, as well as the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), and another 29 hon. Members registered an interest to speak but were not called. A huge range of topics has been covered, some of which I hope to address briefly. I hope Members will forgive me if I cannot mention each contribution individually.
Many Members have talked about the particular geographic configuration of their ICS, and it is clear that there is lots of unhappiness about that in certain parts of the country. That is hardly surprising, given that has been done without any parliamentary oversight so far. It seems that, under the Bill, Parliament will not even get to approve where the boundaries lie.
There has been no attempt at public consultation or discussion about where these boundaries sit, and that is a theme throughout the Bill. Decisions, money and power move further away from the public and closer to the Secretary of State. He is certainly taking back control but, at the same time, he is silencing the patient voice.
In the Bill, the Secretary of State has a veto on who leads the integrated care systems, and he can stop foundation trusts borrowing money that they desperately need to tackle the £9 billion maintenance backlog. He even has the power to decide whether to instigate the closure of local services.
By contrast, when the 2012 Act was going through Parliament, Lord Lansley, who was then Secretary of State, told the Chamber:
“We want clinicians and their patients to lead the NHS, but they cannot do this while they sit under a vast hierarchy of regional and local organisations, all reporting to Whitehall. Everyone agrees that top-down command and control gets in the way of clinicians doing their job”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 613.]
The Bill supercharges command and control, so it is little wonder that even the British Medical Association has come out against it. It creates a vast web of new organisations, but very few of them will make decisions. It is pretty clear that the integrated care partnerships in particular will be little more than bystanders when it comes to the crunch, and that the boards will have all the power. That is a huge democratic deficit that must not be allowed to go unchallenged. When we hear about companies such as Virgin already having a seat on one of the ICS boards in the south-west we know that the power lies in totally the wrong place. The Bill needs to make it crystal clear that private companies should be a million miles from making decisions about how the NHS is run.
At the same time, the Bill does not legislate for boards to include a representative from a mental health organisation, for example. How will that encourage integration, let alone parity of esteem? There are plenty of others who are not guaranteed a seat at the table but who ought to be in the vanguard of integration: directors of adult social care, directors of public health, carers and, most of all, patients, who seem to have been completely forgotten in all this. How will decisions be made by the boards? Will there be transparency about where the money is spent in those areas which, we should not forget, are much larger than clinical commissioning groups. How can we be sure that the money will go to those parts of the ICS with the most need, and how can that be challenged if it does not?
We have seen the blatant abuse of the levelling-up fund, and party political considerations seep into every decision made by the Government. Will it now be patients who pay the price for that? How will the combined trust deficits of £910 million be met? The danger is that the Bill will force ICSs to close small local services to bail out the bigger trusts.
While we welcome an end to section 75 provision, I wonder exactly how much money has been wasted in convoluted procurement processes and legal challenges. Is it £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion? Whatever the final figure, there is no doubt that that money could be better spent on frontline services. While moving away from that monumental mistake is a good thing, it seems as if we are going from one extreme to the other, with the removal of any safeguards at all on who contracts can be awarded to. The Government are legislating for cronyism. I am sure that pub landlords and pest control companies will be delighted, but we cannot give the Secretary of State the blank cheque that the Bill allows.
There is a huge blank sheet of paper where the plan to tackle the workforce crisis ought to be. The Secretary of State will produce a report once every five years, but that is not a serious commitment to the workforce. Indeed, it is not a serious commitment to Parliament either, and the social care workforce is not even mentioned. Let us not forget that we have 122,000 vacancies in that workforce. The Select Committee has set out the kind of people whom we really ought to aim to employ, with annual, independently audited reports that cover the NHS and social care. In the words of the Select Committee:
“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”
The Bill will only reinforce that position, rather than reverse it.
In the introduction that the Secretary of State gave to the Bill today, it sounded very much as if he thought that it was the panacea that we have all been waiting for, but many more experienced Members could be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu. Let us remind ourselves of what Lord Lansley told the House about the 2012 reforms:
“Previous changes have tinkered with one piece of the NHS or another, when what was needed was comprehensive modernisation to create an NHS fit for the demands of the 21st century. That is precisely what this Health and Social Care Bill will deliver.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 616.]
The Health and Social Care Bill provided for the constitution and structure of the NHS to work for the long term. How has that worked out? There are record waiting lists and staff vacancies; billions diverted into the private sector away from the NHS; life expectancy has stalled; and A&E targets have been missed five years in a row. The NHS was trying to unpick the last disastrous reorganisation before the ink was even dry on the Royal Assent, so why is this set of reforms going to be any more successful than the last? How is one line of this Bill going to tackle the operation backlog? Is not the truth that without a proper sustained funding settlement to meet the demand in both health and social care, this latest set of reforms is merely another rearrangement of the deckchairs? Why, oh why, is so much time and resource being focused on a wasteful, top-down reorganisation, in the middle of the pandemic? Even the Prime Minister told us on Monday that we are not out of it yet. Only today, planned operations have been cancelled in Newcastle because of a surge in covid cases. Is it not the case that every meeting called, every document written, every minute spent on this top-down reorganisation is less time spent on fighting the increase in covid cases we currently see, bringing down waiting lists, tackling the increase in mental health conditions, solving the workforce crisis and actually delivering the reform to social care that the Prime Minister promised nearly two years ago?
This Bill is the equivalent of someone reorganising the whole interior of their house, spending fortunes on new furniture and decorations, but finding it is all ruined within months because they forgot to put a roof over their head; we cannot fix the NHS if we do not fix social care. We know that, everybody knows that. The Government say they have a plan, but we still do not know what it is. Crucially, for the purposes of today’s debate, we do not know whether it will fit in with what is in this Bill. So are we going to have yet another reorganisation next year because there was no forward thinking? What about learning the lessons from covid? The inquiry is not even going to start until next year, so are we going to see yet another reorganisation when we have learned the lessons from that? The only thing guaranteed from this reorganisation is that another one will surely follow shortly afterwards. So let us reject this Bill, go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that actually deals with the challenges that we have to face.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before winding up this important debate, I would like to put on the record, as I always do and as I know the shadow Minister does, our gratitude to all the staff in the NHS, social care and local government, and other key workers, for everything they have done in recent months. This Bill is evolution, not revolution. It supports improvements already under way in our NHS and it builds on the recommendations of the NHS’s own long-term plan, laying the foundations for our recovery from this pandemic. This Bill is backed by not only the NHS, but so many others working across health and care. A joint statement from the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the Local Government Association reads:
“we believe that the direction of travel set by the bill is the right one.”
It notes that working in partnership at a local level is “the only way” we can address the challenges of our time. The chief executive of Age UK has said that ICSs are to be embraced and made as effective and inclusive as they can be, and the King’s Fund is calling for us to press ahead. The list goes on; the NHS wants us to press ahead, and in the words of Lord Stevens, “The overwhelming majority of these proposals are changes the health service have asked for.” So it is vital that we in this House do right by them and by patients at this critical juncture. It is the right time for this Bill. We legislate, Opposition Members obfuscate. I remind the shadow Secretary of State of his 2017 manifesto, which stated:
“We will reinstate the powers of the Secretary of State for Health to have overall responsibility for the NHS.”
With this Bill, we put increased accountability for the Secretary of State at the heart of this, yet now the shadow Secretary of State no longer seems to agree with himself and characterises his own proposals as “meddling”. I know that he is dextrous in his politics and in his policy position, which is probably why he has survived under multiple Leaders of the Opposition, but this is stretching it a bit.
We have sought, in getting to this point, to work on a collaborative basis at every stage, and hon. Members can be reassured that we will continue to adopt that approach in the weeks ahead as we proceed with this Bill, when we hope it goes into Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his opening remarks his willingness to listen. In particular, he highlighted that in the case of ICS boundaries no decision has yet been made. As he set out, we are determined to embrace innovative potential wherever we find it. That is quite different from many of the accusations we have heard here today. I know it is tempting for some—even when they know better, and they do—to claim that it is the beginning of the end for public provision. It is not and they know it. They know it is scaremongering rather than reality. They know that there has always been an element of private provision in healthcare services in this country, and they should know that because, as the Nuffield Trust said in 2019:
“The…evidence suggests the increase”
in private provision
“originally began under Labour governments before 2010”.
The shadow Secretary of State should certainly know that because he was a special adviser in the Treasury and in No. 10 at that time.
With regard to the implementation of the Bill, the NHS itself wants, subject to legislation, to move at pace to implement statutory arrangements for ICSs by April 2022. That is why NHS England is beginning preparatory work, including publishing an ICS design framework. Further work, including on integrated care board design and consideration of appointments and staff from CCGs will take place, after Second Reading, of course; this is all subject to the passage of the Bill.
Let me turn to some of the specific points raised by hon. and right hon. Members. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about “Agenda for Change”. I can reassure her that it is not the intention that ICBs depart from “Agenda for Change”. The Bill’s drafting and wording is in line with existing arrangements for other NHS bodies with regard to “Agenda for Change” and translates it into this context. However, I am always happy to discuss that with her further if she wishes. Her suggestion that this was conceived, as she put it, in a bunker is quite simply not the case. Indeed, all the stakeholders, including the NHS, have said that this is one of the most collaborative pieces of legislation development they have seen.
Turning to the workforce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, we cannot legislate to address workforce challenges but we can and we will look very carefully at the recommendations of the Select Committee and of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
While we do not always agree on everything, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) made sensible points, although I would slightly tease her that she argued against the principle of the Secretary of State taking powers in reconfiguration and shortly afterwards her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), intervened on him asking him to do exactly that.
Edward Argar
She did.
In response to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), I am again grateful for her comments and happy to accept her kind invitation to join her on a visit to Scotland.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made a very important point. In doing so, he rightly paid tribute to the work in this space done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) with her recent private Member’s Bill. As the Secretary of State said, either he, I or the relevant Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss it further. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) was right to talk about the need for local flexibility. That is what we are seeking to do.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked more broadly about public spending constraints after 2010. He is brave, perhaps, to mention that. I recall the legacy of the previous Labour Government, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) summed up pretty effectively in saying,
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
On social care, which a number of hon. and right hon. Members mentioned, we will take no lessons from Labour. In 13 years, after two Green Papers, a royal commission and apparently making it a priority at the spending review of 2007, the net result was absolutely nothing—inaction throughout. We are committed to bringing forward proposals this year. Labour talks; we will act.
The NHS is the finest health service in the world. We knew that before the pandemic, and the last year and a half have only reinforced that. It is our collective duty to strengthen our health and care system for our times. I was shocked, although probably not surprised, that the Opposition recklessly and opportunistically intend to oppose the Bill—a Bill, as we have heard, that the NHS has asked for—once again putting political point scoring ahead of NHS and patient needs. For our part, we are determined to support our NHS, as this Bill does, to create an NHS that is fit for the future and to renew the gift left by generations before us and pass it on stronger to future generations. We are the party of the NHS and we are determined to give it what it needs, what it has asked for and what it deserves. I encourage hon. Members to reject the Opposition amendment, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I apologise to the 30 Members who did not get to speak in this important debate, some of whom are currently in the Chamber.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Health and Care Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 7th September 2021
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2021 - (7 Sep 2021)
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch off all electrical devices or turn them to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings of this Committee. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking; this is in line with Government guidance, and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space, both when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, and when officials in the Gallery communicate with Ministers, they should do so electronically. Date Time Witness Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 10.30 am NHS Employers; Health Education England Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 11.25 am NHS England and NHS Improvement Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 2.30 pm NHSX Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 3.15 pm NHS Providers; NHS Confederation Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Care Quality Commission; Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 4.45 pm Local Government Association; Faculty of Public Health Tuesday 7 September Until no later than 5.15 pm Welsh Government Thursday 9 September Until no later than 12.15 pm UNISON; British Medical Association Thursday 9 September Until no later than 1.00 pm Royal College of General Practitioners; Royal College of Nursing; Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Thursday 9 September Until no later than 2.45 pm The King’s Fund; Nuffield Trust Thursday 9 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Gloucestershire Integrated Care System; NHS Confederation’s ICS Network Advisorate Thursday 9 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Centre for Governance and Scrutiny; Centre for Mental Health Thursday 9 September Until no later than 4.30 pm Healthwatch England Thursday 9 September Until no later than 5.15 pm Association of Directors of Adult Social Services; British Association of Social Workers
We will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion enabling the reporting of written evidence for publication, and then a motion allowing us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope those matters can be decided without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Bill’s Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 7 September) meet——
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 September;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 September;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 September;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 September;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;
(j) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 27 October;
(k) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;
(l) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 to 16; Schedule 3; Clauses 17 to 25; Schedule 4; Clause 26; Schedule 5; Clauses 27 to 38; Schedule 6; Clauses 39 to 41; Schedule 7; Clauses 42 to 59; Schedule 8; Clauses 60 and 61; Schedule 9; Clauses 62 to 66; Schedule 10; Clause 67; Schedule 11; Clauses 68 to 72; Schedule 12; Clauses 73 to 93; Schedule 13; Clauses 94 to 106; Schedule 14; Clauses 107 to 118; Schedule 15; Clauses 119 to 125; Schedule 16; Clauses 126 to 135; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; and
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence received by the Committee will be circulated to its members by email and made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
If everyone is agreed, we will go into private session to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
Some of our witnesses will be giving evidence today by video link, while others will appear in person. It is helpful, particularly when witnesses are giving evidence by video link, if Members could direct their questions to specific witnesses. Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. We have until 10.30 for our first panel. Do Members wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I have no relevant interest to declare, but we are unable to see a screen. Would it be possible to erect a screen so that we can see those giving evidence?
The Chair
Yes, we can do that. As there are no witnesses giving evidence in person, it would be okay for Members to sit at the witness table, if that would be better.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I want to declare an interest as a medical practitioner, although not commonly practising, and as a member of the British Medical Association.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Likewise, I declare an interest as a serving general practitioner in the NHS, a member of the BMA and as a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
The Chair
Thank you. I am very keen that we continue this session as quickly as possible. We will now go to our witnesses. Good morning and on behalf of the Committee, thank you very much for agreeing to give evidence. Please introduce yourselves for the record.
Dr Navina Evans: Shall I go first?
The Chair
I think that would be good; ladies first.
Dr Navina Evans: My name is Navina Evans and I am chief executive at Health Education England.
Danny Mortimer: Good morning. My name is Danny Mortimer and I am the chief executive of NHS Employers, which is part of the NHS Confederation.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Members who wish to ask questions should please indicate that.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Thank you very much for the invitation to give evidence today. I am really pleased to note the prominence the Bill gives to the workforce, and the important focus on systems working together, and working together with social care. I think that implementation will work well because we can build on what we are already doing. There is a great deal of collaboration between all parts of the system, and I can give you lots of examples if you wish of how we have developed the workforce over the past few years, particularly through the pandemic. We can build on what we have done together with other parts of the system. HEE plays a unique role because we have relationships with educators, providers of healthcare, the regulators, the professional bodies and NHS employers and other partners, as well with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care. We play a convening role, and we have already used that experience, ability and capacity to develop the workforce so far. We think the Bill will enable us to build on that.
Danny Mortimer: Navina captures really well the work that is already going on, not least, as she has said, through the pandemic. My members, who are the trusts and ICSs around the country, are already trying to find ways of developing joint approaches to developing their workforce, not least with their colleagues in social care, but also by thinking about different ways in which they can recruit and perhaps make employment in the NHS more accessible to people from harder, under-served communities. Some fantastic work has been going on with the Prince’s Trust, for example, around the NHS, and that has increasingly been done through the organisations that are being formalised through this Bill.
I also think that the commitments that the Government are expected to make later today, not least around investment in social care, will help organisations to work together. We have a pressing need in the health service to invest in the longer term in our workforce, but that is even truer for our colleagues in social care. Again, that is a significant step forward today, which we hope will go even further in the spending review, in helping employers to ensure an adequate supply of people in the longer term, not least with the support of Navina’s organisation, and also by being able to innovate together in developing roles that better meet the needs of the communities they serve.
Edward Timpson
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Yes, I do. I think they build on what we have already done well and strengthen our ability to go further.
Danny Mortimer: I agree with that. I think there are some risks. At the heart of the Bill, it is formalising organisations that can lead, innovate and perhaps do things differently from each other in local areas. We have a very centralised healthcare system in this country, and one of the risks is that the vision in Bill of integration and devolution to local areas is not realised, because the centralising impetus is very strong. However, the Bill absolutely captures what has now been many years of growing collaboration and integration between health organisations but also, importantly, with our colleagues and friends in local authorities and social care.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I can give you three areas of learning that we in HEE were really pleased to see. One is around flexibility and better collaboration, which meant that our students and learners had a different kind of learning experience and also were able to contribute in a very real way to the care in service. This has led us to build on the reform agenda for education and training, and we are working with partners in education, the professional bodies and the regulators to see how we can use what we have learned to enhance that.
That is the first thing; the second thing is that we have seen quite a lot of barriers between organisations and systems being broken down. Again, that is something that we in HEE feel we should make the most of, together with partners, for future ways of working. The third area is the use of technology, digital and new ways of working. We have really moved quite significantly in how we work, including in how we learn, teach and train. Again, those are areas that we are very excited to build on. In many of them we had started before, but we accelerated during the pandemic, and we will not be going back. We will only be moving forward.
Danny Mortimer: I think that Navina captures really well that catalysing effect that the pandemic has had. I think that in many parts of the country there has been a much greater sense of there being one team within localities and communities. There have been some fantastic examples of health and social care teams coming together to respond, given the particular impact of the pandemic on social care settings and on the most vulnerable members of our communities. There is more to do, but the recognition that actually there is one workforce and one team, cutting across the NHS and other health organisations in other parts of the public service, is absolutely growing.
I think that the Bill, by formalising arrangements and stretching what is expected of systems, provides real opportunities for those systems increasingly to inform the kind of national work and planning that Navina and her colleagues lead, as well as the kind of informed work that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to take forward for health and social care.
Dr James Davies
Q
Dr Navina Evans: HEE has recently been given a ministerial commission to lead on developing a strategic framework for future workforces planning. We think that this is really timely in relation to the Bill. What we feel really matters in workforce planning is driving actions and solutions. We need to be able to identify future needs and shortages, and then ensure that the systems develop plans, but these plans need to be able to access all levers at all levels. It is quite a complicated business, but we feel that it is timely for us to pay particular attention to it.
There are a number of areas to consider. We need to look at service redesign; workforce redesign and transformation; employer roles, in terms of retention and recruitment; other supply interventions, such as international recruitment; and then—this is particularly relevant for HEE—future supply through education and training. We then want to pull the system together, through our convening role in HEE, and to have two principal ways of thinking about this: the future needs more and different, in terms of workforces and people; and we want to focus on skills, not necessarily just roles. The really critical point about this commission is that it asks us to ensure that we include the regulated social care workforce in our planning, which is a real step forward. We are looking to ensure that planning should track long-term trends in demand, that we should not be too tied to short-term fiscal cycles, and that we are prioritising supply for the whole health and care workforce.
Danny Mortimer: It is very welcome that the Department has commissioned HEE to do the work that Navina has described, but the NHS Confederation is clear, alongside a whole range of other organisations that work on behalf of the health service in particular, that clause 33 is insufficient for the task that the NHS faces in workforce planning. What it sets out, as Committee members will know, is a requirement for the Secretary of State to describe the process of workforce planning every five years. We have proposed to Parliament that that needs to move from setting out the process to actually setting out the requirements that health and social care have, and to do that much more regularly—we propose every two years.
For us, what is in the Bill is positive, because it is good to have the process described for the first time, but actually, as Dr Evans has just touched on, we need to spell out what the health and social care systems need in the longer term, but also in the immediate term. In some ways, that would mirror the work of the Office for Budget Responsibility in terms of advising the Government and Parliament about likely health and social care spending. We then need a corollary that sets out what is needed to respond to that in terms of people. Health and social care is fundamentally made up of the 3 million people who work in it. We sometimes fixate on the buildings and the technology, but it is fundamentally, in its essence, a people business. We think that that is a pressing issue, not least because of the pressures we face. That is not to say that the Government have not and do not invest in workforce numbers—significant decisions have been made in recent weeks around expanding medical school places, for example. But what we do not have is one coherent, single plan that is presented to the country and particularly to Parliament, which sets out what the NHS and our friends in social care will need to meet the demands that are being placed on us by the population, their health needs and quality of life, and also of course any priorities that the Government might set for social care and health services.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
Danny Mortimer: It is absolutely the case that the individual organisations in the NHS, social care, charitable organisations and local authorities that make up the partnership as well as the board will remain separate legal entities. We do not see that it is desirable for the NHS to move from having 250 separate employers to having 42 employers. What we have in the NHS is a set of national terms and conditions. My organisation has a particular responsibility on behalf of the Secretary of State to negotiate those with our trade union colleagues. We see that they work well for the NHS and I detect no movement among my membership to move large scale away from those national terms and conditions, which cover the vast majority of staff who work in the statutory NHS.
What we see with ICSs is that organisations are increasingly coming together to address shared challenges. We observe that those challenges are not about pay and conditions but about supply. They are about working together to think about how to promote a specific area for people to come and work in, whether that is Nottinghamshire or West Yorkshire and Harrogate, where there has been some fantastic work in promoting careers in the sector as a whole. We see people coming together to work with directly elected Mayors around the skills agenda. There has been some really fantastic work, for example, in the west midlands, with health and social care organisations coming together with local authorities. We see similar work and engagement with the Mayor of London on the skills agenda that he is taking forward. Again, that is being done by organisations working together. That helps partners—local authorities are engaging with health and social care as a team rather than dozens of separate organisations. It also helps us promote careers that span the whole range of settings that we operate in and speaks to the particular priorities of our colleagues in social care. We see some really fantastic examples of that in various parts of the country.
Finally, we see a real opportunity to take forward the work that I have just talked to Dr Davies about. Systems, as they look at their services and their knowledge of the things that they are providing in their communities to your constituents, can inform the national plans that Navina described in her answer to Dr Davies. We can have a much greater connection between local priorities and some of the decisions that are made nationally about how we invest longer term in education. Of course, the NHS workforce is about 50% degree educated or degree equivalent. So there are significant investments that the Department of Health and Social Care, the Office for Students and the education sector make in our workforce. Being able to root that in what it is that local services need and how they are developed seems to us like a fantastic opportunity, and would help us to avoid the problems that we have got into in the last couple of decades with pressure points in various parts of our workforce.
Dr Navina Evans: I will build on what Danny has just described. You have given some really good examples of how local employers are coming together in systems to address workforce issues. I would add a bit more about how we do it and how we can do it even better going forward. Health Education England has a role in developing careers and attracting young people—all people—into the health and care workforce. We play a really big part in that. First, we have found that doing that locally, at a very local level with the communities and organisations that really understand their local populations, has been a really good thing to do. Some of the examples that Danny gave have built on that and we will move forward on that.
Secondly, we have structures in which people boards, at integrated care system level and definitely at regional level, now bring collections of the different organisations together. We have systems that are starting to think about themselves as anchor systems, which means that they can influence employment, the economy and the success of local communities.
Finally, the population health issue has been something that we have really woken up to, and we are cognisant of the fact that we have to focus on and rebalance the health and wellbeing of the population. Through the pandemic, we have learned a lot more about where we need to target our efforts to reduce inequalities. That can only be done really well through collaboration at a local level. Organisations such as mine need to work closely with our partners in NHSE, with the Department and with other national organisations to make sure that we support those local efforts to be sensitive to the needs of their particular population. It is bringing the national priorities, principles and policy into life at a very local level by making sure that we have the systems and structures in place to deliver what is needed locally. We had already started working on that—the work is well under way—and the Bill will enhance our ability to get on with doing that.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
“must assist in the preparation…in this section,”
but only
“if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
You have talked about locally led decision making and planning. Do you both agree that we need better co-creation? My amendment covers the fact that a plan should be developed and agreed by stakeholders in particular. Would your organisations welcome this amendment, which would result in an annual workforce strategy and require it to be developed by all other healthcare organisations working in this sphere?
Dr Navina Evans: From HEE’s perspective, we will deliver on the duties that Parliament decides that we ought to deliver. We feel that we have the capacity and the capability. We can organise ourselves to deliver whatever is required of us by the Bill. The work that we do is lithe—it is iterative. We do iterative planning, in a meaningful way, at the national and system level, so we will be able to respond and fit in with whatever is required of us by the Bill and Parliament.
Danny Mortimer: Thank you for the question. Absolutely, there is an opportunity for the Bill to define a wider range of stakeholders. The systems at the centre of the Bill—integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships—are central to that, and their perspectives, as we have just talked about with Ms Smyth, in terms of the needs of their population and the services they need to put in place to respond to them, need to be at the centre of the process that Navina and others would lead on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is the first thing. Secondly, there is an opportunity through those systems to broaden our conversation to include social care as well as health. That is really important to us on this day of all days, in terms of the announcements later.
In terms of the regular appraisal, we absolutely believe that five years is absolutely insufficient for the task. We also believe that it cannot just be about process. It has to be about setting out clear requirements and clear specificity about those requirements over different time periods. There is something about the short-term need, and there is also something about five, 10 and 20 years. It needs to be regular. We have proposed two years because it is a huge amount of work and that feels to us to be a minimum in terms of how regular the perspective could be, but it may well lend itself to an annual update, as you have described.
We also see that organisations such as Health Education England and Skills for Care, which operates in the social care sector, absolutely have the capacity and capability to lead this work. Their way of working, similar to the Department’s way of working throughout the preparation of this Bill, is about engaging, convening and trying to bring stakeholders together to get a broad range of perspectives. That is our experience of the long-term process that Navina and her colleagues are leading on behalf of the Department at the moment. The Bill confirming that would confirm ways of working that we are starting to see develop with stakeholders in a really healthy and constructive way.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Danny Mortimer: There are important links with Wales, and of course with Scotland as well, in many parts of the country. There are a couple of things to say. The first is that there are undoubtedly things that the English system can learn, and is learning, from our colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who are taking similar approaches in terms of how they respond to the challenges we face in social care and health. In my own organisation, we represent organisations in Wales and Northern Ireland, and there is a really rich learning that we can do there.
Secondly, in practical terms, there are good lines of communication and liaison between healthcare organisations that operate along the borders that you have described. It will carry on being really important that those lines of communication, that liaison, the financial arrangements and the sharing of care between different teams on various sides of the borders continue, and we see nothing in the Bill that prevents that. If anything, we see opportunities through better co-ordination in England at a system level to be able to help patients who travel across from Wales into England, or patients who travel from Scotland into England. If anything, I think we can improve the planning and liaison through what is in this interesting Bill.
Dr Navina Evans: We already have very strong four-country relationships, particularly in the education and training space, where we make sure that we share standards, that we do planning around the curriculum and the reform of education, that we ensure quality and that we go for improvements in the way in which we support and train our future healthcare workers. In the regulation space, we work very closely with the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other bodies, to make sure that that happens. They obviously have four-country oversight, so we already work very closely with them. Also, all our professional bodies, such as the royal colleges, have to represent members from across the whole UK. In that space, there is a lot of good work that we can continue to build on, learn from and share as a result of this Bill.
Hywel Williams
Q
There is one other point I would make, and this is more philosophical than practical. The Welsh Government’s approach to health is based on a wellbeing model. It is much more proactive than other models. I hope that, philosophically, that sort of approach is useful and interesting for you, and that you will be taking full notice of it.
Danny Mortimer: The second point, in particular, is really well made. That is absolutely the focus that we see integrated care systems taking. The engagement with population health that Navina described is about trying to gear a system much more to long-term investment in the quality of people’s lives.
We have become, in recent years—even before the pandemic—much more geared towards crisis response. That is not in the best interests of the long-term health of the population. It does not help us to address the inequities that we see in our population, and that we saw very starkly during the pandemic.
Navina may be aware of the issues around workforce mobility between the four countries. The co-ordination that Navina leads, and that we have with our professional regulators, is really important. We have a shared workforce, and we have shared approaches to education as well as things such as pay and contracts. That is really important to ensuring that the job market is stable, particularly if we experience supply issues in particular geographies or parts of the workforce.
Dr Navina Evans: I have nothing to add on the movement of the workforce between the four countries, but I take the point that this is something we need to be mindful of, and I will make sure that the issue is a priority in our conversations with our counterparts in the four countries.
On wellbeing services, that is absolutely the way in which the reform of education and the curriculum is moving. Health Education England is working with partners to develop that. Our integrated care systems, and our colleagues running services who are closest to the point of care, and who know their populations best, have been saying for some time that we need to focus on wellbeing, prevention, intervening earlier and keeping people well. That is a priority for our partners in NHS England and NHS Improvement as well. We already have programmes of work to take this forward.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I will give you three points that are really important. One is the absolute priority, focus and prominence given to looking after our workforce. Again, we will build on work that we have already been doing in the last few years. For example, in the interim pupil plan, there is a very strong focus on wellbeing, culture, leadership and retention. We have been working, together with Danny’s organisation and others, on thinking with staff about retention. One thing that is really important is looking after people. There are lots of good examples of work being done all around the country to improve wellbeing and therefore retention, and to minimise or prevent burnout. This is quite high on the agenda for our partners in NHS England and NHS Improvement. It is very high on the agenda for us in HEE, because we look after our students, trainees and learners, who are also part of the workforce, and they tell us what helps to keep them well and prevent burnout. We need to start doing that work, which is part of our business, very early on.
I am pleased to say that our partners in the universities, royal colleges and other professional bodies are really mindful of this. They all have work streams around wellbeing and preventing burnout. In the Bill, we can highlight the importance of this, and build on work that is already being done to look after our staff.
The Chair
Thank you. I intend to move to the SNP spokesperson at 10.15 am, and to the Minister at 10.25; the session ends at 10.30. If we can keep questions and answers succinct, that would be appreciated.
Danny Mortimer: Noted, Mrs Murray.
I agree with everything that Navina has said, and it is a huge focus for the health service. In terms of supporting the health and wellbeing of staff, I think the Bill can go further under the terms of clause 33—it represents the conversation that we have had with them a couple of times. Absolutely we should support people and absolutely we should care for them, but if there are gaps in their rotas and in their teams that only increases the pressure on people who are already working flat-out. The pandemic has shown us starkly where those gaps and needs are, but we were experiencing them before the pandemic. There are parts of our workforce—mental health, learning disability nursing and some of our smaller allied health professions, such as therapeutic radiography—that absolutely need urgent long-term investment. We need that investment in staff as well as in the pressing need that we saw covered in social care settings and in hospitals during the pandemic. The requirement for a regular assessment of what the health and social care system requires to meet the needs of the population would help us to support that.
Justin Madders
Q
Danny Mortimer: I do not know to what extent Parliament is able to, or is willing to, pre-commit Governments to funding decisions such as you have described. Absolutely, that would bring clarity for us all in terms of what was needed, and it may well offer clarity in terms of the prioritisations that we have to make on investment in the workforce. We have seen a massive expansion in our medical workforce, particularly in hospitals, in the past 20 years, but we have not seen a similar expansion in the nursing workforce. That is not something that was clearly set out for us and for a Government to help make decisions about. I think a clearer, more effective clause 33 would help a Government to do that, and in turn help a Parliament to support a Government in that.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Navina Evans: We expect to go back to the Minister with our findings by early March. After that, we will have a clearer understanding of when we will publish our framework.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Navina Evans: From our perspective in Health Education England, our input is quite confined to the workforce planning. We are able to manage within our existing resources and to redefine and redeploy them. We are also able to work collaboratively with partners who are very willing to help us in this work.
Danny Mortimer: I cannot give you an exact figure, Mr Madders, but I can reassure the Committee that the way in which the proposed change will be implemented is much more about minimising the organisational disruption change that we have experienced with previous reforms, either the one 10 years ago or the one a decade before that. We are seeing a clear commitment to move staff who are currently employed in clinical commissioning groups—the Bill will disband those groups—to the new ICS organisations. That is a very positive way of managing the change rather than that experienced previously, which was hugely time-consuming in terms of management time and hugely unsettling for vital staff in terms of planning services. We are avoiding the problems that we faced in the past. Amanda and her colleagues at NHS England are to be commended for the proportionate and sensible manner in which they are looking to implement the changes, especially in terms of how they impact on people and organisations.
Justin Madders
Thank you. For the last minute, I am going to hand over to my colleague.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Danny Mortimer: We have a really constructive set of relationships in the NHS with our trade unions, on both terms and conditions and the social partnership forum, which the Minister’s colleague Helen Whately chairs and which brings trade unions and employers together.
There is an interest in how the health service organises itself, and there is an interest in how the health service and our friends in social care can better work together to relieve the pressure that our colleagues were experiencing even before the pandemic. Of course, there are other things that people are interested in as well. There are outstanding questions about long-term pay strategy, and there are other issues around working environments and support that Navina touched on. Those are really important as well.
There is a recognition, when I speak to trade union leaders and representatives, of the opportunities available through system working to improve service delivery, and therefore to help their committed members do their jobs better and relieve the pressure that they have been under for far too long.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Navina Evans: Thank you for the question. It is for Parliament to decide what goes into the Bill. We will, of course, work accordingly with the duties. We already work with the four nations around the foundation year programmes, we share a lot of intelligence and recruitment work and we are continuously looking for ways to strengthen that. It is an important priority for us to share learning and recruitment between countries.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I see that we are addressing exactly those problems around where people go to do their jobs and where the placements are. Having to travel to get the right training jobs is something that we have been grappling with for a very long time in Health Education England, and I remember that we were grappling with it when I was a trainee. That is something that we focus on anyway, and if it were to be strengthened in the Bill we would, of course, look at the duties that were expected of HEE in terms of working across the four nations to solve this issue. We would be building on what we are already doing to address that.
Dr Whitford
Q
Danny Mortimer: Thank you, Dr Whitford; there are a couple of things there. On the geographical changes, what ICS leaders wanted was clarity. They have now been given that by the Department and NHS England, and they will move forward and can adapt accordingly.
On the impact on the frontline, throughout the pandemic, and increasingly before it, we saw a much greater sense of teamwork across some of the boundaries that we can create between parts of the health service, and between the health service and other public services. There is an opportunity to accelerate that in lots of our settings. That will be a positive. It will help people care better for their patients. Most importantly, it will help patients and their families to have a much more seamless experience.
This is not a magic thing—you know yourself how complicated the hand-offs and transitions between different teams can sometimes be—but this Bill formalises the recognition that we have had over recent years in England that to start to properly and truly focus on what individuals need, we have to have better co-ordination between our teams. It is not about the institution first; it is about the team first, and obviously most importantly the patient first. The absolute opportunity for us is to do those things better for the patients in between our services.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Whitford
This is the last question.
On the health services safety investigations body, I was on the pre-legislative Committee, where there was an aim of protecting the safe space disclosures quite thoroughly to ensure staff had the confidence to discuss very sensitive issues. In the version that is in this Bill, much more is covered by safe space protection, but then there are exemptions such as the coroner. Although staff can be summoned and made to give evidence, if they feel that that will end up being shared through a lot of disclosure exemptions, do you think they will really believe that that space is protected, in the way it is in the airline sector?
Danny Mortimer: There is a very difficult balance that health service leaders know they need to strike. The requirements around transparency to the public are much higher for the health services and for people such as you and Dr Evans, as health service practitioners. The coroner’s ability to review what happened is a really important step for families, and we are very respectful of that.
What the Bill does—this is how it describes the investigations branch—is to build on work that the NHS and the Government have been taking forward since Robert Francis’s inquiry into whistleblowing to ensure that we have cultures, practices and processes that enable people to be candid and open without fear of consequence, in terms of what has happened. We realise that that is how we learn and improve. We also realise that have a lot of work to do to help all parts of our workforce—clinical and non-clinical—feel much more comfortable and supported to raise concerns, give feedback and be honest about what happened. As you will know, there is an enormous amount of work going on across the four countries to create those kinds of cultures, but at the same time, we also recognise that we have that responsibility in terms of transparency to the public, and to patients and their families.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
Dr Navina Evans: I will start with the opportunities. We in HEE are really pleased to see that workforce is prioritised in the way that it has been. For us, that means that there is an expectation and an understanding of the need to tackle complex issues of future workforce planning, and that is hugely important. We can do it; it is a difficult task, but through collaboration and bringing people together, it is something that we simply must do, so that we can have more and different, and we can be really future-focused and progressive in the way that we deliver health and care. It is all down to our workforce. So that is the huge opportunity, as we see it.
There are risks. For us, one risk is that too much bureaucracy and added layers of hoops will get in the way, and the other risk is that we have to work hard to make sure that we address culture and collaboration to make this truly successful.
Danny Mortimer: The opportunity, we believe—along with colleagues across the health service—is in clause 33, going further and deeper there in terms of the assessment of need, as well as an assessment or a description of process. Clearly, what legislation cannot do is set out the kinds of behaviours that make that a well-informed and inclusive process. To reassure the Committee, though, what I do see is that the way of working we experienced during the development of this Bill, the way of working we are experiencing with Dr Evans in terms of the process she is leading at the moment—the long-term framework—is inclusive. It is trying to bring different voices in. Difficult decisions may well need to be made about prioritisation, and we understand that, but that is much easier to do and much easier to understand if it is based in that kind of process and behaviour. However, clearly, that is one of the risks.
As I have already said, we have had an increasingly centralised healthcare system over these last few years, and that is also one of the risks. If we stifle the local leadership and local innovation, and if we do not seek that local input in terms of how the development of local services needs to inform, in particular, the long-term planning for workforce, then that is a real risk for the legislation.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Navina Evans: We in HEE think this is absolutely the right time to be doing this. We are at a moment where we have a lot of learning from what we have been through this last year. We have a real opportunity where many different pieces around innovation and improvement are coming together, and we have learned a lot from our previous experience of delivering the Health and Care Bill. For us, we think that this is absolutely the right moment to be doing this work.
Danny Mortimer: We would agree. NHS Confederation members were clear about the need for this approach before the pandemic, and I think that is even more pressing because of the pandemic. Actually, given the announcements that the Prime Minister is expected to make later today, it reinforces that need to better integrate health and social care, so the timing is very good.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. As there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Amanda Pritchard and Mark Cubbon gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England, and Mark Cubbon, the chief operating officer of NHS England and NHS Improvement. Both witnesses are appearing via Zoom, and we will run this session until 11.25 am. Could the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Amanda Pritchard: Good morning. I am Amanda Pritchard, the chief executive of NHS England.
Mark Cubbon: Good morning. My name is Mark Cubbon, and I am the interim chief operating officer at NHS England and NHS Improvement.
Karin Smyth
Q
We have just heard some interesting evidence, and I want us to be very specific about our terminology when we refer to integrated care systems, integrated care partnerships and the integrated care board. In your view, who is accountable for the spending in my local area under the new arrangements? Approximately £1.5 billion is spent in the local area. In the new system, who is accountable for that spend?
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you. If I start, Mark can come in and add. In the new proposals, the integrated care board carries the statutory responsibility, on behalf of the NHS, for the allocation of spending, performance management and the delivery of NHS services within the system. That, of course, has a delegated set of responsibilities, as per the current commissioning arrangements, down to individual organisations—be they groups of GPs, hospitals or community services— for the spend within those organisations, but the accountable part of the system is the integrated care board. As the proposals set out, it has a very important relationship with the integrated care partnership, but without the line accountability for the funding flowing through that part of the structure.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: In the current structure, they are accountable through the NHS—sorry, not the current structure, because you are talking about the future structure. In the proposed future structure, they would be accountable to a combined NHS England and NHS Improvement structure. At the moment, we operate that through seven regions, and then through to the national NHSEI executive. We are, in turn, accountable to Parliament.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: We have a clear accountability to Parliament through the Secretary of State in the current structure, and the Bill is not proposing that that will change. The other thing that we should say is that CCGs have a clear accountability to involve the public and patients in their decision making. Again, in the current proposals, that responsibility would transfer through to the new integrated care system, and particularly the integrated care board. While we just talked about formal line accountability, that does not detract from the clear expectation that flows through, that the integrated care board would have accountability to involve the public and to consult with them. The transparency that is expected now of the CCGs and NHS organisations is written into the expectations and would flow through to the expectations of the new integrated care boards.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I do not believe, although I may ask Mark to come in on the detail, that there is any proposed change to those arrangements. Mark, would you like to pick this one up?
Mark Cubbon: Thank you, Amanda. I am not aware that there is any significant change proposed by the Bill to the arrangements in place at the moment.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I will give you a headline answer, because I think this is really important. Part of what we would welcome in the Bill is that, by working as a system, one of the things that all partners will want to do is to come round the table together to make some of those important decisions about where the investment goes. In particular, if we are thinking about capital, I know there are examples already of where organisations have chosen to invest in community estate, additional diagnostics facilities or other parts of primary care estate. In fact, Mark and I were on a visit a few weeks ago to an ICS where they were telling us about some of the work they have done on that.
Moving to looking at system funding envelopes, particularly around capital, allows much more flexibility about how some of that resource is used in the interests of the whole population and the whole health system, rather than, at the moment, where putting things into slightly more siloed funding arrangements can end up being detrimental to certain parts of the system.
That comes back to some of the guiding principles of why the NHS has welcomed, certainly, the thrust of these proposals where integrated care is concerned, because it is all about building on some of the direction of travel that has been in the NHS for some time about trying to work much more collaboratively together. This helps remove some of the barriers that currently exist, for local systems to do that.
Karin Smyth
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Through the existing capital allocation processes. Rather than just going to each individual organisation to then make their own decisions about how they spend it, it would now go through the ICB, so there is a process that allows consideration in the round of how the system spends that money most effectively on behalf of its entire population.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Again, I will ask Mark to add to this if he would like to. At the moment, the proposal is that funding would go formally through the integrated care board. The expectation is that, in developing the constitution and the detailed ways of working for each integrated care board, they would describe how the decision making is done, at not just the ICB level, but the place level, with the expectation that part of the principle would be subsidiarity.
If you are looking at the most sensible place for making decisions, for big, strategic investment the oversight of the overall allocative decision making may well sit best at ICB level; if you are talking about something that might have more of a borough footprint—thinking about London—you would want a lot of the decisions about local services, community primary care services and capital decision making to support those local initiatives to be made there. There would be a number of layers within the ICB involved in that decision making, but ultimate accountability would sit with the ICB itself.
Mark Cubbon: The only thing I would add is that this is essentially why we are bringing leaders together to form the ICS body. The key thing will be how the resources allocated to that ICS can be deployed in such a way that strategic objectives can be delivered. The allocation down to place, as you have said, is important so that decision making can be as local as possible to where the service is, so clinicians and frontline staff can make the changes they want in order to deliver improved outcomes for their patients.
Jo Gideon
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I will start off, but Mark has led the work for NHS England and NHS Improvement on developing guidance to support local systems exactly in the area you ask about, on how to bring this to life and plan now for what we hope will be legislation coming into effect in April ’22. I do not want to steal his thunder on any of this.
One thing we warmly welcomed in the proposed legislation, and something we have heard about time and time again from our key stakeholders, is the flexibility. There is a minimum mandated legal set of requirements and structures, but, as you say, also an expectation that local systems will develop for themselves the structures and ways of working that make most sense for them. This is an obvious point, but what will work in Devon will by necessity look quite different from what you would want to put in place in somewhere such as Greater Manchester.
On behalf of our stakeholders, we have already welcomed the flexibility around that that has been described, but we have rightly said that, in addition to the suggested roles written into the legislation, there are some roles we would expect to see included on boards—we describe this as “mandatory guidance”. We have used that partly as an opportunity to pick up on exactly the point you make about clinical leadership and clinical representation. As a national health service, it is clearly right that we ensure that we have that strength of clinical voice.
At the moment, the mandatory guidance describes the need for a medical director and a director of nursing in addition to the expectation written into the legislation, which is that there would already be a representative from primary care as part of that ICB. Mark, you have done all the work thinking about how this is going to work in practice; do you want to pick up on that?
Mark Cubbon: Right at the core of the new working arrangements, we believe that clinical decision making and clinical input and engagement are an essential part of how the new arrangements will be put in place, so that frontline clinicians can shape how services should look and be involved in the planning and delivery of those services. In the guidance that we have put out, we are leaving a lot of flexibility for the ICB to bring in the appropriate number of clinical professionals to support those endeavours, and that is in the shaping of services, the planning and the execution of plans to deliver them.
While we talk a lot about doctors and nurses, there are 14 other allied health professions, and it is quite difficult to allow everyone to have a seat around the top table. We are strongly encouraging all ICBs to ensure that they have the right level of engagement and the right forum in place to ensure that the voices of all those professionals can be incorporated in the development of plans to deliver better services for patients and improve outcomes for members of the community. That is what we are asking all the organisations to do, and it has all been built on evidence that we have gathered from the clinical community over quite an extensive period of engagement. In fact, we published the guidance that Amanda referenced only last week, and it refers to the importance of clinical leadership at all levels: where the services are delivered at place; where services are planned for more local arrangements in the way that we have described; and then sitting more strategically at the ICS board as well.
Dr James Davies
Q
Amanda Pritchard: On a positive, it is great that so many people want a seat on the boards, because I think that actually shows the level of engagement in ICSs. In practice, this is a very organic development from where the NHS has been since 2016, when we first started talking about STPs, as they were known then. This has been very pragmatic, bottom-up and testing as we go, and it now feels as though it is very much with the grain of where the NHS is.
I am not surprised, but I am really pleased, that so many different groups want to be involved. The balance that Mark has just described, which I think the legislation gets right at the moment, is in recognising that to be functional, we have to have the right number of people around the table. At one point we added up how many there would be if you allowed everybody who wanted one a formal seat at the table, and I think Cheshire and Merseyside ended up with 63 people who would be formal members of the board. That is completely unworkable.
It is about trying to find a balance that says, “Let’s be clear what you must have. Let’s use the opportunity that we have through NHSEI to introduce both mandatory guidance—things that people have to do—and guidance that sets out what we would consider to be best practice.” We have been very clear about, for example, the need to have arrangements in place to hear from all those terribly important stakeholders, and indeed for some of the duties, as I have mentioned already, that CCGs continue to carry around engagement with patients and the public, which is the other critical voice that we do not want to lose in any of this. That is the right balance, because it allows us to use some of those tools to keep some safeguards in place to give some clear direction, but it does not try to end up with either a one-size-fits-all solution for ICBs or something that is just unworkable because of the scale.
The Chair
Thank you. I believe Mr Edward Timpson indicated that he wanted to ask a question.
Edward Timpson
Q
Amanda Pritchard: This absolutely, again, falls into the category of formalising, in large parts, the way NHSEI already works, but removing some of the slightly more bureaucratic and legal barriers that we have in place at the moment. I came in two years ago as the chief executive of NHS Improvement and into Mark’s role as the chief operating officer of NHS England at the same time. Certainly, my experience over the last two years has been that, in practice, NHSE and NHSI really do work, to all intents and purposes, as a single organisation—but, as I say, with some of the bureaucracy that is still around that—and that has been absolutely essential over the last 18 months, particularly through the pandemic.
NHS leadership absolutely has to speak with one voice and has to be able to have consistent decision making. We have to have a way of managing, where this comes up, the tensions that sometimes arise between different parts of the system, but also leading in practice that integrated working and joined-up approach, right from the top. It was really only, I think, the 2012 Act that brought in the separation formally, legally, so in a sense what we are doing is stepping back to something that was always the way the NHS worked prior to that. As I say, we are really now just formalising the way things currently work, and have needed to work over the last 18 months or two years.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Also, I wanted to ask for your views on the duties for the ICBs, particularly around research and innovation. It may be a terminology issue, but the duty to promote innovation and to promote research, through the ICBs, is only
“on matters relevant to the health service”
or
“in the provision of health services”.
It does not cover the care system. I would have thought that when we look at the very definition of an integrated care board, it should actually be promoting research and also innovation when it comes to the care system, as well as health services. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on that.
Amanda Pritchard: It is a very good reflection on the importance of education as one of the key partners that would absolutely come round the table. I think that is where the ICS structure really helps us as well, because it allows that broader partnership construct, including education and local authorities. I would say—again, from some of the visits I have done recently—that people are really clear about the importance of things such as housing as part of the partnership, as colleagues would expect. Lots of people with different perspectives and different important roles in the system absolutely need to come together around that broader ICS structure, I think, to really give us the maximum benefit from the legislation that is proposed.
To pick up specifically on education, you are right to say that there are two parts to it. Clearly, there is a role for education providers, whether that is schools, universities or other providers. Part of what we have written into the expectation of ICSs in this core role, which is about contributing to the broader economic and social inequalities agenda within their own area, speaks directly to that. That is as much about education, training and employment within health and care as it is, of course, about the wider economy. The NHS, as an anchor institution in many parts of the country, can be an important player in that as well; so it is very clearly our expectation that education will be a key partner in all those different ways.
On research and innovation, as you have rightly noted, there is again a carry-over from the CCG responsibilities, which carry over into integrated care. We have made it clear in guidance that we see this as a really critical opportunity. Certainly, that is not and should not be limited to health. However, again, we have seen during the pandemic in the last 18 months that the power of bench-to-bedside translational research could not have been clearer, as well as the opportunities now to write in, right from the start—certainly through what we have been doing on guidance—the expectation that that research would be strongly supported and encouraged by integrated care systems as they go forward. Again, that is absolutely with the grain of what the health service wants to do and intends to do. Mark, did you want to add to that?
Mark Cubbon: Just two key points. With universities, we would expect them to be heavily engaged at place level. We have recently published some guidance with the LGA, which considered how we get place-based activities and partnerships so that we have places thriving—the guidance is called “Thriving places”. We also talk about the benefits of the university sector being involved with place-based arrangements, to do all the things that Amanda just set out.
Therefore, we certainly expect that local arrangements and local dialogue, co-ordination and planning around education for local communities can help with recruitment and the workforce contribution that it can make, but also for the betterment of the local community itself.
We would also expect, probably at partnership level, some university input, whether from an academic health science network or indeed colleagues at NIHR. We have recently been doing sessions with NIHR to talk about how to ensure that our clear ambition for this translational research and this health and care research can really be brought to the fore. It is a key pillar of activity that has seen us through some really difficult times during the pandemic and one that will also be essential as part of our recovery.
The Chair
Thank you. We now move to the shadow Minister, Mr Justin Madders, and Mr Alex Norris.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: One of the really important things in all of this, of course, is that we do not over-claim for what the Bill will achieve. If I look at what has happened in the NHS over the last 18 months to two years, it is absolutely clear to me that the ability to work together has been critical to the ability of the country to respond to covid, and the opportunity now to strengthen those arrangements, write them into legislation and remove some of the barriers that exist will be an important factor in helping the health service now, in partnership with local government, education and others that we have talked about, absolutely to recover from the challenges of the last year and to continue to build on those really strong local arrangements that have been such a hallmark of the way that things have worked over the last couple of years.
But of course, that is only one part of what it will take for the NHS to respond to the challenges that we have at the moment. It is absolutely right that the NHS staff, who have worked so tirelessly over the past two years and of course beyond to look after what we now know are over 400,000 covid in-patients, get the backing and the funding they need, not just to deal with what is very much still with us, with covid in our hospitals and communities right now, but absolutely to make sure that we are as front-foot as possible in tackling the inevitable backlogs that have built up over the past couple of years.
There is a complex set of things. Workforce is critical: the support we give to the people who have already done so much for us—we continue to invest in them and support them, so that we have the right pipeline for new staff joining, the right skills and the right support. Then there is the funding that we need to do the work that we have, and the capital funding to invest in some of the transformation that has already begun and needs to continue. But also, I think the Bill provides us with the framework to continue to support that really powerful local joint working that we have seen over the last two years, and which we are already seeing really at the heart of the covid recovery within the NHS and more broadly.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: It is worth saying that there are some big unknowns in the position at the moment. We just do not know, really, how covid is going to play out over the next few months and years. One of the things that colleagues have talked about, and are very aware of, is that a lot of people did not come forward for care over the past two years. One of the messages that I would like to give again is that, for anyone who is concerned about symptoms, the NHS is absolutely open for business. Please do come forward and seek diagnosis, treatment and support.
We do not know, as we sit here today with two big variables, quite how things are going to play out. What we can say for certain is that today we have over 6,000 people with covid in hospitals. It is costing the NHS more both to care for those patients safely, with all of the infection control arrangements that need to be in place—
The Chair
Thank you for that, but I just remind the shadow Minister to keep within the scope of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Actually, in some ways that does link to what I was just saying, because—you would expect me to say this—just to reflect the reality of where we are now, covid is still with us, but we also have a real commitment and opportunity to lean in now to that recovery of routine services. I think success looks clearly like we now have the platform right to be able to continue to evidence that local partnership working is really making a difference. What does that mean? It means partnership in practice, both to deal with the current challenges that the NHS is facing and will continue to face, and to start to show that we can really eat into the backlog of routine care that we know is with us and make the commitment, which I know is felt so deeply across the NHS, to tackling inequalities and really trying to think about some of those long-term planning commitments that talked about prevention and outcomes.
We want to see progress against all those things, but we also want to continue to support local systems, as they have been all the way through, to partner together to continue to deliver things such as the vaccine programme in really innovative ways. For me, this is all about putting the NHS on a firmer statutory footing, whereby partnership becomes the way that we do things, building on what has happened over the last few years and removing any remaining barriers that we know exist and which stop us progressing with the really important job now of improving care for the population and for our patients.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you for that, because from the NHS perspective, the reason we have been supportive, particularly of the integration parts of the Bill, is that it is all about what it enables us to do for patients. Mark and I have done a lot over the last few weeks and months. We have seen so many examples in practice of where it is about the ability to work in partnership, whether that is about mental health crisis lines that are partly delivered through the voluntary sector, with a bit of funding from the NHS, but with support from specialists and mental health trusts as well as primary care. It is about coming together to create those sorts of innovative services, whether it is children’s and young people’s services, such as in south-east London, or whether it is in schools, picking up where children and families have medical and health problems. It is about linking them to the right support within local government, housing and so forth.
That is the sort of thing that we have seen develop over the last few years. As I say, it has been turbocharged through covid, but what we now want to do—this is the critical part of the legislation—is to make that easier. We want to make it the norm and allow people the right opportunities to come together and think about what their population needs and what will make services. It is back to the triple aim of improving the health of the population, the quality of care for patients and the sustainability of services. But ultimately, it is about being able to work together to set up those sorts of innovative arrangements, to see them embedded in practice and to see the NHS working in an integrated way around individuals as the norm. Let me bring in Mark, because this is absolutely his operational space.
Mark Cubbon: Thank you, Amanda. Going back to what patients can expect to see, I think they can expect our local integrated care systems to continue all the efforts to engage with our communities and talk about how we are planning to provide more joined-up care for our communities, because that is one of the key benefits that we will get from the new arrangements. There will be fewer hand-offs in care and fewer organisational boundaries for patients to bump into occasionally, so that we can have joined-up conversations and talk about how things are going to be better. Our local systems, leaders and clinicians will be better placed, so that we really face into and talk about how we will reduce the inequalities and deliver better outcomes. That engagement will be really important, and I think we will build on what works well at the moment and continue to make sure that the patient point is front and centre of all that we are trying to do. We have clinicians leading the charge, in terms of the delivery of those services.
Justin Madders
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Mark, do you want to pick this one up? I know you have been leading on this issue for us.
Mark Cubbon: I will indeed. This is definitely a different change from 2012, and probably different from any other changes that have been put in place in previous times as well. We are very much approaching this in the way that we have done. From the outset, we have given a clear message and reassurance to staff who are working in CCGs on job security, so that they know that almost all posts, and the individuals holding those posts, will transfer over to the new organisations. There are not big redundancy bills attached to these changes. We very much want to make sure that the job security is there and that the roles are transferred—
Justin Madders
Q
Mark Cubbon: We do not have a figure for all the changes, but we know that the CCG cost envelope, which is attributed to every CCG as it stands at the moment, is the cost envelope that will be allocated to each of the ICSs as well. We are not expecting the running costs to be significantly different from those that we have for CCGs.
Dr Whitford
Q
Mark Cubbon: The ICB is essentially how the NHS leaders come together specifically to oversee how resources are allocated and how the NHS delivers its side of the bargain, in terms of how the rest of the ICS works and is able to support integration. The ICP—the partnership—is where we bring together other partners who will have a view, an input and a role to play in that integration agenda. That is essentially, at a very high level, the separation of the partnership and the ICB itself.
On how we get representative views from the whole breadth of the clinical community, again this was published in our guidance—we have further guidance that was published last week—which talks about the clinical community, based on all the engagement that has been done so far. The kind of arrangements that we are very likely to see are where we have clinical reference groups and clinical boards that start to shape all the representative views that give a holistic perspective on how services should be planned and how we should be delivering services for our patients and communities.
Although not every individual will have a seat around the board or partnership table, we are advising the boards and clinicians across the whole footprint to ensure there is deep-rooted engagement. We are trying to galvanise the clinical community and get consensus on the direction of travel in terms of how services should be delivered for patients to deliver better outcomes. That is what we are encouraging our local ICSs to do. We are giving as much guidance as possible, but it will be down to this local flexibility so that our clinicians locally can start to work out how they best come together to do all the things I just set out.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I am happy to, and Mark may well want to add. You are absolutely right that when the NHS went out to consult as part of the exercise that we undertook back in February, we were describing a single board structure at that moment. It is a change that we proposed to Government on the back of the stakeholder feedback that we had, particularly from the LGA, which suggested the dual board structure, partly because it gives the real clarity, as we talked about earlier, about where the money flows and where the accountability for NHS service delivery sits. It therefore allows a wider partnership to play in, with a particular view to all the other aspects of population health and the wider agenda. That is not where we started, but it is where we now feel very comfortable, in response to the strong stakeholder feedback.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Again, you are absolutely right, and that is a risk, which is why we started where we did. What is now described—the requirement to have regard to and respond to that overarching strategy—is the safeguard that means you cannot have the NHS in any way separated from that broader ICS structure, and from that wider strategy for which the partnership will be responsible. As we have discussed, I am not expecting that that will necessarily be the only way in which wider partners are brought into the ICB, but the fact that there will be a local government seat on the ICB is another important way that stops the NHS just working on its own.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: It has quite a specific, technical meaning, so from our point of view we would understand that to be a very clear direction.
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: I might let Mark come in on this, because it is something that we have thought a lot about. You are absolutely right that the purpose of all of this is to make sure that we are improving care and services to patients, but with regard to that triple A, it is also of course about the sustainability of services and the broader population health challenge. Part of the structure that the Bill will allow us to put in place on things such as the provider collaboratives absolutely begins to put back firmly at the core of how we do our business procedures such as the clinical peer review.
We have now got the data through things such as GIRFT, which means that we can incorporate it formally in a structure that brings together the providers and also crosses pathways, so that we are not dealing with acute on its own, or with mental health or primary care on its own. We can then look at each against best practice and see how different parts of the system are performing, assess some of the challenges and collectively think about how to come together to secure improvement. That is already happening, but the Bill will allow us to make that much more at the core of how the systems approach local improvement. Mark, would you like to add to that?
Dr Whitford
Q
Amanda Pritchard: Yes. There is still a huge amount of national audit work that does take place. Thank you for mentioning GIRFT, because we do have some other really important improvement programmes that are very data driven, which have an important place in this conversation. We certainly see the proposed legislative changes as a real opportunity to bake that way of working in, not just nationally but through systems coming together to do it as part of their local activity as well.
Dr Whitford
Mark, do you have anything to add very briefly?
Mark Cubbon: One of the major changes is a move away from competition to much more collaboration, and that is one of the things that the Bill sets out. That is what we believe in and what people are looking for, from what we hear from the service. With that collaboration what we start to see is much more accessible input from people and organisations, so that we can share and learn from each other and start to instil the best practice that we see in one part of an ICS, and have the opportunity to discuss that and see how it can benefit other parts of the ICS, and so reduce variation and deliver much more consistent care to patients.
Before I started my job at NHSEI, I was chief executive of an acute hospital on the south coast. While there have always been opportunities for colleagues to come together and discuss how best to approach a challenge, and to ensure opportunities for sharing good practice and learning from each other, the Bill starts to take down barriers and is much more enabling than what came before. Yes, of course clinicians have informal ways of coming together to look at how changes can benefit patients, but these structures are intended to allow a much greater exchange of ideas, which will be of great benefit to patients; hopefully we can start to implement those ideas at greater speed.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that there will be a hard stop at 11.25 am. If witnesses could keep their answers as brief as possible, it would be much appreciated.
Edward Argar
Q
If I recall correctly, your predecessor, now Lord Stevens, says that about 85% of provisions in the Bill were things that the NHS asked for in its 2019 consultation. Do you recognise that figure, and how would you characterise the approach that has been adopted to the development of the Bill?
Amanda Pritchard: Thank you. I would struggle to give an exact percentage, but the Bill certainly contains widely supported proposals for integrated care. We have been working very closely with our stakeholders, colleagues across the system, you and others to ensure, as far as possible, the same approach to consultation, listening and hearing. You cannot please everybody all the time, but we want to reflect what feels genuinely like a consensus view about what will best help the NHS deliver on all the challenges we have discussed. That is reflected in the Bill, so thank you for that. As it goes through Parliament, we very much want to continue to see that spirit of joint working, consensus building and engagement, so that when it hopefully becomes legislation in April ’22, it lands with all the support that I think it currently has.
Edward Argar
Q
Amanda Pritchard: As I said, I genuinely think that our experience across covid has strengthened the argument for moving to legislation now, because our way of working in the past two years has been characterised by integration and partnership, and that is how the NHS and partners need and want to work—now and as we head into next year, facing that set of challenges that people are so very committed to continuing to tackle together. Yes, Minister, I think this is an important Bill. The integration agenda is not the whole answer, but it is an important component of it, and the sooner it comes, the better.
Edward Argar
Q
Mark Cubbon: All I would say is that collaboration and partnership work is a key feature of our response to covid. It is ever more critical, in the light of the question of how we will approach our recovery. Fantastic working has been enabled locally through necessity; now, we hear from the whole service that we want to build on that. We look forward to the future with that in mind; the Bill allows us to do that.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our morning sitting. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in this room to take further evidence.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 7th September 2021
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 September 2021 - (7 Sep 2021)
The Chair
This is the third panel. We will now hear from Simon Madden, the director of data policy at NHSX, who is appearing in person. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Good afternoon, Mr Madden. Could I ask you to introduce yourself for the record?
Simon Madden: Good afternoon. I am Simon Madden, director of data policy, NHSX.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Simon Madden: We have obviously set out the position. The Government have set out the position in respect of GP data for planning and research, in terms of taking a pause and having a conditions-based approach, rather than a clear timeline for the commencement of that. Above all else, I think that the overriding need for trust and transparency—to build public trust in the use of health data—is vitally important, and the ways in which this is governed need to be transparent in such a way that the general public can see quite easily how their data will be used.
Indeed, I think it is a responsibility on Government and those of us in the health and care system more broadly to really promote the benefits of sharing data. It is a public good and, while putting in place sufficient safeguards and then giving the public the opportunity to opt out of that process if they are not convinced by those safeguards, it remains a public good and contributes to the broader health, if I can put it that way, of the health and care system.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: Essentially, they are separate in terms of process. The general public will not make a distinction between any things to do with their health data. Whether it is the draft data strategy that we published earlier in the year or the GP data for planning and research programme, to the general public it is about their health data.
It is incumbent on us to make sure that we have a strong narrative that reflects all aspects of health data. We need to reset the relationship between the patient—the citizen—and their health data, so that a perception does not arise that we are taking their trust for granted, because that is certainly not the case. The provisions in the Bill around data are meant, to some degree, to provide clarification where there is some confusion in the current framework about how and when data could be shared.
The Chair
I will come to you in a second, Karin. I am just trying to balance it between the respective parties.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Q
Simon Madden: I completely understand that. We have to be very clear about what we mean by “commercial companies”, because pharmaceutical companies that develop treatments and vaccines are also commercial companies.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: I get that, but there is no doubt that, in order to improve treatments, we need to contribute to research in some way.
You are absolutely right. It goes back to my trust and transparency point. One of the things that we signalled in the data strategy particularly was a movement towards trusted research environments. That is crucial. In some ways, what we have announced on GP data for planning and research is an acceleration of that work. We have said that data will not be shipped around or disseminated; it will be accessed only within the confines of a secure, trusted research environment, with full transparency about who has access, who runs what queries, and so on. It will be held and will not be shared. That is the general direction of travel that we want to see, and that is why we set that out in the data strategy.
We do not have to make a choice now between enabling access to data, or sharing data, and protecting privacy. Technology has allowed us to create environments where it is perfectly possible for data to be accessed safely and securely, with strict safeguards, without privacy being compromised.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: Data will not be handed over in a trusted research environment; it is only accessed in one place.
Dr Whitford
Q
Simon Madden: I completely understand. That is why I mentioned that it is incumbent on us to have not only the right safeguards in place but the right narrative and to engage with the public so that they understand what those safeguards are, how they operate and how they can opt out of the system. One of the things we have been looking at in developing the final version of the data strategy following the engagement is how we can do much more on public trust and transparency. It is not just about a one-off marketing campaign; it is about an ongoing public dialogue and involvement of the public in future policy considerations. Again, it goes back to that resetting point; I think this is a reset moment. Technology now allows us to go that bit further than we have ever been able to go before in terms of protecting privacy, but we have to be in a stronger position to explain that to the public and how it all works.
Karin Smyth
Q
Simon Madden: Forgive me, but I will take full advantage of the fact that I was not there and have not seen the statement that the Prime Minister made. A feature of our plans set out in the data strategy—not so much in terms of the Bill itself—is for each integrated care system to have a basic shared care record, so that throughout their whole health and care journey a patient or citizen does not have to do simple things like repeat test results or repeat their prescriptions, and so that their care journey between health and social care, with provisions for safeguarding and safeguarding information, is seamless.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I will ask a couple of questions, if I may, Mr McCabe, and then perhaps the hon. Member for Nottingham North can come back in if we have time. Moving away from what has been explored by colleagues so far on the extremely important protections around data sharing and data use, can you set out how the changes set out in the Bill relate to and will help you deliver the data strategy that you have in place?
Simon Madden: It is important to set out that these provisions alone, while they do much within the Bill, must be seen in the context of that wider data strategy. They support our ambitions, and the integration and collaboration that is described in the Bill will be a huge enabler for the ambitions set out in the strategy itself.
The provisions themselves focus to some extent on tidying things up and providing a degree of clarification. I mentioned the provisions for clarifying NHS Digital powers: currently, there is sometimes confusion around what data NHS Digital can share and in what circumstances it can share it. Sometimes, that leads to problems when data may need to be shared for very good reasons—for justifiable reasons—but NHS Digital is sometimes not convinced that it has the legal power to be able to share the data. This puts beyond doubt its ability to share data appropriately.
Another provision is on information standards. We are making a provision in the Bill to mandate standards for the storage and collection of data. That is important to ensure that data can flow between different IT systems and organisational boundaries in the health and care system. That will then help individual patients and improve health outcomes. We want to ensure that providers of health and care services purchase only technology that adheres to that set of standards, so that we have that interoperability, and those improved outcomes for patients, through that mandation of information standards.
We have also put in clauses around sharing anonymous health and care information, which help to essentially set a duty to share anonymous information when it is legally permitted to do so. One of the lessons that we have learned over the pandemic has been that, although it is perfectly permissible for data to be shared—it is legally permissible to do so—the shift from “can” to “should” has a great impact within the system.
Our invoking of the control of patient information regulations under existing legislation, to enable that sharing of data and to say, “You should share data in these circumstances,” has significantly helped the free flow of data safely and securely within the health system. That has had an impact on patient care. I think that the duty to share anonymous data will help to put on a more permanent footing some of those provisions that we have seen during the pandemic.
Edward Argar
Q
Simon Madden: I think it is a fair reflection, to a certain degree. I think that the thing that we must always be conscious of, particularly in the field of data and technology, is that we see advances but legislation often does not keep up with those advances. It is about ensuring that everyone understands their responsibilities—not just that the public understands the responsibilities of organisations that are safeguarding data, but that those organisations themselves have the right powers to be able to share data safely and securely. I think it is evolutionary in that sense, but it is also about making sure that the provisions in the Bill are keeping pace with the development of technology and how data is used in the real, modern world.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: I should perhaps caveat my previous comments by saying that they very much are, in our mind; it is all about health data. The focal point for us at the moment, which we are working through with Ministers, is the formulation of the final version of the data strategy. Of course, the legislative provisions are within the data strategy. It is very much the case that the publication of that document, I think, is the right moment for that reset where we have more intensified engagement with the public and we really step up the narrative around how health data is used. As one of your colleagues said, the real detail comes in regulations, if there are any regulations around that; and of course there would need to be consultation before the regulations were put in place.
Alex Norris
Q
Simon Madden: Obviously, interoperability is absolutely key. The information standards piece that I spoke about is part of that, but also, outside the legislative piece, work is going on to create a unified data architecture. This is not about driving or having everything from the centre, so that everybody uses the same things, but about making sure that the architecture enables that interoperability so that the systems can speak to each other. There is certainly a degree of levelling up to do in terms of digital maturity, which is another area in which NHSX is involved, supporting the Department and NHS England. But yes, interoperability is key. We are not there yet; we have some way to go to make sure that everything will flow as it should and the systems speak to each other.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Q
Simon Madden: The best example is something that I have already cited to a certain degree, which is the shared care record. To some degree, that would happen irrespective of whether ICSs and the Bill were in place, because health and social care need to come together; that is something that needs to happen in any event. But what the Bill does is create the proper framework of integration and collaboration. There are other powers in the Bill, for instance the duty to co-operate and collaborate, that I think are going to be absolutely crucial. From a public perspective, they see the NHS and see one organisation, whereas we all know that it is a confederation of organisations, each sometimes with different aims, pulling together. The ICS structure set out in the Bill, plus the data provisions that support that broader approach, will help provide that free flow of information so that clinicians and care professionals have access to the information they need to be able to treat patients in the most effective way.
The Chair
Anyone else? I will assume there are no more questions. Mr Madden, I thank you very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Saffron Cordery and Matthew Taylor gave evidence.
The Chair
This panel is mixed. We have Saffron Cordery, the deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, who is joining us remotely via a video link, and Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, who is appearing in person. Can you hear us okay, Saffron?
Saffron Cordery indicated assent.
The Chair
In that case, Saffron first, then Mr Taylor, can you introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Saffron Cordery: Yes. I am Saffron Cordery and I am deputy chief executive at NHS Providers.
Matthew Taylor: I am Matthew Taylor and I am chief executive of the NHS Confederation.
Karin Smyth
Good to see you both. Thank you for coming. I want to talk about accountability. I asked NHS England this morning about how accountability works in the new system and it was clear that local accountability lies with the integrated care board—the chief executive and the finance director, in the first instance. We were then taken through the system up to NHS England and Ms Pritchard then said “through Parliament”, which she corrected to “through the Secretary of State through Parliament”. I asked at what stage the Secretary of State becomes involved in the accountability, a question that she did not answer and which I would like you both to answer for me.
We have also heard that the Bill is something the NHS asked for. I have not met a single person working at any level in the NHS who says that the powers given to the Secretary of State directly, added to the Bill after conversations with the NHS, are a good thing and are clearly workable. That is my pretext.
Perhaps I can give the example of a constituent who came to me about ear wax removal, which was a subject that concerned him greatly. Will I write to the Secretary of State as a Member of Parliament to ask him about the lack of ear wax removal services in my integrated care board area, or will the chief executive be the final arbiter of such decisions? Mr Taylor, do you want to go first on behalf of the confederation?
Matthew Taylor: Yes. There are two points here. The first is around the structure of accountability at the centre and while that is important, ultimately, it is a less important consideration for health service leaders than the relationship between central accountability and local accountability. That is the focus of the major concern we have about the Bill: the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to reconfiguration, which we think is a mistake. We think the system, as it is, is not perfect but works pretty well. For the Secretary of State potentially to be embroiled in making decisions not just about major reconfigurations, but really relatively minor reconfigurations runs the risk not only of delaying necessary changes in the system, but of putting less emphasis on the views of local people and of clinical advice.
Representing my members, while the question of the relationship between the Secretary of State, Parliament and NHS England is one that we take an interest in, the issue of the relationship between the centre and local accountability is stronger. Where constituents write to their MPs, the Secretary of State or wherever when they have a problem, they will continue to do so, but I hope in such a system that the first thing to happen to such a letter is that it would be sent back to people locally who could address that issue in a local way. It would be ill-advised for a Secretary of State to try to involve themselves in a question like that.
Saffron Cordery: I agree with Matthew’s point. It is this central-local relationship that is absolutely critical to those who are working on the frontline—trust leaders from my perspective, and from NHS Providers’ perspective. Coming back to some of your points about the NHS supporting the legislation, I think that is absolutely right. The NHS has come together to support the direction of travel of this legislation, but I think it is worth saying that that agreement was based around an August 2019 set of proposals, when the whole NHS came together on the basis of some recommendations from the Health Committee. It is important to remember that the legislation has changed somewhat since then. We have had a number of elements added to the Bill that sit around the central bit that the NHS agreed with, which probably changed the context somewhat. It is worth remembering that the local reconfigurations issue that Matthew Taylor raised is a very important one.
There are elements as well in the nature of the relationship between the Secretary of State and NHS England in terms of the operating context and its ability to intervene in what goes on nationally, and the knock-on effect locally on trusts. There are some really big issues there, which come together.
The other thing to say is that, often, Secretary of State powers may seem like small elements, but taken together, the cumulative impact can be seen to erode that local accountability. We would hope, whatever happens, that if someone has an issue with ear wax removal, they speak to someone at the most appropriate level to get something done. That is what subsidiarity is about: the delegation of powers to the most appropriate level, and it is really important. It is also important for accountability, because you cannot have a Secretary of State saddled with taking a thousand tiny decisions in an organisation and a system as complex as the NHS. That is one of the challenges of this local reconfiguration issue that is arising.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Q
Saffron Cordery: The experience of the pandemic, which is a seismic and far-reaching event, really put the frontline of the NHS and other local public services in the frame for delivering for their local communities, and for supporting each other and helping each other out with mutual aid. What we saw there was one very good and important example of how local partnership working, local collaboration and local integration was working in very different ways up and down the country.
We had some common features of all integration, something you would expect at a time of crisis, where there is a lot of command and control and procedures that go on in a state of civil crisis such as this one. We also saw different communities responding in different ways. That is one of the most important points that I want to make about this legislation. In terms of collaboration, we have to see a piece of legislation that is as enabling and permissive as possible. Obviously, legislation has choices. You go down different routes. Really prescriptive legislation will not help in this situation, though. We have to reflect the progress made in some areas and the need for encouragement and support in other areas to get where we want all ICSs to be: that is, really effective and delivering what local populations need. A permissive framework is critical. Going back to your question, it is right that the pandemic has shone a light on both the potential of ICSs and collaboration in particular and the challenges we face right now in implementing any new proposals due to the operational pressures facing the NHS, local government and other public services.
Matthew Taylor: I agree with Saffron. There have been some very good examples of local collaboration, such as the vaccination programme and reaching out to communities where initial take-up may not have been what we had hoped. There is some really impressive work there. That work presages the wider commitment within the health service to a strategy of population health, which addresses not only those people who express demand but those who do not. We wish that they would, because that is one of the things driving health inequality.
I have been at the confederation only three months, so I look at the legislation from the perspective of a wider interest in public policy over 30 years in government and outside it. This is a very interesting and innovative example of policy making. We have these integrated care systems in large parts of the country, so the policy has already been enacted ahead of the legislation. Though that may raise democratic issues, it enables us to see in practice how people are taking the principles of service integration and focusing them on population health. Despite the challenges of covid, a challenging funding context, and the issues around social care—which are hopefully being addressed in one way or another—we see across the country that there has been a whole array of interesting bits of innovative, collaborative work around issues of population health, prevention and addressing health inequalities.
I want to emphasise a point Saffron made. If you look around the country, you see some systems that are well advanced in their collaboration and other systems that are not. This is for a variety of reasons; in some cases there are issues to do with boundaries and such. Like Saffron, I think it is really important we have a permissive regime that allows these systems to evolve at a pace that is right for them and the places in which they operate. Over time, the systems will move forward, but it is actually a really effective way of working. It would be a mistake to try to impose exactly the same way of working on every part of the country. It would mean those who were ahead will be pulled back and those who are not quite ready to make integration work will be compelled to tick boxes, as it were, rather than work on the development of the relationships that we need.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Matthew Taylor: That is an important point. Let me be completely open about the conversation within the confederation about this issue, for example. We have a mental health network representing mental health providers. Their preference would be to specify the need to have a mental health leader on the board. We as a confederation recognise that view and represented it, but that is not our view overall. Our view is that, partly because configurations differ from place to place—in some places, mental healthcare and community are together, for example—but for a variety of reasons, we would not want to specify further the membership of those boards. Again, that is to maximise local flexibility.
If people feel their voice is not being heard, then that is something they are going to say. We will have to see how this system evolves, but let us start with—going back to a word used earlier—the permissive regime and see how that goes, because after all it is in the interests of everybody in the local health system that they hear the voices they need to hear.
Saffron Cordery: I agree. This is a thorny issue but I suppose it is one of either, depending on how you look at it, the opportunities or the casualties of creating another level of governance in a local system. When you are thinking about putting collaboration on a statutory footing, you have to surround it with some kind of governance to ensure the effective operation of that body.
It is a tricky issue. You cannot have an integrated care board—the board that will govern how funding flows through and how priorities are agreed, decided and implemented—that is so enormous that it becomes unworkable, but there has to be a clear balance between making sure it is not only the big and the powerful who are represented there, but also all the rights and appropriate interests. There are a number of positions specified in the ICB board arrangements, and it will be interesting and important to see how different ICSs use those roles, particularly the non-executive or wider partnership roles that are specified, in order to have a broad range of voices around the table.
It is worth remembering that many other organisations and structures will be taking part in the ICS arrangements. You will have things like provider collaboratives, which are not in the Bill but feature heavily in the guidance that comes from NHS England and NHS Improvement, which are precisely about organisations working together to deliver on local priorities. Many of those are led by mental health organisations focusing on what they need to deliver.
There are other structures within these arrangements, but no one would say it is ideal. It is not the most ideal solution, but it is very difficult to get to a final configuration that is both workable in terms of numbers and reflects the multiplicity of voices in a locality. It is important to have the right engagement at every single level and the right channels feeding up information and priorities, and to understand what is really important in a system.
Matthew Taylor: Today the Government have been talking about the importance of integration in the context of its announcement on health and social care. One of the big questions is going to be about the powers that are devolved within systems to places, and I think it will be at the place level that we will see service integration. The evolution of place level forms of accountability is an important part of that, and again a reason why it is really important to allow these structures to evolve locally. I suspect that in some areas more power will be held at the system level and less at the place level. In other places, it will be the reverse, with most of the action taking place at place level. That reflects the nature of places, the legacy of those places and the relationships that have built up.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Matthew Taylor: My area of expertise before coming to the NHS Confederation was work and the future of work, on which I advised the Government, and one of the things I know from that work is how quickly the world of work is changing. It is impacted by a whole variety of things—not least, of course, substantial technological change. In a world where work is evolving very quickly and population needs are evolving, five years is simply far too long. If it were one year, we would be happy. We have fastened on to two years. That would be the minimum that we would want as a gap between assessments of workforce need.
It is also—to emphasise the point that I think you are making—important that this review gathers evidence from a whole variety of bodies, because an enormous amount of extremely good work is taking place around work. Predictions of workforce need are imprecise, so hearing from a variety of voices is important. This should be an independent process, in which independent expertise is brought to bear; there should be wide consultation with those who think about these issues; and a two-year plan would, I think, be an improvement on what is in the Bill.
Saffron Cordery: We also support this amendment and the work that has been done by the confederation and others on this. There is one other element that I would add to this that supports this perspective. It has been really hard, across NHS workforce planning, to light upon one version of the truth, in terms of workforce numbers. Anything that starts to move towards a collective perspective on workforce needs and workforce planning will be absolutely critical.
Getting an agreed perspective on how we create that figure will be fundamental. In my time working across the health service, there have been many different perspectives on workforce—on the gaps, the numbers who are in roles, and what those roles need to be. It is important to have lots of views, but I think this is also important. Although, as Matthew says, it is not a precise science, we need to light upon a version that is independently agreed, but that we all sign up to as the numbers we are working to.
Karin Smyth
Q
The Bill falls apart because of the governance arrangements and the accountability, which does not follow the logic of place-based commissioning. My solution for the Government, should they wish to take it, is something around a good governance commission, based on the previous appointments commission-type process. It would bring in skilled people, with clear role descriptions, clear skills and a degree of independence. It would have the trust of local people, and would bring these very powerful chief executives together with local leaders to explain why, in Bristol, you cannot have ear wax removal, or why you are closing certain provision and opening it in Derbyshire or wherever. Have you had an opportunity to look at my proposal for a good governance commission and locally accountable chairs—perhaps elected, or appointed? What do you think of that as a solution that would bring power and accountability closer to local people?
Saffron Cordery: The issue of accountability is absolutely fundamental. One of the things we have not talked about much in this sitting, and which is not talked about that much, is the presence of two bodies in the system. We have the ICB, but also this partnership body that brings together a number of wider partners—particularly local government—with democratic accountability, which I think is really important.
I am wary of adding too much into the structures in the Bill. I understand your perspective on permissiveness, and we need to make sure that there are checks and balances across the whole system, but I would be wary of adding in another structure alongside everything we have. One of the features of this legislation, as I have said throughout the process—we have met the Department of Health and Social Care and talked to their Bill team, who have been very open and helpful—is that it does not really streamline in the way that it thinks it might. It adds to existing structures and processes, rather than starting from a clean sheet of paper and building something that might be deemed to be a good enough model; we will never get to the perfect model.
Right now, what we do not need is a root-and-branch dismantling of NHS structures and something wholly new put in their place, but I think there has been a missed opportunity to look at where we could streamline more. On that basis, I think it is important not to add more in, and it is fundamentally important that we look at the different roles and structures that already exist. From a trust provider perspective, working both at place and within provider collaboratives, and looking at the governance of unitary boards with non-executives and in some places also with governors and members, we see that there is that element of engagement with the community that you perhaps do not see in other places. I do not think it speaks entirely to your cartel point, but it is a step along the way that is well established and well used in many places.
This is a thorny and tricky issue. Using existing structures of accountability will be really important, as well as using the new ones, but I would not want to see anything new added in there.
Matthew Taylor: I largely agree with that, but another point is that if there is a broad policy thrust in this legislation, it is away from a medical model of health towards one that focuses more on social determinants. In the best partnerships—we talk often about West Yorkshire and Harrogate, for example—there is an incredibly strong relationship between health service leaders and local authority leaders. That will be a critical factor in the success of the system. When I look at the best practice emerging in the integrated care systems on issues such as prevention and population health, I see leaders starting to talk about issues such as housing, employment and public space, recognising their importance to health. In one way, that is a progressive move, and one that will probably lead to a louder voice for a variety of local interests, if we understand health much more in these socially determined terms, rather than simply through the medical model.
We had a big announcement today about social care reform, and there is a set of issues that are not in this Bill—issues around health and social care integration, how it will work and how accountability will work. It remains to be seen how the Government address that question.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: It is a challenge.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: Whenever Government are faced with issues of boundaries, there is no solution that will not upset a lot of people, and this of course has been a vexed issue. I go back to the need for local flexibility. I will not name particular systems, because I do not want to speak for them, but I am thinking of two systems. In one, there have been many years of integration and collaboration, and an enormous amount of collaborative work. There, boundaries are probably much less important than they were in the past. In the other, an ICS is being established that will oversee two places—a city and a county that do not have an enormous amount in common. There, the ICS will have to develop its own proposition about the value that it will add. It would be a mistake for that system to want to draw up an enormous amount of power from two places that are working pretty effectively and would not benefit a great deal from deep integration.
The pattern is different from place to place. That is why we need to allow things to evolve in the light of local circumstances. It is always difficult when boundaries are not coterminous or shift. All I can say is that health services are used to these kinds of challenges, and most who have reached the top have probably worked through at least one of these challenges in the past, and know how to go about it as best they can.
Dr Whitford
Q
Matthew Taylor: That is a fascinating question. My view, which goes back many years, is that you need the right combination of strategy from the centre and identification of the right thing to do, where there is clearly one best thing to do, although Whitehall has a slight tendency to exaggerate the number of areas in which there is one best thing to do. Then you need peer-to-peer, or horizontal, learning. Providers and the confederation do a lot of work with our members to share best practice. A week will not pass without one of us publishing something around good practice, and bringing our members together to share that. This is another reason why it is important to have local difference. It is in a system of local difference that you will get more innovation. As long as you have innovation coming through, really strong organisations spreading good practice and a centre that focuses on where it can add value, you have the capacity for a self-improving system.
Dr Whitford
I was going to ask Matthew all my questions, and then go to Saffron with them all.
The Chair
Well, you only have about two minutes.
Matthew Taylor: By the way, I think it is important for us to learn from Scotland. We have been having a conversation in the confederation about the importance of recognising that we have different health systems now across the UK, and that there is an opportunity here for good learning.
Dr Whitford
Saffron?
Saffron Cordery: In the interests of time, I will say that I do not have a huge amount to add. Peer learning, peer challenge and peer support are absolutely critical. Variation, in its broadest sense, is important, and you can call that innovation or whatever you want. How you respond to local circumstances is critical. That is why cookie-cutter mode does not really work. Going back to your point on boundaries, they are, of course, a vexed issue. I know from my time in local government how vexed an issue it is there. Any kind of local government reorganisation can tie you up for years and years. It is worth remembering that boundaries were challenging at the start of this process. A number of STPs, which were the forerunners to ICSs, had boundaries imposed on them, rather than choosing those boundaries.
There have been a few policy developments that perhaps have not been as widely discussed as they might have been, including the fact that coterminosity with local government, although not necessarily the wrong step, was brought in relatively late in the day and did lead to some of the later boundary changes, as we have seen. I am not saying that that is wrong, but it demonstrates the need for wider discussion, consultation and engagement with the NHS and local government system as a whole before the decisions are made to help understand how best to do it. Sometimes just saying that it must happen and decreeing that is not the best way of making something a smooth operation that gets the best out of local systems. On occasions, there is something in the process of policy-making that could be looked at.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Taylor: I defer to Saffron on that one.
Saffron Cordery: I think this is one of those elements that we have seen quite a lot of throughout the legislation in terms of where is the recourse—that is not the right word, but I cannot think of another one right now—if things go wrong. Collaboration by its very nature is a positive process where willing parties come together to reach agreement. Everyone’s hope and aspiration is that that is how ICSs will work overall, and that is how the ICB and ICP will work together. It is not currently clear how there will be recourse to arbitration or dispute resolution, if you like, in the process of this legislation. We have seen an optimistic approach to how this legislation has been brought together—rightly in some senses—and of course we do not want a situation where we are anticipating that the evolution of a new way of working will not be functional. At the same time, the role of legislation is to anticipate what can go wrong, as well as to support what needs to be done. It is not yet clear how some of this will shake out in terms of where ICBs and ICPs need to turn to should there be challenges, issues and disagreements. We have to remember that those bodies, once they have their independent chairs and accountable officers and chief executives, sit within the NHS system, so they sit within the regional NHS England system and within the overall NHS system. Routes will be pursued, but at the moment it is not clear to me how disputes, for want of a better word, will be resolved.
Matthew Taylor: The only thing I would want to add is that during covid, we have understood the scale of health inequalities. The evidence has been that those inequalities are growing. That has demonstrated that we need a conversation between the health service in relation to how it deals with the demand that is presented to it and the wider question about how we address population health. In some cases, that might mean that you have some creative tension between those two levels. As Saffron said, it will come down to the quality of relationships, and if those relationships break down, I am sure that the centre will need to intervene to address that because the system cannot work if it breaks down. But the fact that those two bodies might have a slightly different emphasis and focus is probably a good thing because this debate about how we best use our health resources to address population health and health inequalities is an important debate for us to be having nationally and locally. Let us face it, we have not got this right up till now.
Justin Madders
Q
Matthew Taylor: Yes, unfortunately that is our understanding, and we think that it would be a retrograde step. It is not a power that I would want if I were a Secretary of State and I wanted to focus on strategic policy questions. I would not have advised the Secretary of State to want those powers.
Our view would be that we should remove the extension of the Secretary of State’s power entirely, but, failing that, we should put some guard rails on in relation to hearing the views of local health overview and scrutiny committees, getting local clinical advice on what is best and having a public interest test that should be passed. If those guard rails were in place, we could cope with this.
What we do not want is a chilling effect on the capacity of local leaders to make the decisions that they need to make to use their resources effectively. The third element of the triple mandate is the effective use of resources, and that involves making decisions at a whole variety of levels around how you configure services. If you feel you are going to go through that process and potentially engage local populations in difficult conversations, and then at the end of the day a local MP, for whatever reason, is going to kibosh that by appealing to the Secretary of State, why would you embark on the process in the first place? That is why, while we are very supportive of the Bill, as you have heard from both Saffron and me, we do think that the powers of reconfiguration are the Achilles heel. I appeal to you to recognise that that is unnecessary and goes against the spirit of the Bill.
Saffron Cordery: I wholeheartedly support what Matthew says, and it speaks to a point I made earlier about adding to existing structures in a way that really is not necessary. I notice that you have representatives from the Local Government Association as witnesses later on. I am pretty sure that they will have some strong views about what these measures do for the powers of local health overview and scrutiny committees, because they already have the power to refer to the Secretary of State should they need that to happen. The powers that are currently in place are a really effective way of doing it. People getting something past a local health overview and scrutiny committee is a really important hurdle for any service change. It is already well respected, well used and very effective. This is one of those elements that at best is redundant and at worst is going to create a lot of work and a lot of unnecessary tension and friction where we already have challenge.
Edward Argar
Q
Saffron Cordery: As we see a change in the system, obviously the nature of how we have procured services in the past does have to change. It is obviously a complex area, but one of the things that we really need to look at is the effectiveness of the current contracting regime, which for certain parts of the provider sector in particular is incredibly burdensome. If you sit in a mental health or a community trust, you are subject to a whole host of retendering, which can have a potentially far-reaching impact on your trust’s sustainability or the future operation of key services. For many bits of the system, that will be very important.
The procurement regime is fundamental. It underpins how this will operate. We need to make sure that the elements of fairness are upheld and that it does not disproportionately put a burden on any one part of the system in particular.
Edward Argar
Matthew?
Matthew Taylor: I agree with that. It is important to remember that one of the goals of the Bill is to reduce the weight of bureaucracy in the system. If we can reduce the weight of bureaucracy as it applies to procurement, that is only a good thing.
Edward Argar
Q
Matthew Taylor: Of course, one of the most challenging questions in all parts of central Government is to get that balance right. The one point that I want to make is about the nature of system leadership. If you lead an organisation—I lead an organisation—the parameters of what you do are reasonably well defined and you lead that organisation as best you can, and you can be regulated as an organisation in relation to its objectives. The thing about system leadership is that it involves developing a concrete and specific account of how you want to add value in a particular local circumstance—how is it that, working as a system, you will make a difference?
By looking towards population health and engaging local people, that proposition will vary from place to place. It is important that, when we look at how systems work, we allow them to develop a value proposition that is specific to their local circumstances and their local needs. That is why, for example, we would be very resistant to any kind of Ofsted inspection regime for systems, because systems are not the same as hospitals or as schools; they are very different and their aspirations will be very different.
When you look at the Bill, the reality of central-local relations is that rules are set out in legislation, but then there is the custom and practice of how Departments and other bodies actually work. Sadly and inevitably, the drift of custom and practice tends to be towards centralisation. That is why it is important to avoid things in the Bill that create an opening—this is why we can have our concerns about reconfiguration—which can get ever wider and thus undermine the key principles that lie at the heart of the Bill. So we are happy with the intentions of the Bill, but we are worried that there are certain elements of it and certain elements that might be involved in the operationalising of it that could undermine its intentions.
Edward Argar
Thank you. Saffron?
Saffron Cordery: I go back to a point that I made earlier in this session, which is that this balance between permissiveness and prescriptiveness is critical. The August 2019 agreement, when all the stakeholders came together to look at how we might legislate for an integrated care system that got that balance right, I think is there. You have to remember that what sits around a set of proposals will have a massive impact on it, so the Secretary of State’s powers as we have seen them, and the operating environment overall, will have an impact on how these proposals will be implemented, and how effectively they will be implemented.
We cannot forget covid in this. We cannot forget the extreme financial pressures that we are seeing. We cannot forget demand. We cannot forget an incredibly tired workforce. That is not going to change any time soon; that is going to be for the next few years, so we are implementing something against that backdrop. But if we go back to the slightly lighter touch of the August 2019 proposals, we will probably get to a place that would hit the spot, as it were. I reiterate that we support collaboration in systems and the direction of travel.
The Chair
Given the time, we will leave it there. I thank our witnesses, Saffron Cordery and Matthew Taylor.
Examination of Witnesses
Ian Trenholm and Keith Conradi gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Ian Trenholm, the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, and Keith Conradi, the chief investigator at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, both of whom are appearing in person. We have until 4 o’clock for this session. May I ask you both to introduce yourselves for the record?
Ian Trenholm: Good afternoon. My name is Ian Trenholm and I am the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission.
Keith Conradi: I am Keith Conradi, the chief investigator for the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Ian Trenholm: The Bill will add value to patients in a number of different ways. There are four areas that we have particular interest in. The first is around the work we expect the Government to ask us to do on oversight of the individual ICSs. Building on the comments that have just been made, our contributing to the assurance around ICSs will be an important part of how we can add value. We will do that by drawing to the attention of local communities both the good work that is going on in a particular place, and areas where there are some challenges. We will also be able to look across the country, demonstrate where things are going well and help with improvement, as we do with the regulation of individual providers.
The Bill also contains a provision for us to provide assurance regarding the way local authorities discharge their Care Act 2014 duties. Again, that gives local people the certainty that local authorities are discharging their responsibilities. If you bring those two things together and connect local authority duties around the Care Act and social care with what is going on in healthcare, you get a whole-system view, and we are able to give an independent overview of that, which we report to Parliament and the public.
There is also a provision in the Bill relating to food standards in hospital. It is well known that people’s recovery is aided by good-quality hydration and nutrition that is appropriate for the social and cultural needs of that particular place. As part of our work, we will be asked to look at that.
Finally, building on the comments Mr Madden made a couple of witnesses ago, the miscellaneous provisions within the Bill on data sharing and the requirement to co-operate are also powerful and enable us to do our job as an intelligence-driven regulator. From the point of view of reducing bureaucracy, they mean that we collect data once and then we can share it among the many partners involved in regulating different parts of the health and care system. Those are four particular points where I think the public would see value in the work we do.
Keith Conradi: From our perspective at the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, we welcome the introduction of this part of the legislation. We have been working in shadow form for the past five years, without any real powers, and the things we have missed there are likely to be introduced in the Bill, such as power of entry, so that we can access people quickly in an investigation. Any investigator will tell you that the quality of the investigation evidence, particularly interviews, degrades quickly over time, so the ability to go in quickly is hugely important. Also, not being able to access data that we know people hold has been quite frustrating in our current guise. We have sometimes had to wait for months and months for data in order to be able to complete an investigation.
The other thing that we are particularly keen on is being able to properly protect information that people give us in a protected environment, so that we can ask them to be as candid as possible with their experiences. We want to be able to protect that information from being released more publicly.
The Chair
I am not being flooded with a whole array of hands, so why not? On you go. I will come to you in a second, Edward.
Jo Gideon
Q
Ian Trenholm: We will be inspecting against the hospital food standards—is that what you mean? We are not going to be setting individual nutritional standards; we will be inspecting against the NHS’s food standards. We are going to deliberately make sure that our work does not overlap with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency, for example. To be very specific about it, we are not going to be inspecting vending machines or taste-testing food in canteens. What we are going to be doing is looking at the hydration and nutrition strategies that, say, a board in a hospital has set for its particular area. As we go around the hospital, we will be looking at whether that strategy is being enacted for the cultural and social needs, in particular, of the people in that hospital. Does that answer the question?
The Chair
Do you have anything to add to that, Mr Conradi?
Keith Conradi: I think that is outside the HSIB’s experience.
Edward Timpson
Q
Keith Conradi: Having come from the air accident investigation branch as my background, the whole idea of these investigations is that we do not apportion any blame or liability, and that we are really looking at why an event took place when somebody came into work planning to do a good job, and what the circumstances around the environment were that allowed a tragedy to occur. We use a lot of investigation science methodology to ask those why questions, really looking at systems-type thinking, so we do not mention anybody’s names in the reports. We do not, at the moment, mention where the actual occurrence took place, because in our view that is almost irrelevant. It is the system that we are trying to change, and the safety recommendations that we make are, by and large, to the national bodies—often the regulators—because we think they are best placed to make the changes that we think are necessary.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Could I also ask about the regulatory role? With regard to whistleblowers who raise these issues—we are talking about safety and the best interests of patients here—will this enhance the powers and abilities that you have, or is more needed still.
Keith Conradi: One of the clauses actually will require people to speak to us, so there is a compulsion on people to provide evidence. In a way, that might help some people who are undecided about what they should be doing. But to balance that, it is very important to be able to protect the evidence that is given, and there are protections within the clauses. I think they could be improved. But the whole idea is that we create this space, where really the only safety valve is the High Court, and I believe that is appropriate as the only place where that information can actually be released.
I think it is worth saying, however, that when people talk to us and use this sort of safe space, the whole idea is that it is not a place where they are going to unload stuff that will never see the light of day again; we use that information, either in our final reports or to help us further the investigation. It is just that it is non-attributable, so we do not mention people’s names. The idea is that we use it to further patient safety.
My concern about the way the Bill is currently written is that there is a provision for coroners—some coroners—to be able to see this information. I think that will inhibit some people from speaking to us—and the whole point is that people are uninhibited from doing so. Having that potential release of information into that sphere will, I think, degrade the ability of the investigation to do its job.
Ian Trenholm: Building on what Keith has just said, I think we would see the Bill as giving an opportunity to create a safe space. It creates an opportunity for people to talk about things that they may not otherwise have wished to talk about. What Keith’s team can then do is look at that information. We need to make sure that we have the right data-sharing protocols in place. Keith’s team can then talk to my team about what is happening on the ground. They can do whatever anonymisation is necessary. So we might get to hear about things that we perhaps would not otherwise get to hear about.
That is a real positive at provider level, but if you click up a level, you quite often find that, from a safety and quality point of view, people’s poor experiences are driven as much by their experience of it as a system and the way they transit between different providers as it is about the experience in an individual provider. So if you have a person who perhaps is working between providers or in some kind of community provision, they will see multiple providers and they will become, if you like, better whistleblowers. Our work on systems and our assurance on systems will help as well, I think. Of course, Keith’s team make recommendations to us as a regulator, in the way they do to other people. So I think this is generally a move in the right direction.
Karin Smyth
Q
Keith Conradi: We currently have a maternity programme that investigates about 1,000 cases a year, based on quite specific criteria. At the moment, the Department is deciding what it wants to do with that programme—where its future lies. As far as we know, it will stay with us, certainly until the HSSIB—the health service safety investigations body—starts, but I think a decision has yet to be made on whether it will actually just fall into the work that the HSSIB does, or whether it will do something separately with it, so I am not aware of that at the moment.
On the second point, I am aware that the ombudsman would like the same power to access the statements that we take under safe space. I think that is a major concern. Over the last five years, the ombudsman has been able to investigate any complaint brought against us in our current guise. It has not seen fit to do so, so I would suggest that on the rare occasion that might be necessary, the provision for the High Court to carry out the balancing test and decide whether to disclose information or not is the appropriate way ahead.
Dr Davies
Q
Ian Trenholm: Can we not call it a CQC-style rating? There are two separate things. The Bill currently contains an explicit provision about providing assurance on how a local authority is discharging its responsibilities in relation to the Care Act. That is important because the way in which care is commissioned is as important for outcomes as the way in which it is delivered. That is one part and that is a discrete piece of work. There is a broader piece of work that we are expecting Government to ask us to bring forward on assurance on ICSs. It will look at the ICS partnership board, how that works, the ICS strategy and so forth. They are two complementary pieces of work, but they are separate, as you describe.
Dr Whitford
Q
Keith Conradi: I totally agree with you. I think it will have a major impact on people’s wish to speak to us. It is not just me that thinks that; the medical unions have said that their members are concerned. The whole idea is that you want people to talk about, as you say, the “soft” things. They tend to be things like the culture of an organisation and the pressures that are brought upon them to do various pieces of work. In the past that has been a bit of an Achilles heel in terms of safety in the NHS. People have often been blamed for these things. They have been disciplined for speaking out—we talked about whistleblowers earlier.
Anything that we can do to bring that information up to an investigation body, which is not about blame and liability, is going to help patient safety in the long run. They will find their way into our final reports—that is the whole idea of getting this information. We want to encourage that as much as possible. I do not think this helps. I think a previous Joint Committee looked at a similar piece of legislation, and that came to exactly the same conclusion. As you say, what is the problem with other bodies such as coroners conducting their own interviews to get the same piece of information or any information they require?
Dr Whitford
Q
Keith Conradi: Yes. In a way, the powers are so sweeping that they go well beyond what we think we would need, and well beyond what is used in other sectors—the transport sectors. We know that parallel investigations will take place into many of the things that we look at, and that is fine. The problem is that if we have these sweeping powers, which pretty much say that anything we touch or come across we then have to protect, and that we can then unwind and release some of them with a fairly bureaucratic process, that will be difficult in terms of transparency and our ability to share the information with others who have a legitimate need. The key things that we absolutely want to protect are statements given to us by witnesses and any draft notes, opinions and reports that we generate from doing the investigation. It is the final report that is our piece of work that we want to produce at the end of the day, and that is it.
Dr Whitford
Thank you. In the interests of time, I am happy with that.
Ian Trenholm: If I could make just one point, I think you are absolutely right: the broader responsibilities of an individual provider, particularly around such things as duty of candour, would still stand. Therefore, at an institutional level, people will still need to do the things that they always needed to do, but there is a very specific set of circumstances that Keith was describing where safe space may apply.
Justin Madders
Q
Ian Trenholm: I do not think that there is at an individual provider level. What you have just described is our normal registration regulation process at an individual provider level. As we start to look across individual places and ICSs, we might be able to talk to individual partnership boards about people who are operating locally, but I do not think the Bill explicitly gives us more powers to look at individual providers in any more detail than we already would as part of our normal registration process.
Justin Madders
Q
Ian Trenholm: Not yet. Obviously, as the Bill goes through Parliament the breadth and size of what we will be asked to do will become clear. We are talking to a range of different stakeholders at the moment. The NHS Confederation and NHS Providers are on our list, as are the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and, of course, various representative groups that represent people who use services, so we are having those conversations now around what they would expect from good-quality assurance at a system level—but no, we have not really got to the point of assessing this in any detail.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: We see ourselves as very much an independent and impartial investigation body that can sit outside the system and look into it. We would not want to have any barriers really on where we might look to see where patient safety could be improved. As I mentioned earlier, we tend not to dwell on the incident at the trust level, but try to work our way up through the system. Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have that complete freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit. That independence of the system is crucial for the success and the credibility of the organisation.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: At the moment, they are monitored fairly informally. There is a part of NHSEI—a patient safety team—that looks at whether the actions that were promised in the response to the safety recommendation have actually been carried out. We believe that that might sit more appropriately with this body in the future—NHSEI receive a rather large number of our safety recommendations, so I do not know whether they are the right body to monitor the actions that are taking place, whereas I think that could sit with us. It is important that that is just monitoring the actions, not judging the outcome, and I think that there needs to be a separate, probably pan-regulation-type body that looks at whether the outcome at the end of the day mitigated the patient safety risk that we first went out to investigate.
Justin Madders
Q
Keith Conradi: Informally, we have a good working relationship, so we are interested. We get the response to the safety recommendation and we internally look at that and consider whether we are happy with it. If we are not, we would send out letters to say that we would like further information. We want to put this on a more formal footing to see that in the future.
Edward Argar
Q
You will have heard in the evidence just before, Mr Trenholm, the comments by Matthew Taylor about the difference between assessing a system versus a provision. How do you see how the CQC would square that circle, because he highlighted the very different approaches and his reservations about some of that? How do you see that issue being resolved, or what would you like to see in that space?
Ian Trenholm: If I compare one large hospital with another large hospital as a comparison in terms of what we do now, one would argue that they are quite different enterprises, differently run and serving different communities. There are some common themes, but equally there are some differences. We built a methodology that was able to be applied to both of those very separate entities and to provide a common rating at the end of it.
I would see a version of that at a system level: there would be things that we would want to see that would be common and necessary— decent quality governance, for example—as well as a lot of things that many of you were raising as questions and concerns. But equally we want to see some evidence that the partnership board was cognisant of its local community and it was genuinely delivering a suite of services that its local community genuinely wanted and that was consistent with the needs of that community.
Over the next 18 months or so, we will be building our methodology in collaboration with the people who are also building the ICS boards and frameworks. I am hopeful that we can get to a point where we have a methodology that gives you, as parliamentarians, and local people the assurance that things are working well locally. However, it is not just about what is not working, but about looking for really good practice and looking to accelerate that. Previous people have made the point that doing things differently often leads to good practice and innovation, so how can we help accelerate that innovation through the work that we do. That is broadly how I see it working.
Edward Argar
Q
Keith Conradi: Absolutely.
Edward Argar
Q
Keith Conradi: I certainly think so. My previous experience in aviation is that we had a similar space, and only the High Court could overturn or order disclosure. It was used on a handful of occasions, and it produced very interesting debate. The balancing test—testing whether the benefits of the disclosure outweighed the adverse reaction that there might be to future investigations—was well argued in each of the cases. I think that is the appropriate place to do it.
Edward Argar
Q
Ian Trenholm: We do work at the moment in terms of registering and regulating individual providers, and we do that right across the country, so we have a picture of health and social care right across England. Part of the Bill will give us enhanced powers looking at the way in which individual systems and individual ICSs work. Our view is, if you like, a broad and moderately shallow view, whereas I think Keith’s team do more in the way of specific investigations. I am sure Keith can talk to that.
Keith Conradi: I would characterise the relationship as a healthy tension. We make very few recommendations to the CQC, but the vast majority of recommendations we make will, we hope, have an impact on the work that is going on across the system. The ideal people to have a look and see whether that is having an effect will be the CQC, from time to time, as it comes across things that have changed as a result of what we have done. I think the relationship works very well, in that respect.
Mary Robinson
Q
Keith Conradi: I would probably need a lawyer to give you the proper answer, but I do not think any of this would trump anything else. We would still need to acquiesce and accept those disclosures as they happened, so I do not think that would be an issue for us.
The Chair
Anyone else? It does not look like it. I thank both our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor James Jamieson and Professor Maggie Rae gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our sixth panel of witnesses. We will hear from Councillor James Jamieson, chair of the Local Government Association and Professor Maggie Rae, president of the Faculty of Public Health, both of whom are joining us remotely. Could both witnesses introduce themselves for the record, please?
Professor Maggie Rae: Good afternoon. It is a great pleasure to be able to join you today. My name is Maggie Rae and I am currently president of the Faculty of Public Health.
Cllr James Jamieson: It is a great pleasure to be with you today. Thank you very much for inviting me. I am James Jamieson and I am chairman of the Local Government Association. Until January, I was leader of Central Bedfordshire for nearly 10 years.
Dr James Davies
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: Certainly, we are very pleased that we have repealed some of the legislation, which basically made people focus on targets rather than what is best for the patient. Focusing on discharge to assess at hospital led to some at times frankly perverse incentives just to get people out, often into care homes, when the right solution was to assess after they had left hospital, in their normal setting, not in the setting where they were in maximum need. That change has given much better solutions and outcomes for our residents, which is what we want.
Dr Davies
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: Obviously, from my position as president of faculty, I want more emphasis on prevention, so I am very pleased to see that focus on it, but I do not think it is quite enough yet. I think we would all recognise that part of the reason why we seemed to take the biggest hit on covid in terms of deaths and the effects of the virus was the ill health of our population. We are recognised as having one of the most unhealthy populations in Europe now, and that was not always the case. Yes, it is very pleasing to see the measures on obesity, but we need to recognise that most of the influence could come from the very local level.
I am sorry to say to colleagues and this eminent Committee that we could probably spend the whole meeting talking about fluoridation. I recognise the attempt to tackle the problems of oral health. Children’s teeth being extracted under general anaesthetic is a national disgrace; that money is so wasted in the NHS when we desperately need it to be spent on other health matters, and the time it takes for that operation is so dangerous for children. It is good to have this recognised, but I think it will be quite a slow burn, even with the legislation.
Some areas have tried to implement fluoridation. It has taken them years and they still have not succeeded. Could we perhaps persuade people? As well as focusing on fluoridation, could we have just a small investment in other methods to tackle oral health? One that is really effective, which I used myself as DPH, is simple toothbrushes and toothpaste. Sometimes we think public health measures take a long time, but I can guarantee that if that measure were implemented effectively you could see the changes within 12 months and would also end up saving the NHS a lot of money. I work closely with Councillor Jamieson in his role at the LGA and I hope that he would agree with me.
Cllr James Jamieson: I am going to agree with Maggie. I think that that is a general point we would make. Better healthcare does not start in a hospital; it starts in the community and it starts before you are born. It is about prevention, early intervention, public health, good food and all those things. We welcome measures to support that.
On the point about obesity, I would particularly say that although, yes, it is nice to be able to produce advertising, there is so much more we would like to do. This is not necessarily within the scope of the Bill, so I am not suggesting that, but, for instance, in licensing legislation, being able to take account of public health, which at the moment is specifically excluded, as well as being able to do so in planning legislation as regards where fast food places are and so forth, would be immensely helpful. This is a start; it is a small but positive step.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Even more remarkable as regards reducing health inequalities is the absence of any detail, duty or provision to tackle alcohol harm and tobacco control, which of course are the greatest factor in determining a person’s life expectancy—and further down the line they have the greatest impact on local authorities’ social care bills. Do you think they should be included in more detail in the Bill, with a duty to reduce health inequalities rather than just having “regard” to reducing them?
Cllr James Jamieson: I think we need to be cognisant of the fact that this is a Bill providing a framework. I completely agree with the comments made about health inequalities, good housing, green space and all those things—absolutely. I am a full advocate of the idea that health is three quarters determined by somebody’s environment and choices, and probably only a quarter by what the NHS does. That is really important. My slight concern is that if we get very prescriptive in legislation, it limits the ability to do the right thing.
The really important thing about this legislation is all the guidance and so forth that will come out of it, and where the funding goes. Our preference is to say, “Try not be too prescriptive in the legislation, but really engage with local government and public health on the guidance that comes out of this legislation.” A real priority has to be better places, better communities, better jobs, less pollution and all those things, but I do not think that that is something for legislation; I think it is very much about getting the guidelines right, and they will be different in different parts of the country. The issues that might be faced in a rural area are very different from those faced in an urban area. I do worry that if legislation is too prescriptive, it hampers rather than helps.
Professor Maggie Rae: Would you mind if I added some comments please, Chair?
The Chair
Please do.
Professor Maggie Rae: Just building on those comments from Councillor Jamieson on what I think is a very important question, there is a line in the Bill saying that the ICSs have to take note of advice from directors of public health. If we want ICSs to be population health organisations, we have to make sure that the legislation is strong enough to ensure that the advice is acted on. Our directors of public health have been highly trained and are able professionally to identify the needs of the population, identify where the health inequalities are and make sure that they can provide the ICSs, in terms of both the NHS-side board and the partnership board, with all the evidence they need about what will make a difference. It is the action that will make a difference and improve those outcomes that we all want. It would be very helpful to ensure that the Bill, if possible, is more explicit about that advice and which source it is coming from. We have worked very closely with the legislative team and the Bill team. I do not think anyone could fault the amount of hours they have spent discussing with stakeholders the details of the Bill, and Councillor Jamieson is also right that we cannot have everything in the Bill, but we want a true population-focused organisation.
That has to be the change that this legislation brings; it has to be an enabling legislative framework. We then need to ensure that the guidance, and, most importantly, the assurance process, allow some of the public health expertise to determine whether it is fit for purpose. It is possible that these organisations, and the excitement of the changes, could result in our having a more place-based population focus, but that will only be the case if we get it right and take account of those wider determinants such as education and housing—all the things that contribute to good health.
Edward Timpson
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: Looking at the current situation with health and wellbeing boards and so forth, that has worked well in some places and not so well in others. That is largely down to local factors, relationships and the willingness of the NHS to participate in a place-based approach. Our hope and expectation is that this formalises it, not in absolute terms, but in emphasising the role of local government and other partners that the NHS has to take account of. In essence, it is strengthening our ability to influence the NHS.
Why is that so important? I come back to the comment that I made earlier about how much health outcomes for an individual are based on non-NHS factors. I have forgotten who raised the question of health inequalities, environment and so forth, but those are all place-based factors. Getting more investment in public health, less pollution, better community health care, a better GP service and better occupational therapists will make huge differences to people.
At the end of the day, nobody wants to go to a hospital; they would far rather be healthy and not need to. Therefore, empowering local councils and partners to have a greater say in how we improve the health outcomes of our whole population has to be a good thing.
Professor Maggie Rae: To add to what Councillor Jamieson has said—he is making some excellent points on that agenda—it is important to get the balance right. In England, we had the legislation on health and wellbeing boards. One of the principles should be not to ride roughshod over legislation we already have just because we like the new bright and shiny legislation. On the commitment to stakeholder engagement, we managed to get the Bill team to understand that we have legislation already.
Some of that legislation is still there—we still have directors of public health and the powers in local government—and those things are important, but we also know that if we do not get this legislation right, we will not be able to get right the ambitions on health inequalities and on improving health either. The detail of this is really important. As I think was indicated in what Councillor Jamieson was saying, we know that legislation alone does not always fix problems. I do not know how we can get good relationships just through legislation. We can enable things to happen, but we need to ensure that the legislation is enabling and that there is some holding to account for the standards that the legislation is trying to set.
We cannot afford for the health of our populations to be affected by unhelpful variations. I am very supportive of place-based—action happens at the local level and it can be effective at the local level. We need good national legislation, but if we want to do justice to the population in this country, we cannot have unhelpful variation, because that is what will undermine this legislation. We have to make sure that everyone is working for the same aims and that at the heart of everything is the commitment to reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes, regardless of where you are. Whatever your own organisation, whether a hospital, a local authority or a mental health trust, we have to have something that overrides loyalty to the organisation—to put the population first.
Karin Smyth
Q
My point to Councillor Jamieson, which I made to earlier witnesses, is about the integrated care boards, which are the decision-making and accountability bodies locally—the ICPs are essentially a committee of these boards. The accountability, responsibility and decision making lie very clearly with the integrated care boards, which are essentially, as I have called them, a cartel of local healthcare providers—largely the acute sector trusts, which are responsible for vast sums of money. Councillor Jamieson, you have gone to the effort of putting your name on a ballot paper and persuading local people to put their cross by your name. Should you fall foul of them, or make decisions that they do not agree with, you will soon no longer be Councillor Jamieson. That is very clear accountability. With that hat on, can you talk us through your understanding of the role of local government status wise—beyond “Let’s all work together in partnership”—when we reach that real decision-making, push-comes-to-shove crunch about where accountability to local people could lie for decisions if we improve this Bill?
Cllr James Jamieson: In the ideal world, one would probably like one board. However, that would mean that all members of that board had equal status and so forth. Obviously, the NHS partnership would have budgetary responsibility for hospitals, and there is a technical issue with, “Can you have a bunch of non-NHS people having budgetary responsibilities for the NHS?” We understood the difficulty, and that is why there is the need for two boards. The clear point here is that this legislation provides us with a framework that enables that to have real traction.
But I come back to my earlier point, which is that this is a framework; this is not a solution in itself. Legislation does not solve all the problems. This is about how budgets are managed; it is about all the guidelines and regulations that come out. One of the big requests that we have as local government—I am sure Maggie will have it as well—is that we are deeply involved in those guidelines to make sure that they work. I have to say that, so far, we have been, but many more bits of guidelines will come out. That is the crucial bit.
There are some changes we would like to the legislation, but they are not that great—I will come to them later, because they do not refer to this point. We want statutory and non-statutory guidance around things such as the implementation of the Bill, a comprehensive list of guidance that will be issued and clarity about the flexibility. We want some statutory guidance on health and wellbeing boards to ensure that they are at the heart of this. So there is a lot going on, and I am pleased to say that we have been involved in some of the guidance that has already been issued, such as “Thriving places”. As Professor Rae said earlier, engagement has been very good so far, and we would like that to continue, because this is our chance to get this right. We will do that through getting the statutory and non-statutory guidance correct and making some changes, no doubt, to the Bill. But I do not think that this Bill can accomplish everything, so the LGA would certainly not be in favour of significant change to the Bill.
The Chair
Actually, in view of the time, I am going to ask you not to, Karin. I am sorry, but if we are going to hear from Professor Rae and give Chris Skidmore a chance, we had better just move on.
Professor Maggie Rae: Again, it is good that you have asked for some specifics and related this to governance, because it is very important that we understand how the legislation will be implemented and that the governance is right.
The concerns that members of the faculty would have are quite broad based. While people might be genuinely pleased that we are moving away from a market economy on health, some are very concerned about opening the door to further privatisation. I want to give you some detail on specific public issues on which you said you would like more information. The legislation includes some public health hooks that will make it easier for us to ensure that we have good public health, but I question whether they are explicit enough.
The issue of taking advice on the needs of your population is a fundamental skill of public health. Whether nationally, regionally or locally, the professional job of directors of public health is to assess the needs of the population and provide organisations with the evidence about what will make the biggest difference—cost-effectively, of course. The idea of “taking advice” is a little vague, but strengthening the need for that advice to come from the statutorily appointed directors of public health—the regional directors of public health have been trained to do that and put the needs of population first—might give some strength to the Bill.
In my day job I do a lot of ICS development for the organisation I work for so I have experience of working with ICSs, and many current ICS leaders—I know there has to be an appointment process—are passionate about health inequalities and public health. We have to make sure, as we said earlier, that we have something substantive that guarantees that public health is not down to individuals and personalities, and that we have a framework. We cannot expect Cornwall to be the same as Newcastle, but we cannot have the population suffering from unwarranted variation. If I had a bit more confidence that the role of directors of public health—and the regional directors of public health—would be instrumental in the legislation, the guidance and the assurance process, I would be able to give you more guarantees that things will be better in the future. At the moment, it is a little vague.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: Again, that is an excellent question. I strive for excellence in our country in relation to all matters covered by the Bill. It is with great sadness that I see that health outcomes have plummeted since the start of my career. Early in my career we had the best health outcomes for cancer in the whole of Europe. I am sorry to say that that is not the case now, and ensuring that the scientific underpinning of this is seen as essential will make us more leading edge.
There are many examples in the covid pandemic in which we have been leading the world, and that is certainly true of the vaccination programme. I heard in a meeting this morning about some amazing research that is just about to start.
There are lots of areas of cancer where we have not progressed in the last five years. I could name the different cancers; we do not have time to go into them. If this research was going to test people’s blood early to get earlier diagnosis, as Councillor Jamieson said, it does not all have to be high-tech, high-cost NHS services. Lots of interventions are low cost. You will not find anything more cost-effective than getting people to give up smoking. That is a classic low-cost intervention. We want our country to be leading, and we want to put everything behind these new organisations and ensure that there is that scientific underpinning and that we do not fall behind other countries. I tend to side with your view that we may need to strengthen that.
The problem with this sort of legislation is that you want to be very enabling, but then you are very dependent on what the biggest problem is in the NHS today. Many of these organisations are trying to balance the books. We have tried to say that it is not all about targets. We can hit the targets and miss the point. The thing is, we are not hitting the targets at the moment either. Thank you for speaking up about the scientific underpinning. I would like us to remain where we are, and do better on science.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: That is right at the heart of health inequalities. If we did not know that before covid, we certainly know it now. An area where we could strengthen the legislation is in having that responsibility for all the people in your population. I led on health inequalities in the only time we have narrowed the gap, so health inequalities are not something that are just there and that we cannot do anything about except talk and say how sympathetic we are to them. We can deliver these changes. If we get the legislation and the organisational functionality, we will not change this unless we engage with communities. That is absolutely right, and we must engage with the local authorities.
Unless we target every intervention that we apply to the most disadvantaged and ensure that they have a good opportunity for uptake, we are widening health inequalities. I could take you to any health intervention, whether it is the covid vaccine, the flu vaccine, any uptake on health programmes or cancer screenings. They are all skewed to the most affluent population. In our country we want general population services, because we need everyone to be healthier, but we have to try to ensure that these organisations understand population need and know where the deprived populations are.
I have never met an MP or councillor who did not know where their deprived populations were, so we need those organisations to know that, but just knowing it is not enough. You have to then see the pattern of services and service delivery change to give a better chance to the people who need to take up these services. We have all understood that it is not that those people are hard to reach; it is just that we do not run the services to suit them and get a better uptake. I would like to see us concentrate on that. We probably cannot mention every single intervention, but for me it would not be enough to concentrate on obesity and fluoridation and think that the job is done on health. We have higher drug deaths than the rest of Europe—Scotland, as you know, is probably one of the worst in the world, if not the worst—and alcohol and all the other issues there, but I believe we can make a difference, and it will not take us 25 years if we focus on the right things, having the right interventions and making them readily available for people, and have a nice balance with what the NHS can do.
The NHS is the greatest service in the world and it can really help with health inequalities, but it cannot do it all. I am not an either/or person; we need the wider determinants and everything we can do that is place based through the local authorities, but we need the NHS to do that too.
Dr Whitford
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: This is where the legislation is helpful, because it is enabling. The more we can move away from the NHS pound, the local government pound, the health pound or the DEFRA pound, and towards, “This is the pound for Newcastle or Cornwall; how can we achieve the best outcome for it?”, the better. I know that is difficult and, as you say, things such as housing, getting someone into a job or promoting active travel can make a massive difference to people’s health. They can make big differences, and having that forum and the opportunity to have those discussions is very helpful. A forum where we can start moving from investment in, as you rightly say, curing someone to preventing them from getting ill or, as Maggie said earlier, getting early cancer diagnoses is critical.
This Bill does provide a framework, but the important stuff will be the statutory and non-statutory guidelines and where the money is spent. That is very important, and we hope to see more spending on preventing and less on fixing a problem that need not happen.
Alex Norris
Q
“appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State”.
Under paragraph 5, only NHS England can remove a chair if they are unpopular and not doing the job, and there is nothing that you can write into your local decision making to get around that. Are you comfortable with not having any say over your chair when they are appointed or whether they carry on in the job?
Cllr James Jamieson: Clearly, there are two chairs in this scenario, and one of them, as you say, is NHS appointed in effect and the other one could be anybody—it could be a councillor, a local government representative, or a local director of public health. There is a role. I think this is a difficult area, but that is the reality, because ultimately that chairman will be the person who is financially responsible for the NHS trusts in his or her area. I have some sympathy with it; if I could find a better solution, I would seek to find one.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: I am still a fan of the fact that you need public health and local government. I started my career there and moved to the NHS; I moved back to local government; and now I am moving back to the NHS. What we need is flexibility, so professional groups can work there. I would highly recommend all my public health colleagues and public health registrars to get experience nationally, regionally and locally. That makes you a much better, capable public health practitioner. However, you cannot deny that you can do the same for half the money.
I know that when the announcement was made about public health moving into local government, I did do the rounds saying that it would be a really good thing. I have to say that some very experienced people from councils were saying to me, “Well, I know what will happen. We will get the responsibility, and then they will take the money from us.” I said, “No, no, that won’t happen because public health has always been ring-fenced.” When we were in the NHS, the public health funding was ring-fenced. I have to confess that I was naive, wasn’t I, because actually the grant was cut. I do believe that every pound you spend at the local level in that local government setting you will get back tenfold because of all the social capital you can get from it. That is the reality. If your plans are ambitious, you do not need a lot of money. Lots of the interventions on obesity, smoking and all the other things do not take a huge cost in comparison with some of the high-tech NHS ones. If you have the ambition, you need to follow it through with the necessary resources to do it.
I have been public in saying—I am probably with Councillor Jamieson—that in the ideal world, and I have been a director of adult social care, as well as a director of public health, we are not in camps with our bags of cash. We actually put all of our money together for the resources of the population. I would like to see the ICSs mandated to spend so much on prevention and health inequalities wherever the money comes from, because if we continue with what we are doing at the moment—waiting too long to intervene—none of us will be able to afford the mountain of the problem that you will build up. There is no money available in the world to do that.
There have been some early positive signs that we mean business this time with prevention and health inequalities, but we have to deliver. Having just looked at the social care paper today, I struggle to find prevention. I know from being a director of adult social care that if we do not intervene early and get people to be ageing well and healthy, we will not have the carers in the world who can look after them. Again, I make the plea for the resources. It does not take a lot—I am not asking for billions—but a small amount of resource could make a huge difference. If we continue to cut the public health grant, well, we will continue to have poor health, I think.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Maggie Rae: My experience is that there are some things you can legislate for—seatbelts would be the classic example, or smoke-free places—that work really well, but for most things, if you really want to get action, you need to take the public with you. Certainly, if you fluoridate the water, you will have some very direct oral health benefits. Dental decay, for example, is a classic. However, you probably will not fix every little problem you have got, because it takes more than just fluoridation. Most people’s teeth fall out because of gum disease, so you have to have a wider educational programme with the public.
I also know from my work as the director of public health at the local level and my early days work in Scotland that I could take you to lots of families where they do not drink water, so it is not that obvious to me that that is just going to fix the problem as easily as we think it will. I think you need an all-encompassing programme. While we wait for any implementation of the fluoridation, today children will be having their teeth taken out—children of four or five. That is unacceptable because, alongside that, we should be ensuring that there are the educational programmes and the supply if people cannot afford toothbrushes and toothpaste. That would be a nice easy fix for something to do.
We obviously have a huge population who have already lost their teeth, and one of the biggest problems of the elderly is pure nutrition because they simply cannot eat. It is a problem that sometimes you think legislation will fix it top-down, but I think in everything you do it is much better to see public health people as being responsible to the population. In my experience, you really have to take the population with you to have any chance of implementation, whether you have legislation from the Secretary of State or not.
Edward Argar
Q
Back in the day, I served as a councillor and cabinet member for public health, adult social care and health, and worked very closely with my then local PCT, which probably shows you my vintage. One of the things that I found was that the structures were important, but the relationships and how it worked on the ground, and the ability to be flexible and build up the trust between the two organisations was more effective in getting better outcomes. We have heard from previous witnesses about the importance of local flexibility to adapt to local work arrangements and conditions. Do you think we are striking the right balance between being permissive in allowing that flexibility and not being too prescriptive, or do we need to go a little more in a different direction?
Professor Maggie Rae: In my experience, with the way that the ICS has been set up, we very much hope that we will not start from scratch again, because those organisations have been working on this agenda for quite some time. I think there would be cries of horror if we said, “We are going to throw out the work you’ve already done.” Many of them have been on this journey for a while, and the leaders in those systems have indeed made some good progress. I think it is a delicate balance.
I will not repeat the points I have already made about strengthening the links to public health and making sure that is not forgotten. We will have 600 public health people going back into the NHS, but we very specifically have not changed the legislation that put directors of public health in England into local government. Of course, directors of public health in the three devolved nations are currently in the NHS. If you do not give people flexibility, you run the risk of your system not working. If we ensure that the framework and assurance process are right, the legislation takes us part of the way, but we want some checks and balances in relation to those freedoms, to make sure that there is a basic minimum standard across the country. If you have an ICS that is not working with its local authority, that is not a level where the ICS should be signed off. The ICS should be asked to go and demonstrate the commitment that the flexibility has allowed them. There is a statement in the framework that was released a couple of months ago, which said that the directors of public health will have an official role on both boards. I found that a pretty good statement to have, but it is only a statement that is effective if there is some assurance that that can be delivered on, and there need to be some checks and balances in order to make sure that those kinds of things are not ignored. Because of the variety—some ICSs cater for 2 million or 3 million people, and some for 1 million—you need the flexibility. If you want them to own and deal with the problems of their population, having a little bit of flexibility is the right approach, provided that the minimum standards are met across the whole country.
Edward Argar
Q
Cllr James Jamieson: From a legislative perspective, largely yes. I reiterate the point that I have made a couple of times already: the statutory and non-statutory guidelines will be critical in this area. We need to get them right and ensure that there is real embedded consultation. There are a couple of things that we are concerned about. I have not mentioned them yet, so I will use this opportunity to do so. One is the increase in the powers of the Secretary of State to call in NHS reconfiguration proposals and so forth, and the risk that that would undermine the existing local government influence, overview and scrutiny, so we would ask for a change to schedule 6 of the Bill in order to ensure that there is consultation at a local level before those powers are enacted.
The second area—it is probably not what you are asking about, but it is important that we raise it—is assurance around social care. It is good to have assurance around social care, but we need to make sure that that assurance is proportionate and is in context. Bearing in mind how stretched social care is from a financial perspective, it would be unreasonable to expect social care to do more than its budget allows it to do. In the same way, social care is also very dependent on the performance of the NHS, community care and so forth. We have some concerns around that assurance framework, which needs some work.
Edward Argar
Thank you, both. Mr McCabe, I am conscious of time and our programme motion, so I will pause there.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. I thank both our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Eluned Morgan, Lyn Summers and Mari Williams gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Eluned Morgan, who is the Minister for Health and Social Services in the Welsh Government. I hope that I have pronounced your name properly. We will also hear from Lyn Summers, head of health and social services central legislation team, and Mari Williams, senior lawyer (health)—both from the Welsh Government. All witnesses are remote, and we have until 5.15 pm for the session.
Dr James Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: Thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence this afternoon. Obviously the Bill mainly relates to England, but I want to say that I understand what the Bill is trying to do and achieve and I am pleased that it represents some moves towards removing market competition from health and care. I am very pleased to say that we have never had that in Wales because we have our system of unitary health authorities.
There are a number of areas of the Bill that impact Wales. I have set out the significant concerns I have in a letter to Minister Argar. I would be very pleased to present the letter if that is helpful to the Committee. To summarise that letter, there are nine areas of the Bill that I think require the legislative consent of the Senedd. I have set out these areas in a legislative consent memorandum, which has been laid before the Senedd. We are currently in a disagreement with the Department of Health and Social Care UK regarding some of the clauses that the Welsh Government consider to fall into the areas that require the legislative consent of the Senedd. There are a few where we both agree that legislative consent is needed.
In response to your question, Dr Davies, the aspects of the Bill will impact Wales are special health authorities; accounts and auditing; clause 78 on hospital patients with care and support needs—that is the one you referred to, I think, with the border issue; clause 85 on a UK-wide medicine information system; clauses 86 to 92 on transfer of functions between arm’s length bodies; clause 120 on international healthcare agreements; clause 123 on regulation of healthcare and associated professions; and clause 127 on food information for consumers. We consider clause 125 on advertising of less healthy food and drink an important point for us. Clause 130 is also really important to us. The power to make consequential provision also falls within the legislative competence of the Senedd. I think that is something that is worth looking at. I am happy to go through some of the detail on those if that would be helpful to you. Should I continue with that, Dr Davies?
Dr Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: Interesting. We do not necessarily have an issue with the policy of some of them, but we are very concerned with some aspects of the constitutional shift and power grab that is happening here from the UK Government’s point of view. For example, the provision on arm’s length bodies is going to impact Wales in several ways. The UK Government are suggesting a requirement to consult the devolved Administrations before those powers are exercised. Frankly, that is just not good enough, because that memorandum of understanding, which the UK Government offered to present to alleviate some of our concerns, is a passing thing. It cannot be enforced by law and it does not bind future Governments, so we are very keen to see all the areas that impinge on our powers move from a duty to consult to a duty to get the support of the Senedd. There is a fundamental shift that we would like to see because we feel that our powers are impinged on.
The other point, which is quite interesting in the context of what is happening with Brexit, is that a number of clauses contain powers that enable the UK Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to provisions in a Senedd law. That is absolutely constitutionally unacceptable. It is fascinating when you think that part of the reason for the UK leaving the EU was to remove an outside institution’s ability to legislate in relation to the UK, yet the irony seems to be completely lost on the UK Government when the same consideration is not applied to legislation in the devolved Administrations in areas where it is absolutely clear where the power should lie. Those are the two fundamental issues that I am concerned about.
Dr Davies
Q
Eluned Morgan: There is clearly merit in having a system where data can be shared. We do not have a fundamental objection in principle to that and we would be very keen to set up systems that can speak to each other. I guess our objection would be where we are forced to share information that we do not necessarily feel should be shared. Why is that information needed and for what purposes? We would have to be very clear on that. It is not an objection in principle. In our discussion, I was very clear that I think it makes perfect sense for us to get those systems to be able to speak to each other. Again, it is more about the constitutional issues that have been thrown up and the UK Government’s ability to work in our NHS system and to gain information that is not theirs to have. If we want to give it, we are more than willing to do that.
The Chair
Before I move on, do Ms Williams or Ms Summers want to add anything to the questions that have been asked so far?
Eluned Morgan: I do not think they have got anything to add.
Karin Smyth
Q
Eluned Morgan: We are all very aware that the care system is under incredible pressure at the moment. In Wales, we have been able to introduce new systems through legislation that give our health services the power to co-operate and work, within a legal framework, with the care services and local authorities. That has made a significant difference already. We have a long way to go, and this is only the beginning of the process, but that is an example of where a close working relationship, and providing the framework that allows that to happen, is working well. It needs to go a lot further, though.
The Chair
Thank you. Do either of you wish to add anything to that?
Eluned Morgan: Lyn or Mari, do you have anything to add?
Mari Williams: No, thank you.
Dr Whitford
Q
Eluned Morgan: To be fair, my officials have had regular meetings with the Bill and policy teams, and I have met once with Minister Argar to discuss the Bill. However, I am afraid that that did not lead to our key concerns being addressed before the Bill’s introduction.
I concur with you that we were really disappointed at the lateness of the notification of this Bill, and the absence of engagement with the Welsh Government in terms of the practicalities of the outcomes of discussions. For example, we received sight of the White Paper statement on the Bill only on the afternoon before it was published. We had sight of all the Bill’s clauses only the day before introduction. With the best will in the world, we have some brilliant officials in the Welsh Government, but even they cannot work at that supersonic speed. We did not have the opportunity to look at all the final clauses and to respond to them before the Bill was introduced.
The point is that if the UK Government are serious about saying that we will be consulted, this is not a good model for them to show us that we have been consulted. Their stated aim was, “In your areas, where the power is rightly yours, you will be consulted.” If this is the model that they are going to use, we are in for a really tough time. That is why I would concur with you that the real issue is that we want consent on areas that are rightfully and constitutionally ours.
Dr Whitford
Q
May I ask you a short, specific question? The healthcare services safety investigation body is England-only at the moment, but it is described that investigations could be requested in Welsh cases due to people coming over the border. Is that something that the Welsh Government are considering? At what level would such a decision be made? Would that be a local request, or would it go up through your central structures?
Eluned Morgan: Lyn or Mari may want to come in here. The key thing to remember—Dr James Davies will be aware of this—is that a huge amount of cross-border working happens between Wales and England, so it is important that we understand each system. I do not think that we would have an objection in principle to working in the way that you suggest, but where, for example, there is a body that is “England and Wales”, it is rightly written in our legislation that we cannot be told what to do. It is not about the policy itself. For example, if there is an auditing issue, we will not go to war or have a fight about how something is audited; it is the process that we are concerned with. It is not that we would object, but it is rightfully in our power to determine whether we want to do something.
Dr Whitford
Q
Eluned Morgan: Absolutely, and we are developing our own systems in relation to those things, of course. It is our patient information, and we should be deciding who has access to it and when.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: I am more than happy to send the correspondence that I have sent to Minister Argar to the Committee, so you can see it. It sets out all the issues that we are concerned with in relation to the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: I am not aware that we have seen an impact assessment. Lyn and Mari may have more to add.
Lyn Summers: No, we have not.
Alex Norris
Q
Eluned Morgan: This is in relation to nursing. We have a law on safe staffing levels in nursing. Not only has it been implemented, but it has been extended since we brought in that Bill. It is something that the Royal College of Nursing is hugely appreciative of, and something that we are keeping an eye on. It has made a difference to patient safety, and we in the Welsh Government take it very seriously.
Edward Argar
Q
I want to pick up on something that colleagues have touched on and which you have highlighted around the model of integration in Wales—the unitary model, for want of a better way of putting it. I acknowledge that you said it was early days, but I would like to get a sense of how you feel that model is delivering a national system but allowing local flexibility, and of the extent to which it is delivering, even in its early days, improved health outcomes for patients in Wales. As we look at ICSs and closer working between local authorities and the NHS in England, it may be instructive for us to learn from your experience, even if it is not a direct parallel, and from what you are seeing, even in these early days.
Eluned Morgan: We had a parliamentary review that looked at our NHS and care system, and went into a lot of detail about what we could change. A lot of it was about the need to integrate—[Inaudible.] What we have done as a result is take an interim step towards better integration. We not only set up the legislative framework for that, but put significant funding into driving these health and care systems to work together. We had an integrated care fund and a transformation fund. We found that both the health service and the care service really liked the new approach. They really have engaged. We have kind of allowed a thousand flowers to bloom here, and there have been some really innovative ideas and work. How do we get people out of hospital quicker? How do we drive that change? There have been some great examples.
What we are still struggling with, if I am honest, is that we are still finding difficulty getting both the health service and the care service to understand that what they have changed and what works well now needs to be mainstreamed. There cannot be additional funding forever. The purpose of that additional funding was to give the confidence to do it in the mainstream. We are finding that they have pocketed that money, saying, “This is great. Can we have more, please?” We have tried to make it clear to them that that was never the idea. The idea was for them to have that transformation funding to drive change.
That is our next challenge, and that is what we are working on now, but there are ways of doing that. Clearly, this is a difficult time to be doing it, but some health boards are frankly being driven into closer working relationships, because there are so many examples of delayed transfer of care given the infrastructure at the local government level. Do not forget that in Wales we have not seen anything like the cuts that have happened in England, but even we are feeling the pressure in quite a significant way, and we are having some real issues in relation to recruitment to the care workforce in particular. That is the biggest challenge for us at the moment.
Edward Argar
Q
Eluned Morgan: It has been quite interesting. With care, for example, we have found that a lot of competition was going, such as between the independent care providers and the local authority—they were poaching from each other. All of that was damaging to the public purse and to the provision that we could give. Now we are in the process of developing an all-Wales framework within which people who want to provide care in Wales will work. That is what we are working on—a new legislative framework that will provide the infrastructure and give the minimal standards that they will have to meet. It is also making sure that we are driving quality through the system.
Edward Argar
Q
Eluned Morgan: What is difficult is that we started this process pre-pandemic but, clearly, with the pandemic we are in a very different situation. It is difficult to say what the model would look like in normal times, because we have had 18 months of something very different. It is hard for us to assess that evidence in the light of our circumstances at the moment, if I am honest.
The Chair
No one else? As there are no further questions, I thank you, Minister Morgan, and your officials for the evidence that you have provided today.
Eluned Morgan: Diolch yn fawr.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 9th September 2021
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 September 2021 - (9 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings of the Committee. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate only electronically with Ministers. If everyone is agreed, we will go into private sitting to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
All our witnesses are appearing in person. It is helpful if Members direct their questions to specific witnesses.
Before calling the first panel of witnesses, I first remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order the Committee has agreed. For the first panel, we have until 12.15 pm.
Secondly, do any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Chair, I am still a member of the British Medical Association.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I remain a member of the BMA.
The Chair
Welcome Sara and Chaand. Will you kindly introduce yourselves, please?
Sara Gorton: Good morning. I am Sara—it is pronounced as if it is spelled with an h at the end. I am head of health at the trade union Unison.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: My name is Dr Chaand Nagpaul. I am a GP in north London. I have been a GP for more than 30 years. I am chair of the BMA UK council. We represent doctors across the UK—more than 160,000. I represent all doctors of all types, working in hospitals, public health, general practice—you name it.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Sara Gorton: I hope you have had our Bill submission, which makes clear the areas where we feel the new Bill needs some amending. You are right that Unison was a signatory, along with the BMA and other colleagues, to the letter in 2019, so it is a matter of concern that, after all this time and with such broad consensus, we are still awaiting the legislation.
The Select Committee process that followed that letter clearly identified that the changes that have been added would be contentious, so that is adding further delay. There are a variety of elements that stray outside the clear consensus that was set out in the 2019 proposals. However, we are committed to seeing an end to a system that holds lots of unnecessary cost implications for the NHS. There is an urgent need to stabilise and give clarity of employment, particularly for the 27,000-plus people who are currently in a state of flux, moving between the clinical commissioning groups and the proposed new ICSs.
There are some clear areas where we would like to talk to you about amending, improving and strengthening what is in the legislation at the moment. There is very, very clear support for following through on the commitments in that 2019 letter, to strip away the unnecessary procurement and competition regime.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The BMA was very opposed, and I believe rightly so, to the changes in 2012. We felt they introduced unnecessary competition in the NHS that did not work, has not worked, was not good for the taxpayer, fragmented the service and increased private sector involvement, which we can talk about later. We were very supportive of any changes that would reverse that legislation and have a duty of collaboration. In fact, I led a piece of work at the BMA called “Caring, supportive, collaborative: a future vision for the NHS”, where we spelled out the sort of arrangements we believe would be right, in keeping with the principles of the national health service, and be right for patients, right for the workforce and right for the taxpayer.
In principle, the idea that the Government were relooking at or reversing the 2012 Act was something we supported. In one way, you could say that the repealing of section 75 is an element that we are supportive of. However, in doing so there are not sufficient safeguards and we believe there are many consequences that would actually do the reverse, in particular with regards to a lack of assuredness around national health service providers being supported, in terms of the continuation—we can talk about this later—of unequal arrangements for the private sector provision of care compared to the NHS, and in terms of the lack of clinical engagement that would ensue. Of course, we are getting rid of a whole tier of local commissioning organisations, CCGs, and moving them at a more distant level, called ICSs. We are very concerned about that.
We are also concerned about some of the Secretary of State’s powers and the balance between political accountability and political influence. There is a range of issues here that we think need to be addressed.
The other thing I should say is that we are in the midst of a pandemic. It is by no means over. It is hard to grasp the scale of the backlog of care. These changes have occurred when the profession has not been able to engage. I have not had the time to properly be involved in the input. With the BMA I have, but my colleagues have not. We believe that this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. We should really address what the NHS needs and get the right Bill at the right time, in due course.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sara Gorton: When we set out our support along with other parties in 2019, we saw huge benefits from not wasting unnecessary time, process, money and oversight on unnecessary competition, particularly where no provider other than the NHS was capable of providing the service. We support the removal of the role, as set out in that consensus letter, and that has travelled through to the legislation.
Where we think this could be more robust is the so-called provider selection regime that backs up exactly how the process will be carried out. We think that needs to be extended to make it absolutely explicit that the NHS is the preferred provider where there is an NHS service, that there need to be limits placed on roll-over without scrutiny from external providers and that that provision should be extended to cover non-clinical services. I think that earlier in the week you heard from employers how important the whole-team—the one-team—approach had been during the pandemic and how crucial that had been to tackling the spread of the virus and the work that the NHS had done. We think that principle should be extended and placed in the provider selection regime as well.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: We absolutely agree that repealing section 75 is something the BMA has called for since 2012. It has been a nonsense that every single contract up to this point has to be put out to tender: huge amounts of waste of taxpayers’ money and of time. As a GP, we were not even able to provide our own phlebotomy services without it going through a process, so in that sense, that is a good thing. However, just repealing section 75 without complementing it with the right tools to ensure collaboration will not work. In fact, the current arrangements repeal section 75 but do not provide any safeguards, or rather structural processes, that will, in our view, allow the NHS to work as a collaborative system.
The example I will give is that we believe the NHS should be the preferred provider of care wherever it is capable and wherever it is available to do so. There is so much evidence. People say: “Does it matter who provides?” Well, it does matter, and all the evidence in the last few years has shown repeated examples. Some of you will remember Circle taking over Hinchingbrooke Hospital. It is very easy for the private sector to say: “You know what? We will really run the NHS efficiently. We will use all the market skills we have.” The NHS does not work like that. We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do.
We only have to look back at the last year. Compare the vaccination programme run by the NHS and delivered by NHS staff to Test and Trace. Even with Test and Trace, compare the £400 million that Public Health England had to the billions that went to the private sector, and local public health teams reached 97% of contacts compared to 60% for the others. I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away. I think that given those things, we need to make sure the NHS is the preferred provider.
The Chair
Could I just ask you to keep your answers to within the scope of the Bill, please? Also, I ask if we could perhaps have more succinct answers. I still have several people who want to ask questions and we do not have a lot of time to get them in. I intend to call the Front Bench spokespeople at about 10 minutes to 12. I now move to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), but if we could keep to the confines of the Bill, that would be good.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Sara Gorton: This is a matter of no small significance to organisations such as my own that have membership across the UK. That ability to understand and translate the statistics that we get from one environment in the UK to another, and understand how that feeds through and get a whole picture of it, is really difficult at the moment. That is not just for the basic nuts and bolts of who is in the workforce at the moment, doing what job—the training plans, the workforce planning, and other aspects of workforce are really difficult to compare.
The short answer is that we would like to be involved in the interpretation, assuming that we do get that amendment through and the workforce reporting is on a more frequent basis than five years. We would like to be involved in the conversation about what that looks like, and how it can answer some of the issues that you have raised about feeding into a UK-wide perspective as well.
Hywel Williams
Q
Sara Gorton: That is not something we have considered in the passage of the legislation so far, but we are certainly willing to talk about it in future.
Hywel Williams
Q
Sara Gorton: There are all sorts of workforce aspects that are very relevant to the England and Wales environment. The joint systems we have for pay and pensions, and workforce planning as well, all need to be factored in, but lots of work on the detail of the workforce reporting is needed.
Dr James Davies
Q
Sara Gorton: That is not an area of the Bill that we focused on. Our main focus is on extending the provisions of the provider selection regime—the procurement. I can do some more work and send in something.
Dr Davies
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I can tell you, just from the personal experience of being a GP over 30 years and speaking to doctors and representing doctors, that clinical engagement is vital. None of us can have any workplace that functions well until those who work within it feel engaged—feel that their voice is heard and their experience is understood. One of my biggest concerns about the current arrangements is that at the moment, for example, we have clinical commissioning groups. We have had seven GPs in my local area representing me and my colleagues. That is going to whittle down to no one, except one primary care doctor—we think—on an ICS board, which will be more remote, so we are diluting that local accountability. We vote for those doctors who sit on the CCG boards; we will not have any voting, so you are reducing the numbers who are influencing.
The second point is that we believe that those who sit on ICS boards should be facing the reality of the clinicians they represent. In the medical profession, we have two statutory bodies—the local medical committees and the local negotiating committees—that represent hospital doctors and GPs, and we believe that they should be there because of their motive: they will be clinicians representing clinicians, as opposed to what sometimes happens, which is doctors becoming managers. We know that that just disconnects, and if you have a disconnect, you will not be able to deliver your aims as a health service.
The other notable omission in the Bill, we believe, is the lack of public health presence. There is no place for a public health doctor. Again, I know that it is not in the scope of the Bill, but I think we have to learn from the past year. Public health is vital.
The Chair
We should stick to within the scope of the Bill.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The scope of the Bill should include a public health doctor who is independent, who should be an advocate. Those of you who were present in the 1990s will know that is exactly what we had. An independent public health voice on ICS boards can provide proper independent advice on population health. These are meant to be population commissioning bodies, in the interests of the public. Those are the things that we think should be changed.
The Chair
Would anybody else like to ask a question from the Back Benches before I move to the Front-Bench spokespeople? Okay, that means that the SNP and Labour spokespeople have around 10 minutes. If they could keep it between nine and 10 minutes, that would be appreciated. I call Dr Philippa Whitford.
Dr Whitford
Q
I will ask each of you the same question. Obviously, the aim of the Committee is to improve the Bill and bring in voices. Sara, if you could amend only one part of the Bill, what would it be, and what change do you think would improve it to the greatest degree? I know that you may have three or four—your submissions are here—but what do you want us to do that would have the biggest impact in improving what actually happens to health and social care?
Sara Gorton: I am going to choose something that I think none of the other people you hear from, except staff representative bodies, will pick up on. We would like to see the principle set out in the NHS constitution: to involve staff in decision making about how the service that they work in is set up and run, and in decisions that could affect the way they work. That principle is very clear in the NHS constitution; at the moment, with the system set up the way it is, that is transacted through the relationships that staff have with their employers at a provider level. If the system proposed in the Bill comes in, one of the risks is that that may be undercut by decisions made at ICS level. I think trade unions and staff would feel as though they had a stake and would be reassured that they had involvement in future decisions with workforce implications made by those new bits of the system if that pledge were placed in the legislation and were the underpinning principle.
Dr Whitford
Thank you very much. Certainly, for some of the projects in Scotland around quality improvement or patient safety, the involvement of staff has actually made that work. Dr Nagpaul, I am pinning you down to one area and one change that you think will make a big difference.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: The area would be around collaboration. We would want the section 75 regulations to be amended to make the NHS the preferred provider where it is able to do that. As part of that, there would be legislative changes on the duties of foundation trusts and other NHS providers to collaborate. We believe that at the moment, the changes for section 75 do not tally with any such duty, and we find that providers are focused on their own budgets and balance sheets, so you are talking about collaboration but not enabling it. We would want both those changes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Can I come back on that? At the moment, we are seeing foundation trusts thinking about their budgets, community providers thinking about theirs, and general practice as well. There is not even collaboration between the community and the hospital. No foundation trust currently has the ability to say, for example, “We will go beyond our budget and invest in the community—it may actually reduce our hospital admissions.” At the moment there is no structure of processes to enable collaboration even within the NHS.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: It is only looking at it—like sitting around the table. We have had a lot of these arrangements in the past. Until you actually change the duty of a foundation trust to collaborate, so that its board meetings are no longer focused purely on its own balance sheet but actually look at the good of the local community as a statutory change, we do not think this will work. It will just be aspirational.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: We are supportive of the concept of the HSIB. We know that the NHS is riddled with a fear culture and a targeting of individuals for systemic failures. Based upon the aviation industry, it is absolutely right to have arrangements whereby you can learn from serious incidents, and healthcare staff, doctors and patients have a safe place where they are free, without fear, to contribute and learn from such incidents.
What is important—this is something we learned from a previous episode involving a doctor called Doctor Bawa-Garba, where there were a lot of issues around her information being disclosed—is that safe places should be safe places. They should be legally privileged. That will allow us to make the NHS safer, because I think that openness will allow us to address the systemic issues that actually make up the majority of medical errors in our health service.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sara Gorton: The HSSIB is not an area that we have covered and focused on in our response, but like the BMA we are strongly supportive of attempts to drive a just and learning culture across the NHS. We have participated, through the social partnership forum in the NHS, in trying to spread that culture, and we are strongly supportive of the Freedom To Speak Up Guardian programme that is in operation in the NHS in England and its interaction with staff and their representative bodies.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sara Gorton: Yes, indeed—certainly no opposition to that.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Yes. If you repeal section 75 but do not allow the NHS to be a preferred provider, we believe that opens the door for contracts to be handed out to the private sector and undermines the NHS.
Although it may fall out of scope, the point is that there is every reason for the NHS to be a preferred provider. The point I am making is that the NHS really is effective and cost-effective, and allows for a population approach from providers that have accountability to local populations.
The other problem we have at the moment, unless you put in legislation to make the NHS the preferred provider, is that at the moment a lot of contracts are going out to the private sector and are affecting workforce training. In some areas, cataract operations have been moved en bloc into the private sector, meaning that ophthalmology trainees are not even seeing them, and the providers that are providing cataract operations are being paid the same sum of money but not providing the full service.
Another problem we have at the moment is cherry-picking. It has been there since 2012 and nothing in this Bill is legislatively addressing that. It means that you pay the same amount to a hospital—I am a GP and there is a list of exclusion criteria for any patient who has co-morbidities or complex conditions, so I cannot refer them there—but when something goes wrong in the middle of the night or on a weekend, they end up in the A&E of our local hospital.
That is why we believe it is really important that the Bill is amended to make the NHS the preferred provider; that is what we are referring to. We believe it will allow for a much more co-ordinated, accountable, locally focused and population-approach health service.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: If we have a Bill that is designed to support the NHS, we just feel that it does not make sense to then allow a private provider to sit on a commissioning board. We believe that there is an inherent conflict of interest. It is really important to understand that there is a difference between the private provider and the NHS. The private provider is ultimately driven by its financial motives, and to be sitting on a board influencing the spend of money where it may have an interest is a conflict of interest. That does not apply to the NHS. A doctor from a hospital does not have any financial gain to be made. I come back to the fact that we need to support the NHS, not as an ideological principle, but because it actually works.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: No, I do not. If the NHS cannot provide a service—if it does not have the capacity—and there is a private sector contract, the private provider needs to be held to account to deliver. As I say, I think the same rules should be applied, so that if there is a complication, they need to be accountable for that complication, rather than the patient going back to the NHS, which picks up the pieces. There is a need to hold private providers to account where they are contracted to provide care, but we do not approve of them sitting on the commissioning board, which is about the use of public resources in the interests of local populations. That should be a commissioning decision, and commissioners who are accountable to the NHS and providers of the NHS should be sitting as part of that arrangement.
Justin Madders
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: Sure. One is the NHS mandate, which spells out how the NHS functions. At the moment, the powers allow the Secretary of State to amend the mandate. We would like that to be affirmative. We would like it to be approved by Parliament, and therefore Parliament would vote to agree changes to the mandate. That is one area.
The other concern is about the local reconfigurations. We know how politically sensitive these things can be. We would not want the Secretary of State to have disproportionate powers in those arrangements, which will often be more susceptible to political influence. We think that those need to be safeguarded by mandated clinician involvement, so that we make the right decisions about local services. It is a counterbalance: we want a health service that has local clinician leadership, but on the other hand the Secretary of State can intervene. We think that is an amendment that needs to be made.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: There are a couple of points to raise here. First, we would like to see in the legislation confirmation of what we have been given assurances of in guidance and conversation—that there is no intention for any new parts of the system to undermine the existing collective arrangements and that, for the workforce I represent, the collective agenda for change agreement would apply for their staff. There is a very clear amendment that could be supported to ensure the new bodies are listed as what are called annex 1 employers in the relevant terms and conditions documents. That is one aspect.
The other aspect is the role that the provider selection regime can play—sorry, not the provider selection regime; what are called the people responsibilities, which are set out in some of the guidance materials that have only been recently published to support the legislation. They set out 10 areas relating to workforce over which the new bodies may have scope. We would like to see those areas of scope clearly defined within the legislation. That is why what I said earlier about the commitment to involve staff through the constitution promise is so important. We want to ensure that, if decisions are made at system level that undercut the role that staff have in making decisions within providers—if there are overarching decisions made about workforce—staff have an opportunity, through their representatives, to understand what the impact might be and to influence that conversation.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: We are supposed to stick to polite language in here, aren’t we? You can all probably imagine what most of our members feel. Sticking within the scope of the Bill, as we have been asked to, the relevant segue is to go back to the extension of the provider selection regime to the non-clinical services. We are strongly supportive of the measures that have been put in place to ensure that service sustainability and social value are taken into account. Clearly, however, extending those provisions to non-clinical services would create a culture of in-sourcing, of valuing all members of the healthcare team equally, and place those on an equal footing.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: As you have hopefully seen in our briefing, we are calling for that to be either explained in much more detail in the guidance, or dropped from the legislation. We are already seeing concerns from regulated occupations that this could lead to a sort of “regulation-lite” scenario, and there are concerns that, without it being clear exactly what the proposals would entail, this could be a hostage to fortune. We would very much like to see some clarity on that, or have it taken out at this stage.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: What we are more concerned about is the potential risk that, if involved in the ICBs and in the partnerships, they could exert influence over the exploratory stage of discussions, which could tilt the balance their way. That seems out of kilter when we do not have clarity that staff of the NHS will have the opportunity to be involved at the same sort of level. We are very keen to ensure that we support amendments making any of the processes, and the way that the boards meet, more transparent, and, clearly, subject to the freedom of information process.
Justin Madders
Q
Sara Gorton: At the moment, there is no explicit route through. What is set out in the published guidance documents is that the route for trade unions to be involved will be through the regional structures of NHS England and NHS Improvement. That is at a distance, and potentially after decisions have been made. Putting in a clear link, through that staff pledge in the NHS constitution and having that underpinning in the legislation, would really make clear the principle of staff involvement and engagement at the earliest stage of decisions.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
To both of you, do you think that now is the right time? I know that Chand has answered that, but this second part might apply to him: if it is not, when is the right time?
Sara Gorton: We were strong opponents of the 2012 legislation, so, in our view, the right time to do this would have been to not put that legislation through. However, we have been waiting for this batch of changes for some time. It has been evident, from 2013-14, and certainly since the “Five Year Forward View” was published, that what we were doing was having a structural workaround with people tacitly agreeing to almost ignore legislation. That is just not acceptable in the system.
Certainly, for my members who have been moved into new arm’s length bodies, moved around those bodies, and are now subject to another change, they want the security of knowing who is going to be employing them this time next year. In our view, the changes, both to the competition and procurement regime, and to clarifying how the new bodies will operate and what powers they will have, cannot wait. There are lots of other aspects that, as you can see from our briefing, we suggest could wait for future debate.
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I want to be clear: we do not support the status quo. There is a pressing need to repeal much of the 2012 Act. However, I cannot overestimate how much the pandemic has affected us. We have not been able to be engaged, so it has to be asked: why do we need the Bill at this moment in time, when we are all absolutely overwhelmed? We know that any reorganisation of the health service means that people get distracted from their core work. The process of reorganisation takes human resource time. We have not been able to engage with this as we should, so we do not think that this is the right time.
The right time would be decided by two factors: first, when we are through the worst of what we are going through at the moment, and secondly, when the legitimate concerns we have are addressed, and there are the amendments that we would like to see. This Bill can shape the future of our health service. Get the right Bill, at the right time.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: I am afraid I will have to let you know later, as I do not, off the top of my head, know exactly what those Bills contained.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Chaand Nagpaul: First, the rules at the moment do not factor in that the NHS provides, in addition to the service, a complete, full body of care for patients. The same money would go on a hip replacement in the private sector. Secondly, there is the training element that I mentioned earlier. Thirdly, no acute NHS trust can walk away after two years—it is there to provide care to its population—but Serco was able to walk away after two years. We have many examples of private companies that have ended their GP contracts. Serco left an out-of-hours contract in Cornwall; that does not happen in the NHS. My local hospital has been there for as long as I can remember—it cannot walk away. The NHS provides accountability and duty, but more importantly, it is actually cost-effective. The staff have national terms and conditions; they provide huge amounts of good will and work above their contracts. It just makes sense to be resourcing our NHS.
Every time you take a contract away from the NHS, it is defunding the local system. We want taxpayers’ money to bolster an NHS that is co-ordinated, because we also want changes in the legislative requirements for foundation trusts and other NHS bodies to collaborate.
Edward Argar
Q
Sara Gorton: What the legislation sets out is a proposal for system working. Therefore, having something that disrupts that system is potentially counterproductive. I strongly support putting the NHS first—the NHS default—into the provider selection regime that is listed in clause 68.
Justin Madders
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. On the Minister’s question to the BMA witness about previous Acts that the BMA may have endorsed, that would clearly be out of scope as evidence. I would not want Dr Nagpaul to waste time researching an answer that the Committee could not take into account.
Edward Argar
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray. Would it help if I set out the context in which I believe that question relates directly to the content of the Bill? Much of what is discussed in the Bill relates to previous legislation that has grown up over time; understanding which pieces of legislation the BMA supports will help us to better understand the evidence it has put forward on this legislation, and its context.
The Chair
Mr Madders, I think that the Minister has taken on board your point of order and paid attention to it. Thank you, Minister.
As there are no further questions, because we are out of time, I thank our witnesses very much for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Martin Marshall, Pat Cullen and Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Professor Martin Marshall, the chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners; Pat Cullen, the general secretary and chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing; and Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, the chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges—all of whom are appearing in person. Starting with Pat Cullen, could I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record?
Pat Cullen: I am Pat Cullen. Thank you for inviting me along. I am the recently appointed chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. We are a trade union and a professional organisation, and we represent more than 480,000 nurses.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: Hi! I am Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, and I am chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The Academy is the umbrella body for all the medical royal colleges in the UK and Ireland; we also cover the independent medical faculties.
Professor Martin Marshall: Good afternoon, everybody. I am Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners and a practising GP in Newham in east London.
The Chair
Thank you. We have until 1 pm for this session, so I propose the same timings as for the last one. I call on Back-Bench Members to indicate if they have any questions.
Dr James Davies
Q
Pat Cullen: We have yet to submit our evidence in relation to the Bill—we are currently doing that. It is very clear to us and our members that the Bill does not go far enough on accountability for the workforce. We are very clear that the workforce shortages in nursing are not addressed properly through the Bill.
The Chair
Could you speak up a little bit, please? We are finding it quite difficult to hear you.
Pat Cullen: That is not normal, mind you, for a woman from Northern Ireland! I will try again. Principally, our response to the Bill is that the accountability issues do not go far enough in the Bill. We are asking for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to not only clearly have full accountability and responsibility for the assessment of workforce planning, but ensure accountability for the delivery of the workforce. It is not just about the assessment. We are all clear about and know about—it has been played out well—the shortages of nursing staff. We had 40,000 vacancies heading into the pandemic. We make up 26% of the workforce. Everywhere you see a patient, you see a nurse, and we need nurses. That is the only way to provide the best care for our patients. We say that the legislator at the highest level must have that accountability and responsibility for the assessment and the delivery of the workforce shortages in nursing.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has worked very closely with the Government on the development of the Bill, and we have been very grateful for the opportunity to collaborate so far. We have been largely supportive of the direction of travel, but the workforce, in clause 33 particularly, is the one area where we probably still have the greatest concern. We feel that it needs to go further. That builds on exactly what Pat has said. Along with other organisations such as the RCN, we have co-signed an amendment that goes further on that.
We feel that workforce planning needs to be very transparent and collaborative across multiple organisations and agencies, but ultimately owned by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It needs to take on board both the projected supply of workforce already in the pipeline and projected demand. We anticipate that the line representing workforce supply going upwards, and the line representing the demand for need and care climbing even more steeply. There is a gap between them that, at the moment, we cannot quantify. It needs to be quantified and made transparent. Even if the state does not feel it can fund for that gap, we should not be afraid of knowledge. Without knowledge, we run into the risk of repeating historical cycles of boom and bust when it comes to workforce planning. That would be our big plea to you: try to strengthen that, and please do not fear knowledge—it will help us in the end.
Professor Martin Marshall: The Royal College of General Practitioners, as members of the Academy, are completely in line with Helen’s position. There is a marked workforce crisis relating to general practitioners and other health professionals who work in general practice. Without an adequate workforce, it will be very difficult to deliver any of the ambitions of the Bill, so we are absolutely in favour of a much stronger emphasis on workforce. I think workforce planning is an oxymoron and has been for many years in the NHS. This is an opportunity to do something about it.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: We have thought about this seriously—what would be a sensible interval? Having discussed this extensively with colleagues right across the health and care landscape, we have come to the conclusion that two-yearly feels about right. Annually just feels too intense, and it would be too labour-intensive to get meaningful data out in that period; you would run the risk of fatigue in the system. If we go much longer than two years, we run the risk of fundamental change coming into the system—another pandemic or some other national thing happening that needs to be factored in, and of which we need to be made aware. We have come down on two years, and that is the proposal that we put forward.
Every time, the work needs to look five, 10 and 20 years ahead. We need that longer-term projection. It takes so long to train doctors—that is the agency that I represent—from their entry to medical school to consultant independent practice that you need to have that time lag built into the system. That way, you can look at the totality of the workforce and ensure that you have the right interim solutions for the needs of the population.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Pat Cullen: Yes, we would certainly agree. We believe that annual plans are too short-term for the reasons that Helen has laid out—training nurses takes three years, and when you think about the added training for clinical specialist nurses and other advanced nurses in practice, it absolutely needs to be at least two years.
Professor Martin Marshall: We agree that two years is the right interval. I think the request of HEE to produce a high-level framework is a good start—that is correct—but it is just a start, and a high-level framework does not help workforce planning on the ground. It is right that most workforce planning should happen at a local level, but some elements need to be managed nationally. Basically, this is such an important issue for the NHS that it needs to be absolutely top priority in the Bill.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I am conscious that I did not answer the second part of your question about who should be involved. We propose that this be led by Health Education England, but it has to be done in collaboration with NHS England. We cannot look at the needs of the population without involving them. There are other bodies, too. For doctors in particular, we would argue that the Medical Schools Council and the GMC have to be involved. I am sure Pat will have similar views.
In terms of population needs, we need to look at the Office for Budget Responsibility and use the resources of the Office for National Statistics. We need to go widely on this; it is not about saying, “That is one person’s problem to sort, and then the Secretary of State signs it off.” This is a truly collaborative effort, and we need to legislate for and enable collaboration in the greatest possible sense.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: Universities have an enormous amount to offer. If we look at the way that universities have operated in academic health science networks in the current structures, in many parts they have played a really significant role. I absolutely think that ICSs give us an opportunity to bring universities into the debate.
Education is particularly important here. If the Bill is to achieve its potential of better population health, there are some massive training leads for all the workforce, and universities clearly need to be involved in that process.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: To supplement what Martin has said, we have not criticised what the Bill says at the moment. For us, this is where the Bill is an enabler, and we hope it is a greater enabler that what we have currently. In that sense, the logical thing to do next is greater collaboration. The challenge with legislation is that although it can remove barriers and enable, it does not actually change culture. We need to engage with the individuals who are establishing this and ensure that the frontline educators and clinicians are on board with it to make it a reality.
Clearly, I support what Martin said about the vital need for education right across the piece. I think you will find that the universities are very much up for that and keen. It has been difficult to expand training places across nursing and medicine in short order, but it is something the universities are really stepping up to do. I think we would all argue that we want to go further and faster to deliver the best possible care for the public.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have about 10 minutes, and three people have indicated that they want to ask questions, so if we could direct our questions to one person and keep questions and answers brief, that would be very helpful, because I would like to include everybody.
Hywel Williams
Q
Pat Cullen: We have had some thoughts about this across the countries—and we can learn from all of the countries, really. Of course, you will know from my accent that I come from Northern Ireland, and our regulator is a four-country regulator. In relation to the standards that are referred to within the Bill, I think our royal college will play an important role in terms of working with our regulator to look at some of the devolved responsibilities and the role that we can play in setting standards for our profession, and assisting and supporting our regulator in the setting of those standards right across the country, and obviously the other countries as well.
More recently, we have just brought out our nursing workforce standards, which apply across the four countries, and we had significant engagement in those right across the four countries. If you look at those standards being aligned in the new Bill and reading across to the new Bill, working across with our regulator and having more powers devolved to a royal college will enhance the regulator’s response to standards and the applicability of those standards, and their implementation across the countries.
Edward Timpson
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: We have pushed very hard for clinical representation on the board, and I think that the acknowledgement that a primary care representative is required is absolutely right. Of course, one representative is not going to change the world, but there is something symbolic about it, and there is something about having a primary care voice that is really important. The nature of that primary care voice is interesting, because of course, general practice is a multi-disciplinary specialty, and we work very closely with our nursing colleagues, our pharmacy colleagues and a whole range of different clinical disciplines. I think that in most localities, it is likely that a GP will be the representative of primary care, most obviously because general practice has a long track record of being involved in the management of the NHS, and the onus will then be on that general practitioner to represent all of the primary care voices. As a college, just last week we had a very productive workshop involving all the different specialties in primary care, and a strong sense of consensus that we must and will work together to drive this forward.
I have a particular focus on the primary care voice—I guess that is my job; Helen might refer to other clinical voices—but it is particularly important for primary care, for the simple reason that in primary care, we deal with about 90% of the presentations that come to the NHS every day. We live in, and are closest to, the communities that we serve. We are trained to address the broader determinants of health. We are trained as doctors, as GPs, for example, but we are trained to understand the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Everything that is important about this Bill is stuff that general practice is expert in, so we feel the general practice voice is really important.
One of our biggest concerns—not so much with the legislation, but the way that this is likely to play out on the ground—is that the general practice voice threatens to be diminished as a consequence of the change in legislation around CCGs. If you look at what the boards will look like, we know that the acute trusts will still have their governance arrangements and their budgets. CCGs are going to disappear. We are not necessarily saying that that is the wrong thing, but it means that a lot of the experienced clinical leaders in CCGs risk getting lost, and we know that that is not happening in some of the ICSs around the country, but it is happening in others. The CCG staff are just being transferred into the ICSs, but there is a real risk that the leaders who have been around for a decade or two decades, who understand the nature of organisational change and understand what the Bill is trying to achieve, will get lost. We know from the evidence that the most successful integrated care organisations around the world are the ones that are primary care led, so if primary care does not have a dominant voice, the ICSs are much less likely to achieve their potential.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
I would like to ask this to everybody. Personally, I think this issue of clinical representation is a backwards step in this Bill. You may or may not want to say whether you think that is true, but given that you have said that successful organisations are primary care-led, and none of these organisations will be clinically-led, let alone primary care-led, that is not rectifiable in the Bill through an amendment, I suspect. How will we ensure that these organisations are successful from a clinical leadership perspective, given the current state of the legislation, or would you be putting forward suggestions for amendments? I am sorry, but I do not think I have time to ask all three of you. Currently, CCGs are GP-led, so—
The Chair
We have about three minutes, so could you keep your answers to one minute each?
Professor Martin Marshall: I speak very rapidly.
“How?” is an interesting question. Can it be done in legislation? I think there have to be some legislative levers to ensure that this happens properly on the ground. There are some examples—one in Surrey and one in Gloucestershire—where there is already a very strong commitment to a robust primary care voice, so there is something about shining a light on those examples, which others can learn from. That is not a legislative responsibility, but it is a really important one. There is certainly something about holding localities to account and understanding what is happening on the ground at regular intervals, in terms of whether those voices are present and whether they are being heard.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I would strongly advocate that everyone takes a look at the very excellent document that NHS England put out just a few days ago, which is about implementation guidance for ICSs on clinical leadership. I have to say that whoever put it together absolutely nailed it, in terms of what to do and how. There is a how-to guide there. I had no input into it, so I feel I can shamelessly give you that, because there are a lot of answers in there.
The legislation as it stands on clinical leadership does not prevent any of those things, as I understand it. That goes back to my other point about ensuring that the legislation removes barriers and is a facilitative enabler of these things. Clearly, my colleagues have more specific things about it. I just want to draw to your attention to the fact that it says that clinicians who get involved in leadership need to be supported, protected and resourced to do so, because unfortunately clinician time is expensive. That comes back to the original conversation about workforce, but we have to factor it in. The evidence is quite clear that better clinical input in all disciplines helps systems run better and be safer. It is more cost-effective, but that needs support factored in from the outside.
Pat Cullen: You will not be surprised to hear me say that the Bill does not go far enough, and we will be looking for an amendment. There absolutely needs to be a director of nursing at the top table if you are to prevent what has happened and what has gone before, where the financial balancing of books significantly impacts the decisions of that table. The only way to ensure patient safety and quality of care, and that the workforce that we deserve and need for our patients are paramount and the centre of those discussions, is to have our clinical leaders at the top table. That must be a director of nursing, not only to bring evidence on the clinical care that needs to be delivered to the table to shape each strategic decision, but to hold that person to account for our workforce and ensure that the workforce is available to provide care for our patients.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We now turn to the SNP spokesperson, Dr Philippa Whitford. You have about seven minutes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Pat Cullen: No surprise, it is the accountability for workforce planning sitting and resting with the Secretary of State. I do not think any legislator or politician should have any issue with that. It is not about accountability being forced and pushed to the frontline. Of course, frontline clinical staff will have accountability and responsibility for the delivery of care, but that needs to be enshrined in legislation, and the Secretary of State needs to hold full accountability for workforce assessment and planning, and for ensuring that we have the workforce to deliver the best care for our patients. We owe that to every single nurse in the services today.
Dr Whitford
Q
Pat Cullen: Absolutely, and of course we look with envy at Wales and Scotland, although Scotland is lagging behind our Welsh colleagues in terms of safe staffing legislation. We will certainly push for safe staffing legislation to be brought forward in England as well. Of course, it is no surprise to anyone that our wonderful nurses moved to industrial action in Northern Ireland to push not for pay, but for safe nurse staffing legislation. That is what is important to every single nurse who is trying to care for their patients today.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: My one place is the same: the workforce issue and clause 33. It is about looking at both the supply of the workforce and the needs of the population—I think it has to be both those things. The responsibility rests with the Secretary of State.
Professor Martin Marshall: I have stated mine already: the strong general practice voice is what will make a difference. That is what will turn a currently fragmented service into an integrated one, and a service that is focused on treating diseases into one focused on preventing them.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: Considerably tighter than it is at the moment. I am absolutely in support of safe spaces. A culture change needs to happen here, and legislation seems to be one of the ways of trying to promote that to get us into a much happier space than at the moment.
Dr Whitford
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: I am not sure I know enough about it to be able to answer that question, I am afraid.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: The academy’s position is that we support the proposals as they are worded—we have not suggested any amendments to them. We certainly believe that putting HSIB on a more formal footing is the right thing to do. On what Martin said about safe spaces being the right thing going forward, there may be detail and finessing in the implementation of that, but no concerns have been raised with us as an organisation representing royal colleges.
The Chair
Pat, before you speak, could I ask you to swivel the microphone to your left towards you a bit? We are still having difficulty hearing you.
Pat Cullen: Can you hear me now? I do not know whether it is my accent or my voice.
It is no surprise to us that the Royal College of Nursing opposes—
Dr Whitford
Could you speak a wee bit louder? I am from Northern Ireland as well and we can definitely speak loudly when we want to.
Pat Cullen: We fundamentally oppose the power of the Secretary of State to authorise disclosure, and we will be looking for amendments. We believe that we must protect whistleblowers. They must come forward. That is the only way that we can learn lessons and make sure that our services are fit for purpose, and that we learn from that, so we will be looking for amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Pat Cullen: Where do I start? They feel exhausted, demoralised; they are tired to say the least, and they are very concerned about the future. Why is that? Because they do not have the workforce to deliver.
The Chair
Could I just remind the shadow Minister to stick within the scope of the Bill, please?
Alex Norris
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. How our staff are at the moment is within the scope of a Bill about the NHS, I would have thought.
The Chair
Okay, but can we just make sure that we stay within the scope of the Bill?
Pat Cullen: I will try and answer in relation to the Bill. All the issues that I have just spoken about in relation to that exhaustion, the tiredness and the fact that they are not able to provide the care for their patients—there are opportunities in the Bill to correct some of those things. Again, going back—I hate to harp back to it in my Northern Ireland words—but the fact is that if we ensure that accountability sits with the legislator and with the Secretary of State, to ensure that we do not find ourselves back in this place again, with 40,000 vacancies going into a pandemic or at any other emergency situation we find our nurses in, that will absolutely assist and support. However, there are opportunities for the workforce in the Bill that we do not believe are being grasped at the minute, and that is further adding to the demoralisation that they are feeling.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I will keep it succinct. I completely agree that the clinical workforce—doctors—are demoralised, and I think anxiety would be the greatest feedback that we get: anxiety and fear of the amount of risk that is being held in the system at the moment. We are in the grip of a third wave of this pandemic, which many in the media seem to have completely forgotten about. People are dying by their hundreds on a daily basis still. This is a huge challenge. It goes back to exactly the point in the Bill about workforce planning for the future, so that we never find ourselves in a similar situation again. While we cannot predict when the next pandemic will hit, we can certainly be assured that another pandemic will come. The challenges around the climate and the global problems are going to impact on our health and wellbeing hugely, and we can plan for them now if we choose to. So, fearful and anxious, but we can do something about it. We have a unique moment in time to grasp this, and this legislation is one part of that unique moment in time.
Professor Martin Marshall: You will not be surprised to hear that morale in general practice is at rock bottom. We read about it in the newspapers every day. Surveys that we have conducted of our members suggest that 60% of GPs say that their mental health has deteriorated significantly over the last year. Anxiety, depression, suicide, ideation—33% of GPs say that at least once a week they find it almost impossible—
The Chair
Order. Could we keep to referring to what is in the Bill, please?
Professor Martin Marshall: Yes, and I am going to do so. The issue here is that if you speak to GPs, because of the stats that I have just described to you, nobody is talking about the Bill.
The Chair
But we are here to talk about the Bill.
Professor Martin Marshall: And almost nobody is talking about the implications of the Bill, because I guess our job is to engage clinicians with the potential of the Bill.
The Chair
I am just saying from the Chair that we are here to talk about what is in the Bill and to take evidence on the Bill, so we should stay within the confines of what is in the Bill.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: There could not be a worse time for general practice to introduce the Bill, but I do not think that means it should not happen. It has to happen now. The NHS is ready for it, so it has to happen. The fact that general practice does not have the capacity or capability to engage fully with the implications of the Bill will mean that the Bill will not realise its full potential.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: From my point of view, there is never an ideal time to introduce legislation and, certainly, in the midst of a global pandemic is on nobody’s agenda as a good time to do anything legislatively. However, the consequences of not doing it are that the integrated care systems, which are in a really vital part of their evolution and formation, will stall and therefore are far more likely to fail. So my view and the view of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is that we absolutely must go ahead with this legislation in the timeframe. There is never a good time to have a baby or move house, but you still need to crack on and do these things at bad times.
Pat Cullen: Same here: never a right time. If you were to ask nurses on the ground today, carrying out patient care in frontline services, they would say that anything that might improve where things are at the minute will be a bonus. But the issue is how it plays out and whether we are listened to. The professional royal colleges do represent nurses. I am here representing 480,000 nurses today. It is really important that we get this right. There is never a right time, but it is actually a great time if we do get it right.
Alex Norris
Q
Professor Martin Marshall: I cited earlier the example in Gloucestershire. It has very purposefully built a primary care subgroup of the board in order to provide that clinical expertise and that clinical sounding board to everything that goes on at board level. That seems to me to be a really good way of moving on from a single GP on the board—which will be helpful but will have limited impact—to actually making a real difference on the ground. The real change, of course, will not happen at ICS level anyway. It will happen at local level; it will happen at the place level. That is where real change in integrated care, from the patient perspective, will be enacted and will be felt.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: To build on what Martin has said, there are great examples of clinical panels, which is essentially what we will be talking about. That is a model that works extremely well and which can be broadly based and covering a huge range: primary and secondary care—the whole range of specialities. But in the same way, citizen panels have become something that can be hugely helpful as well. I am very anxious that we also hear the patient voice in the decision making at community level.
There has been a covid culture of creativity. When there was less top-down insistence on following direct process at the start of the pandemic, a lot of creativity was allowed to flourish. I feel we need to capitalise on that culture of creativity. These kinds of panels are exactly the sort of output that has come and they have been hugely beneficial. And, of course, the move to greater digital working has meant that we have been able to reach people that we have not otherwise been able to get. Clinicians leaving the clinical environment to participate has become easier when they can do so remotely. There is a dividend that we should build on.
Pat Cullen: To add to that, I fundamentally believe that the patient voice must be heard in those structures beneath the board. That is how we will really influence and move forward in terms of what is required, and those voices will feed into the population needs assessment at local level. But there needs to be a nurse involved in each one of those structures that feeds right in through to the director of nursing that sits on the board, and that is how you will hold the accountability line up and down.
Edward Argar
Q
Welcome and thank you very much for your evidence this morning and your frank answers to the questions posed. I want to ask a question in the context of what a number of you have raised about the different voices and the extent to which they need to be represented at the different decision-making levels of the new structure. We heard from previous witnesses, for example in the context of public health voices also, about the value that they add. The principle behind this legislation is that it is permissive rather than prescriptive. Therefore it is possible to have a lot more voices; there is only a de minimis level specified as prescribed. What is your view as to whether the appropriate balance between permissive and prescriptive has been struck in the Bill? If you think it has not been, where do you think the balance between permissive and prescriptive has been missed? Shall we start with Pat and then work our way along?
Pat Cullen: I have said very clearly that I believe the nurse needs to be represented at the board, and that needs to be an executive director of nursing. That needs to be prescriptive; it is not good enough to have it placed within mandatory guidance, it needs to be within the Bill. That is a red line for our nurses, and it will remain a red line, and we will be putting it forward as a red line.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: I am going to be slightly subtler with what I say about this. I think the legislation, as drafted at the moment, is very enabling, and the implementation of it is where the great improvement in how we deliver care will come. I do think it is permissive, and I do think that it is enabling, and I completely understand my colleague’s desire to include specific words relating to nurses, GPs and whoever. What is vital for me is that the clinical voice is loud, clear, and can be influential. That is about implementation, culture and behaviour at a local level. Once we have the words for the final legislation, it is a question of how on earth we deliver it and support people to do it well, and how we learn from the best practice that is out there. That would be my—and our—view.
Professor Martin Marshall: In my 30 years as a GP, I cannot think of a single piece of legislation that has directly changed my practice on the ground. What I can see is the extent that legislation sets a tone and a culture within which clinical care is provided. I think this Bill is appropriately permissive, but, given the variation in all the challenges that we have identified, it needs to be permissive with really good oversight to ensure that the consequences of implementation do not lead to dramatic variation across the country.
Edward Argar
Q
Going back to Pat’s evidence, but also to all of you: we have heard in our evidence today, and we heard it on Tuesday, a lot of different, vital parts of the system arguing the case for why they should be represented in a prescriptive way. Equally, we will have others arguing that a committee beyond a certain size becomes less effective. In terms of numbers, we have set a minimum. You are entirely entitled to say that you do not have a view on this, but how would you see the balance being struck between different groups making the case for representation, but, equally, having an effectively sized decision-making body? We will start with Martin, and then work backwards.
Professor Martin Marshall: I am glad to say that I do not have a view, but I do think that the boards should be small in order to be effective. They need to listen to advisory groups and sub-boards below them; it is the structures below the board level that will really make the difference.
Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard: Formally, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges does not have a view. Personally, I have chaired boards from as few as five people, through to boards of 70 people, all of which can be hugely effective if managed well. However, the larger the board gets, the tighter the management has to be, because it is harder to get voices heard and for everyone to feel represented. Essentially, I am saying the same as Martin: smaller boards are generally more effective at getting through the agenda, but there has to be a high degree of trust in those that are actually on the board, and strong lines to sub-groups, for them to function with maximum effectiveness.
Pat Cullen: The board needs to comprise the right people. It is not about numbers; it needs to have the right people with clinical focus and patient care driving the outcomes for patients, and it needs to make sure that it does not develop a financially focused agenda. As director of nursing I have been there too many times: the table loses focus on the patient’s voice and needs. There needs to be a clinical focus and the right people at the table.
The Chair
Thank you very much. As there are no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our morning session. The Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock this afternoon to take further evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 9th September 2021
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 9 September 2021 - (9 Sep 2021)
The Chair
We are going to hear from Richard Murray, chief executive of the King’s Fund, Nick Timmins, senior fellow, policy, at the King’s Fund, and Nigel Edwards, chief executive of the Nuffield Trust. Thank you very much for coming. Could I ask each of you in turn to introduce yourself for the record?
Nigel Edwards: I am Nigel Edwards. As previously stated, I am the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust.
Nick Timmins: I am Nick Timmins, a senior fellow at the King’s Fund.
Richard Murray: I am Richard Murray, chief executive of the King’s Fund.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: There is obviously a risk with any large-scale transformations, and particularly ones in the NHS, that they will cause too much disruption, and they distract people from the day job. I think that is the clear case against. If I may, I will just say a few words, though, on the case for. The existing system already causes disruption, so there are complicated workarounds; there are procurements being done that do not really need to be done. I would not underestimate the fact that there is a headwind in the system from trying to apply the 2012 legislation. There was a real head of steam, coming through covid, of people working together, trying to make this system work, still having to deal with some of those workarounds and still having to deal, sometimes, with doing things in an emergency that you probably would not be able to do in peacetime, so to speak.
The key thing is to try to keep the disruption to a minimum—wherever possible, and particularly for staff, to keep that degree of unnecessary churn down. I have to say, unfortunately, the NHS is quite good at doing large-scale churn without too much benefit. But I think on balance that as these changes are already under way and there are problems with the previous system, stopping now would be more disruptive than simply carrying on.
Nick Timmins: I do not want to take up a lot of time. I particularly agree with that last remark: stopping now would be worse than carrying on. A lot of this is already happening. We have been merging clinical commissioning groups ever since the new system came in in 2012. It is sort of completing a journey. You may not be entirely happy about all the arrangements around the different sorts of board and what have you, but to stop now, I think, would be not sensible.
Edward Timpson
Q
Nick Timmins: In large measure.
Nigel Edwards: I do not have anything to add, given the time. I agree with everything that has been said.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: I am afraid that is not an area we have focused on—sorry.
Nigel Edwards: Likewise.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
Secondly, there is the treatment of capital in the system and how local communities, healthcare systems and trusts will be able to develop estates and capital planning. The third obsession has completely eluded me for the moment. It is generally about the tariff—that may be your subject, Mr Edwards—and how the vague nod to a new tariff framework in the Bill is working out. You may be more privy than the Committee to the details on how that might work out; it is about the flow of money within the system. Would you like to start, Mr Edwards, on governance, tariff and capital?
Nigel Edwards: Richard may be able to give a more up-to-date account on capital. You will be aware that the mechanisms for the allocation of capital in the NHS are a little arcane and somewhat out of date. There have been various attempts to update the mechanisms. Richard has been looking at this and can perhaps tell us more, but my impression is that it will flow following the allocation formula for revenue. There will still need to be a tariff. Despite the fact that there is integration, a tariff allows you do to a number of useful things. Certainly, patients will flow between different ICSs, so there will need to be a mechanism to account for that. It is also quite a useful budgetary tool, so in terms of financial control, it is probably quite important that the tariff is maintained.
We have been promised guidance on the flow of funds more locally, but we have not yet seen it. My presumption is that there will be a negotiated process rather than just a straight use of the tariff in the way that we have seen up until now, with variations on block contracts, maybe using the tariff—or, more likely, the historical budgets—as the starting point. The business-as-usual capital, as opposed to major capital projects, remains as it always has been. Although it is subject to some review, at the moment I do not think a major change is proposed for it, but Richard probably knows better.
Nick Timmins: I have nothing particular to say about capital. I do think you need to retain a tariff—not for everything, because in some areas of healthcare it just does not work, but for electives and those sorts of procedures. That has two advantages: it means you need to understand your costs to construct the tariff in the first place so it is a driver of efficiency, and, equally importantly, it gives you a benchmark price with which to negotiate with the private sector whenever you do outsource some operations and procedures. You are able to say, “This is what is costs us, so this is what we’ll pay you.” If you do not have that, you are subject to a seller’s market and can be charged what you like because you do not know what your own costs are.
Richard Murray: On the flow of money, we are expecting revenue allocation to ICSs based on the current formula, trying to reflect need, inequalities, deprivation and age. The uncertainty is then how much those ICBs will allocate down to place level on a local government footprint. The expectation is that quite a large proportion of that funding—general practice, community services, quite a lot of mental health, and some acute services, too—will go down to that level, but none of that is in the Bill. The allocation to ICSs stops at that point, and as has been said, you need a payment mechanism to get the money off what are, effectively, commissioners and over into providers.
The changes to tariff are mostly about flexibility, so it should still be transparent; you should still be able to work out what people are being paid, which I think is important, and you should be able to benchmark between different providers, but instead of paying for each operation and each widget bit by bit, you can have formulas that try to reflect fixed costs. You can do it in a different way that adds some flexibility into the system, which I think is important when you are trying to bring providers and commissioners into common alignment over where the money is going. Tariffs had the problem of setting them at each other’s throats sometimes, because every time someone was admitted to a hospital you would get another payment, so commissioners wanted to keep it down and providers wanted to keep it up. There is the chance to try to align some of those incentives, but there is still a lot of gap around what actually will go down to place and what will determine it; of course, again, the budgets need to be equitable.
Nigel Edwards: Richard, if I may, I think a very important point that ought to be made here is that because the allocations will now shift from 100-plus clinical commissioning groups to 42 ICSs, the variations between them will be evened out. There will need to be some way of recognising the fact that within an ICS, you have very different patterns of need, which at the moment are recognised by the allocation formula, but in the future will not be. The money will be received by the ICS, so I think there is a question there. I know that local authorities—and, indeed, GPs and primary care networks—will want to say, “If we are in a particularly deprived area and we have historically had higher funding to recognise that, we would expect that to continue.” There ought to be a line of sight from the national allocation formula based on need to the money that is received by our locality.
Sorry, Richard. I thought you made a really good point.
Richard Murray: That is absolutely all right. On capital, the Bill does not really change the way that capital works in this system. The only difference is the ability of the Department, through NHS England, to cap the spending of foundation trusts, which they have not been able to do in the past. There are some limits around them being able to do that, but it gives an additional lever at national level. Having said that, the way that capital is working in the system has changed fundamentally already: some capital goes through an allocation system, a bit like the revenue funding, and I am leading a review for NHS England now on how that money flows.
The bit that I think is really uncertain is how the big hospital schemes get picked. That is the bit that looks very different. Obviously, there is a manifesto commitment. There used to be a process by which it was determined whether providers could afford to repay—if they could do it through loans, or if there was a need system. That is now going off in a completely different place, and I think that is the bit that is not quite clear. How does that work within this system? Who gets to choose how those projects get picked, so to speak? That is the big change but, again, it is not actually in the Bill; it is being done under the existing rules.
The Chair
I am really sorry, Karin, but I think we have to move on, because we have about seven minutes left for Back Benchers, and three indicating. Jo Gideon.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: It will certainly make it easier. You remove some of the unnecessary impediments that have got in people’s way and pushed them into complex workarounds. It creates a structure through ICBs and integrated care providers to bring people together, so in that sense, it enables these things and makes them easier. However, if I am honest, you could still have NHS England and the Department deciding to run everything through ICBs and making them behave an awful lot like NHS bodies of the past. It enables those things, but the legislation by itself cannot prevent some of the older behaviours from living on. That is why implementation and what happens afterwards is critical, to try to ensure that it delivers on the things that I genuinely think it is trying to do. There is a heavy weight from the past of very centralised control that focuses very much on the independent republic of the NHS. That is the cultural issue that the people who will have to implement this will have to work against.
Jo Gideon
Q
Richard Murray: I would really ensure that local government is part of this. It is an independent voice, and has already been a useful counterweight to some of those centralising forces, as local government comes closer to the NHS. Ensure that people from the voluntary sector are there. They do not follow the orders that come out of NHS England, so you are putting people directly into the system who carry some of that independence and are looking out fundamentally to their local communities. That really is the strength of some of the ICP structures—that you have those people round the table and, indeed, some of them on the ICB itself. Really invest in that place-level work. That is where a lot of the excitement will come from working with local government, and again with the voluntary sector and primary care. Do not get too focused on the ICS as this interim middle step, because it is quite distant from where a lot of the action goes on.
Nigel Edwards: It is not just upper tier local authorities that have an important voice in this. I think that Richard is right: a lot of the most interesting and bigger changes are likely to happen at the place level. It is probably the case that quite a lot of legislation has not really affected how patients are cared for or how professionals work. In some senses, that is not a bad thing. I think this does remove some of the behavioural oddities of the hybrid market and other systems that we had.
It will introduce some other hazards, in particular—Richard sort of referred to this—the slight danger of ICSs becoming inward looking, and some organisations, and the independent and voluntary sector, being excluded and not feeling that they have a voice. The challenge that local authorities can bring to that will be important, as will behavioural change from NHS England and some of the regulatory machinery, but you cannot legislate for that. That is a cultural change that is probably beyond the scope even of legislators.
Nick Timmins: Yes, and you can see that in evidence that you have already heard about the construction of the board and the partnership. It seems clear to me—you have heard from the Local Government Association—that some local authorities were happy to join a single board and others felt that that was too much of a loss of sovereignty, which is why we have ended up with this slightly complicated system of an NHS board and a partnership board. Probably, in an ideal world, it would have been better if it was one, but you have to live with what people are prepared to do.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Q
Nigel Edwards: The current system dates back to Andrew Lansley, who set up four tests. Do not ask me what they are. I can look them up, but I cannot remember them. However, they were good. They involved local people and clinical support. You had to make an evidence-based case. Then there was a process that involves local stakeholders, and then there was the opportunity for review by the Secretary of State and referral by local authorities and the independent reconfiguration panel, which has been a remarkably longstanding innovation, given the way that NHS organisations are formed and then abolished. It has done, I think, a very good job.
The current system seems to me to work quite well. The Secretary of State still has a say, particularly around controversial decisions, but they do not get sucked into every small reconfiguration and change. You also do not have a point where there is an opportunity for local participants to say, “I’m not going to contribute to this conversation any more. I’m going straight to the top,” and undermine people working together locally. I am of the view that the current system works quite well. I think we said to the previous Secretary of State, “You need to be really careful what you wish for. You may think that your intervention is going to help to move things along and improve innovation. It’s quite likely, from both previous experience and experience in other similar types of systems, to have the opposite effect.”
Richard Murray: I would not disagree with anything that Nigel said. Also, the clauses in the Bill as they stand at the moment are really, really unhelpful. There may be things you could do to make reconfiguration easier, but I think they would be working around the margins of what Nigel said. It would not be wholescale intervention without limit by Ministers in local decisions—that would mean any change, of any service, could go up to the Secretary of State. Also, if you need to make an emergency move for an operational reason, you would need to write to the Secretary of State in advance—you kind of think the clue is in the fact that it is an operational crisis. I think that the legislation as drafted would not give Ministers what they want, so I really think it is not helpful at all.
Nick Timmins: Can I just add to that? I think it is really dangerous for both Ministers and the NHS. Not many people know about the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. It has worked very well. It has dealt with about 80 controversial cases. It quite often suggests some amendment, and the Secretary of State does not have to take its advice, but the Secretary of State almost invariably does take its advice. I think that if we end up with lots and lots of reconfigurations hitting Ministers’ desks, Ministers will come to regret that. If you listen to the views of previous Secretaries of State, they almost always say, “It’s ludicrous we ended up having to make a decision about what was going to happen”—in Nether Wallop or wherever—which was the case before the Independent Reconfiguration Panel was around.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q
Richard Murray: There are a couple of things around competition. Probably the most obvious one is that it never really worked. A lot of care, particularly urgent or emergency care, is not an area for choice in the first place, so you are already dealing with a fairly specific part of the health service and drawing an awful lot of attention into that one element of the service when a lot of the interest is in care for people with long-term conditions and how you stop overuse of A&E and emergency services. There are lots of examples of things, particularly uncertainty around competitive procurement. Commissioners were anxious about where they stood in law so they used, and probably overused, competitive procurement.
I know from speaking to some commissioners that they sometimes felt slightly powerless to influence the provider side so they would put it out to procurement instead. There was very little sign that all the effort and bureaucracy that went into that really did any good at all. Let us step away from that and enable more co-operative working, to try to get the kind of change that we need for long-term conditions, for the real health conditions that this country faces. I should say that a lot of the academic evidence has found no benefits of competition, so not only was it not a helpful thing, it just did not seem to work—probably reflecting the fact that we have such shortages in this country. Competition works only when there is a meaningful choice.
On the triple aim, you would not want the system to get tied up in a new round of bureaucracy, form filling and ticking boxes, to show that it has duly considered the triple aim. I think it is also important to make sure you do not lose the issue of inequalities from the triple aim. I would not want to exaggerate: does legislating a grand vision make people do things differently on the ground? I think it is helpful to remind NHS providers and others that absolutely they should be thinking about the quality of care; absolutely they should be thinking about value for money and making sure they are efficient. But they also have a duty to the health of the wider population. You can then, through that triple aim, bring the different parties in this system closer together, and I think that for some non-executive directors and for governors, it is quite helpful to know that they are all working in the same direction. So I would not exaggerate the kind of change it would bring, but I think it is a move in the right direction.
Nigel Edwards: Can we just nuance the competition point? Actually, there were two elements to the competition regime. One was the very formal going out to tender and big, bureaucratic procurements—often resulting in the reappointment of the previous provider at significant expense. But the other component was patient choice—for diagnostics, for maternity and for elective surgery. I think that dynamic has benefits. One of the slightly worrying things in some of the plans produced by the ICSs’ predecessors—the STPs or strategic transformation partnerships—was a wish to “repatriate” work, as they called it, which meant to bring work back from providers outside their patch into their own. That was not necessarily a good thing; patients should have the opportunity to have a choice of provider and, particularly in the case of specialised services, one would be concerned about people saying, “Let’s grow our own services locally,” rather than, “Let’s use centres of excellence.”
The maintenance of patient choice, and ensuring that ICSs do not act to limit patient choice, particularly for those patients living on their margins, is quite an important dynamic; almost all ICSs have borders with someone else, and patients naturally flow across them. People want to be able to make choices, because they have an existing relationship with a provider or because they have a relative who lives nearby and could care for them while they are there. There is international evidence that that dynamic has a beneficial effect on providers’ behaviour.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Q
Richard Murray: That is a very fair point; it did create that tension within the system, because more activity was what made you successful and gave you your bank balance. The flexibilities that the Bill gives to step away from those more mechanistic tariffs that pay for activity should enable that, with two caveats. First, much of this will come in guidance from NHS England about exactly how this will work; there is clearly not enough detail in the Bill to do that, and why would there be? That still needs to be worked through.
Secondly, it is quite complicated to get right; this is a very difficult thing to do, and one of the pointers we see in some other countries, such as New Zealand, is a focus on everybody working together and not getting too caught up in trying to divide up the pie between competing parties. Again, that is where things such as the triple aim may help to keep people’s minds focused on the purpose, which is good quality care, value for money and a healthy population. There are more flexibilities in this system to do that, so that we do not get the kind of perverse incentives we have seen in the past.
Dr Whitford
Q
Richard Murray: I think there will need to be a change in culture here; it is almost inevitable that if you look within different ICSs, you will find extremely financially successful institutions next door to some that are deeply troubled and that are facing problems in community services, general practices and other services. There will be a need for a culture change, but one that does not lose sight of the fact that you want organisations to be well run. You do not want to end up with some of the weaker organisations thinking, “I shall now pass this problem on to my big brother down the road who has very deep pockets.”
You need to try to maintain the right incentives and support for institutions to run themselves well, to keep the value-for-money element of the triple aim, while also being able to move money around the system without getting caught in silos such that the acute trust has all the money and mental health does not. We need to be able to begin to move money across those different boundaries, which the old financial system did not help us to do.
Dr Whitford
Q
Richard Murray: You would hope that the ICBs would have that power and the ICPs would try to set the direction. For many of the really tricky pieces between community services, general practice and social care, it is probably more at place; the ICBs are often so big that they are unlikely to get directly involved in those decisions. They can set the framework and try to ensure that in some sense it is working as a whole, but many of those decisions will come down at place level.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nick Timmins: I have little to add. This is really an issue of behaviour, culture and financial flows. It is not something that the Bill can lay down or dictate.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nick Timmins: The tariffs definitely caused some problems. Changing the way the tariff is used is very important, but that does not mean that you should get rid of it entirely.
Dr Whitford
Nigel?
Nigel Edwards: I agree with all of that. This gives a vehicle that will allow many of those perverse incentives to be removed. People found ways of working round them previously, but this simplifies things. Richard made the point that it is definitely the case that some trusts, particularly acute trusts, have done very well out of the tariff. They will find it quite painful to make the adjustment, but that is not a reason for not making the change.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nigel Edwards: I have sat with a number of different geographies and tried to work that out, and it is probably going to be different in different places. Some of the ICSs are quite geographically coherent and have a lot to do with each other. For others, such as Cheshire and Merseyside or BOB—Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West—there is less in common at the strategic level. It will be quite different in different places, particularly where there are powerful upper-tier local authorities within ICSs. They will want to have a strong voice at the place level.
One of the virtues of the legislation as currently formulated is that it allows some flexibility, and it allows people to tailor some of those relationships to fit their local geographies. But I would see the partnership part of this having a very important role in shaping the overall strategy. For quite a lot of people, the risk is having too many meetings and too many partnerships. It is very important that the partnership board sets the agenda and then the places and the ICB get on with it.
Dr Whitford
Q
Nigel Edwards: Yes. The NHS has always had a bit of an obsession with neatness and uniformity. If there is one thing that I have learned from working with these different ICSs, it is that they are very different in terms of their physical, political and psychological geography. Trying to fit a standard model of governance to them would be a mistake. We need to hold them to account for how well they are implementing their plans and how far they are improving outcomes for their population. We need to know whether they are making the best of the money that we are giving them, rather than whether they are conforming to a centrally designed governance model that will work on average, and that will therefore work nowhere.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Q
Nigel Edwards: This took us all somewhat by surprise, I think it is fair to say. Richard may have had a different briefing from the Department of Health and Social Care on yesterday’s announcement. I picked it up on reading the document; it was not pointed out to me. I think I read it slightly differently. It seemed to me that the plan was likely to be a formalisation of all the activities that are currently going on, rather than a new direction of policy, but I am probably the wrong person to be asking about that. If it is not that, it would not be very helpful.
Richard Murray: One of the things the documentation speaks about is the planning of the health and social care workforce. You asked where I think the Bill is deficient. One example is its inability to help with the very poor track record, over quite a long time, in planning the health and social care workforce—hence all the problems that we have with the workforce right now. There is a nod in the White Paper to that. It may only be that the crossover between those two workforces is not the fundamentals of the numbers that go through them.
Otherwise, I really hope that the White Paper is not about further legislative change. It might be about setting out, for example, the outcome measures that would really work for an ICS, meaning that it will cover both critical issues for the NHS and critical issues for health, public health and social care, to make sure that you have that rounded and meaningful measure so you know who is doing well. If it is another round of legislation, I must admit that I would pause before saying whether that is a good idea, with the exception of the workforce issue, which remains the critical factor here.
Justin Madders
Anything to add, Nick?
Nick Timmins: The workforce does need to be tackled—it is just a glaring hole in all this. The NHS has plenty of policy at the moment; it has had an eight-year drive towards better integrated care—that is what the Bill is focused on—and a lot of that will not come through legislation, beyond what is in the Bill.
Justin Madders
Q
Nigel Edwards: Each ICS is supposed to have a chief finance officer—a director of finance—and an accountable officer. That is the starting point. I think the question to ask them would be to what extent they are spending money in a way that reduces health inequalities and improves outcomes in an equitable fashion—I think they would want to do that. One of the things that has very much struck me in my conversations with ICSs—this is very much influenced by local government, which will be a powerful advocate for this, as will primary care networks—is that quite a lot of people will be scrutinising this. The person to ask who is clearly accountable for answering that question is the accountable officer of the ICS.
Of course, ICSs do not have a legal obligation to distribute money below place level. You might not want to do that, because there is a need to be flexible, and sometimes you might want to spend more in a particular area if there is a sudden strategic priority, but over the long term, the expectation is that those accountable officers should be able to demonstrate that they are spending money in ways that relate to the objectively assessed needs of their populations.
Justin Madders
Q
Nick Timmins: I think that is exactly the right question to ask. What have Ministers not been able to get the NHS to do without the powers of direction that he is seeking? When they were presented, it was as though the NHS was somehow unaccountable when, as I am sure you all know, Ministers can tell the NHS what to do through the mandate. The difference in the current system is that NHS England has to agree that what it is being asked to do is reasonable. If NHS England does not think it is reasonable, resourceful or doable, it can object, and the Minister then has to come to Parliament and explain why he is, in effect, instructing the NHS to do something. A measure comes before you and is subject to a negative resolution. If someone rejects it, it can be debated, so there is a perfectly good mechanism there right now. I think the really, really important question is: what are Ministers not able to get the NHS to do that means that they now feel the need for new powers of direction?
Justin Madders
Does anyone wish to add to that?
Nigel Edwards: I have no answer to that question.
Richard Murray: If the reason is not made clear, you end up starting to get worried and suspicious: “Are they trying to direct money towards one part of the country rather than another and overturning the allocation mechanism? Do they want powers to intervene in procurements?” Those are all the things that you would not want them to do which, to be honest, health Ministers generally have not done anyway. Even when they had the powers, they tried desperately not to get involved, because it is extremely poor governance and extremely poor value for money. However, without that explanation of why they want it, the temptation is to start worrying about what they want the power for.
Some of the behaviours could be governed through the framework agreement, or they should be able to be. You have the mandate that sets direction over the short to medium term, but the framework agreement also sets out the way NHS England should work with other parts of the system, so there are other things that you can use within this system. As it stands, and if it stays as it is now, to provide comfort to people, the temptation is to start listing the things that Secretaries of State should not direct—they should not direct allocations to individual parts of the country; they should not interfere in procurement decisions. You end up with quite a long negative list, but I would probably rather have a negative list than no list.
Nigel Edwards: The problem with negative lists, of course, is that you will forget something.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Q
Nigel Edwards: I think we have shared our anxieties about the reconfiguration and direction powers. In terms of what this does to the organisational architecture, it seems to me to strike the right balance between permissive and directive.
Nick Timmins: I would echo that. I have major reservations about the new powers of direction and, I think, major reservations if you build in reconfiguration service changes. The good thing about this—it has been the good thing about the development of the integrated care system so far—is that it is quite flexible. That is unusual in the NHS’s history: we tend to come up with very prescriptive solutions for what the system should look like everywhere, when in practice the circumstances are different, so I think the balance is pretty good.
Richard Murray: You could easily criticise the degree of permissiveness; you could criticise the degree of direction in there. The question should be, “Can anyone come up with a better one?” We have not been able to do so, so I think it is a balance well drawn. Of course, a lot will then rest on the behaviours that are shown after the Bill is through—whether people live up to that kind of core belief around that permissiveness and the freedoms that have been given.
The Chair
We have time to squeeze in one very quick one, if anyone has something else to ask.
Justin Madders
Q
Richard Murray: I think a longer-term mandate is a better thing. The idea that each year, sometime between December and March, you can set a different expectation on the NHS is operationally unreal for the system. They cannot do it, so I think we want to get back to something where you set out a clearer medium-term objective for the things you want the NHS to achieve, whether that is reduced waiting times or better health, and allow them to try and work towards it.
Budgets on that basis would also be incredibly helpful—if you are working in the service not knowing what capital you might have two years down the line and what revenue you might have. I think there is a real chance to do that in the spending review. That is a move in the right direction; we just have to make sure that if the budgets are still set on an annual basis, you do not get a diversion between what it is you have been asked and the budget then being suddenly moved on that annual basis. I would strongly encourage the Government to also try and set multi-year settlements for the NHS, as used to be done, so that people can plan at local level.
Nick Timmins: If memory serves me right, the original idea of the mandate was a rolling three-year mandate. You set the objectives of the NHS and what you want it to achieve, and you can have a little review of it each year, but it is clear. I probably should have said that if the money was also planned on the same basis, that would help no end.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of our time. I thank our witnesses very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Gill Morgan and Louise Patten gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I am Dame Gill Morgan. I am chair-designate of Gloucestershire ICS, but I have been involved there for over two years, so I have seen the development of this movement. I am now the elected chair of the terribly titled NHS Confederation advisorate. What is important about that is that it includes all the ICS chairs that have been and all the ICS people who have been acting in as accountable officers for the work that has developed thus far, so I think I bring a perspective on the reality of what people worry about.
I have been involved with health service Bills for well over 20 years. This one is an exemplar of how people can work with a service to develop a Bill that largely has the support of the system. People have engaged, listened, changed things and taken the frontline views seriously into account. We do not agree with everything, but you asked our think-tank group of people about some of the issues and changes and the permissive approach, and all those things are truly endorsed. For me, it has been the best experience in 25 years of involvement in healthcare. I want to have that noted because people worked really hard to do that.
In contextual terms, you have to realise that this is the first time the NHS has tried to do something fundamentally different. We always legislate for things that look the same—they quack the same, they walk the same, they waddle the same—yet systems and communities are fundamentally different. My ICS, which I am proud to be part of, has a population of about 600,000, and 15 other ICSs have populations of under 1 million. They have our characteristics of closeness of community and long-standing trust. On the other hand, there are some very big ICSs. What the Bill has done well thus far is to create a permissive environment that allows us to see how we can flourish as well as the big places. If you try to define it—
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt you. This session is intended for Members to ask you questions rather than for you to make a statement. I would prefer to move to Louise Patten and ask her to introduce herself so that we can get on with the questions.
Louise Patten: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Louise Patten. I head up the ICS network and NHS clinical commissioners at the NHS Confederation. I am also a clinician.
Karin Smyth
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: What is different about this Bill is that it is the first time that local government will be very actively involved in those decisions. It has always been involved in scrutiny and big changes, but it will be heavily represented on our partnership board. We have four local government people, including two elected members on our ICB—integrated care board—so we are bringing in the local government elected people.
We intend our partnership board to meet in public and we are looking at exactly how many of our meetings of the ICB should be in public. Clearly, when talking about quality and clinical stuff, the actual deliberations need a private bit—[Interruption.] When talking about named individuals, yes, they do; but when talking about the quality of the service in general, that is something that needs to be clear and in the public domain. We need to get the balance right between what we need to do publicly and what we need to do privately—as we will, because we will have so much local government involvement, with elected members, as well as Healthwatch and other people like that. They are all intrinsic parts, in a way that they have never been before. It has never felt as engaging to me as it does now, certainly in my patch.
Louise Patten: From my point of view, having experienced health overview and scrutiny committees as an accountable officer, the patients and public certainly feel that there is the voice of that local place. It is important to NHS leaders that that continues—that ability to have local scrutiny at local level, which is very much where patients and service users feel is the right place to do it.
At the strategic level, we must not forget that ICSs comprise both the integrated care board and the partnership. This is a real opportunity to tether the NHS to always thinking about the wider determinants of health, social value, public health and, again, patient experience.
Edward Timpson
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Our big learning about all of this is that, at the end of the day, many of the structures do not matter; what matters is people being in the same room, having the conversation about common purpose, and getting to know and trust each other. The reflection on that has been why we now have such an emphasis on place. If you have a really large ICS and you are trying to do it all, you are so distant from patients, citizens and clinicians that you will never have the contact. Place, in those bigger systems, has to be where you begin to pull those things together, by getting the right people to engage and developing the right level of trust.
As far as clinical engagement is concerned, the ICS is about three things—the triple aim, which is, basically, how do we get better health services today, which are responsive, high-quality and all those things we want; how in the long term do we create populations that are healthier than they are today, which means thinking about employment and all those bigger things; and, in the middle, how do we take services that we deliver today and transform them to be more community-orientated, better for citizens and delivered where people want them? In each of those three boxes, clinicians are absolutely fundamental.
A lot of our effort—in particular around covid and some of the successes—has been in getting that synergy, with clinicians in the transformation box feeling that they can not only write on what the hospital does, but define what the community does and what the GPs do, because they are all working collectively. That has been transformational. Certainly, we would not have managed covid as effectively as we have without those sorts of relationships running all the way through the system as a thread.
Louise Patten: The clinical leadership has to be multi-layered, right the way through from the strategic level to place. We have to have clinical advice and we must heed it when we are talking about planning clinical services. That is fundamental. I think it will involve different groups of people. If it is a care pathway about cardio-vascular disease or a professional pathway about social care, we must heed clinical and professional advice when we are planning these services, so it is multi-layered.
Edward Timpson
Q
Louise Patten: From strategy right the way down to grassroots implementation.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: It is about multi-layering of advice. We will have a primary care sub-committee partly because managing primary care, and all the things that come through GMS and the opportunities, is expert; we do not want it to be subsumed by a generalist groups. We want it to have proper focus, because if our vision of the future is right, we need better and more engaged primary care at local level that can link its services more effectively with support in the hospital and the community. That is the objective, so we will have that.
We will also have an ICB. GPs will have different views. That is one view, which is about me as a jobbing GP. I go in in the morning, and I do my work and all of those things. I need to be supported to do that, but I also need GPs in the system who are engaged in management. We are very proud of our primary care networks, which are beginning to pull together around our localities, because we are smaller and it is not a big place.
There are models where they are working with second tier local government, where they are beginning to think about housing, and they are working with the voluntary sector, so when they are talking about frailty, it is not a GP or a hospital conversation; it is a system conversation in this place. All of a sudden there are things that can be unlocked. If we leave it in any one box, as we have always done in the past—there is a box for acute, for this and for that—we do not get this. Our task is to make those boundaries semi-permeable, with the expectation that we look at the patient flowing through all those boundaries, rather than pretending that patients sit in an individual box, because they do not.
Louise Patten: Frankly, stakeholders who are anxious about whether they have a place on the partnership board or the integrated care board need support in being helped to co-ordinate their response, so they have a collective voice. The variations for ICSs are huge, from a population of 600,000 right the way through to just upwards of 3 million. Supporting those stakeholders to have a united voice and providing assistance will be really helpful.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: The first thing is that you would try to make sure that you have developed a mechanism for engagement and trust, so that you do not get into those sorts of disagreements. If you get into those disagreements while you are sat around the board, you have failed to do the task of integration and partnership. That is what happens in the conversations about how we solve it. If we ever got into that sort of difficulty, it would have to be resolved at the integrated care board, and we will have local government, public health and social care on our board as full and equal partners.
Alex Norris
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: The more you try to write in legislation, the more it becomes the lowest common denominator and the less you unleash the innovation that you want. I would do something quite different. I would probably write something that requires the different models of ICSs to be formally evaluated over a period of time, so for the first time we could look to structural change and say, “This is what it has demonstrated, not just against the outcome measures measured by the Department of Health and suchlike, but this has been a structural change that has added benefit, or not.” If you are going to do that, it must be done from day one. I think that is more important than trying to put something about solving problems in the Bill. You will never hit the particular strange circumstances of a locality that has problems, because they are always serendipitous.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: The selection process for chairs and the executive team has got to be about what this integrated care system requires, what sort of leadership, and what are the partners that we have got. No two ICSs are the same. In order to achieve that, it needs to be a local discussion about what it is that this system needs to make sure it has the best leadership to take it forward. That will involve discussion with local people, local stakeholders and potentially the public to sort that, because the leadership will be different in different ICSs.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: The two will have a very good idea collectively about what leadership is required: one from experience of leaders and the other very much from the grassroots level of, “If this is our system, this is what we need.” It is a combination of the two.
Alex Norris
Q
Louise Patten: It is both/and.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Yes, I think you have got the balance, and that is the joy of working with a Bill team. I think the balance is right. You have tried not to be prescriptive and tie our hands, but you have been clear in the sense of setting a direction and focus that we will all take into account, so you do not have to tell us things to make the NHS do it. We do it because we pick up the runes.
On the issues that we would be more concerned about, I personally am concerned about the ability of the Secretary of State to call in changes. In part that is because the one thing I think the NHS has learnt in the time that I was out and came back is how to do relatively good consultations. We have just finished a massive consultation. Patients have gone with us. The local communities have gone with us, mostly. We have had citizens juries and all sorts of things to reach a consensus about the direction of travel. The worst thing in the world would be that people say, “There is no point in engaging in those mechanisms locally because, at the end of the day, we will just complain to the Secretary of State and it will not happen.” If that becomes the way people manage that part of the Bill, it will take us backwards, not forwards, in terms of proper citizen engagement.
Louise Patten: On balance, it is about the Secretary of State’s powers of reconfiguration, and NHS leaders in general are concerned about that. It is not so much about the Secretary of State having an early understanding of the reconfigurations or the intent, but about the fact that that decision could be taken at a point where all the evidence is not ready to be properly considered.
Building on Gill’s point, patients and the public would be very frustrated if they felt that they had not had an opportunity to be answered, so we are asking, if not for the clause to be removed, for at least the clinical case for change to be considered from the ICB. Coming back to clinical decisions about clinical services, we want that accountability to local communities, not just up to Whitehall, and some transparency about why the decision was made, and on what basis and information it was taken.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I think you are absolutely right: de minimis. What I have argued throughout is that if the centre, if you and then NHS England, which issues guidance, are clear about the principle that we have a proper engagement mechanism with our local authorities and citizens, they need to ask us how we are doing that, and to ensure that our constitution meets that. There are plenty of checks to ensure that it happens without you telling us that we have to have this, this and this.
In our case, we will have mental health and social care around the table, not because we are told to but because we could not imagine how we could do our work at a local level without having those people feeling that they are full partners and sitting around the table. There is a set of concerns about having local government involved in making decisions about the expenditure of large amounts of NHS money. I do not care; they are the local people who need to be involved in the decision making. Actually, if they see the deliberations and challenge first hand we will get better-aligned budgets. At the end of the day, that is to everybody’s benefit.
Louise Patten: There are already five mandated board positions in the legislation. A further five will be in the mandated guidance from NHS England. We are up to 10 already. I think the most important thing here is: where do you stop? There is a risk that there is a perception of two tiers—that those who have a mandated position on the board are of more importance than others. That flies in the face of partnership working.
Edward Argar
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: My view is that we are where we are and we need to progress. Going backwards would be a problem, but actually I am a bit more positive than that. Covid has demonstrated to people that if they think innovatively, out of the box and in partnership ways they can get solutions that are quicker than they would have been before, so in the system as a whole there is a recognition that partnership has offered more. We will all retrench as the world moves on from where we are, but there is real learning from covid on which we can capitalise. Many systems have done reviews of what worked and why, looking for the silver linings in that learning. I think the Bill goes with the analyses that have come out.
Louise Patten: At the NHS Confederation, we have that sort of umbrella view. We must not forget that, on collaboration and integration, people have been working to this for some time. There are some great examples of it, and this legislation moves that opportunity to really accelerate it. People recognise that it is a tight timescale, but they are absolutely committed to doing it.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: There are a couple of statutory sub-groups that we are going to require, like accounts, audit and remuneration. More importantly, over the last few years, systems like ours have developed ways of handling finance and quality that have been about a partnership approach, so you do not have a head of quality covering all the organisations, but you have the heads of quality from all the organisations coming together to problem-solve. The heads of finance come together to work out how to allocate the money. That is a very, very effective way of doing it. It teases out the tensions and gets people who are expert in delivery in those conversations. We will have a number of committees like that. The question is: which ones of those become statutory? Which ones do you do through officers? Where do you build people in? All of them will have primary care build-in, because you cannot do service otherwise.
On the partnership forum, which is a different sort of animal, we had already got into the vehicle whereby the full ICB board took cognisance twice a year, because these outcome measures do not change very rapidly. All we do is talk about those longer-term agendas, so it is not just us saying, “Here’s our plan, over to you.” It is about saying, “What really worries you? How can we help? What is important? How do we do it?” We had a wonderful session on apprenticeships. NHS apprenticeship levy money is being used to support some of the stuff that county councils want to do. That would have never happened in the old days because we were not sat in a room with mutual trust and a single purpose.
At the heart of this, every ICB and every partnership board will have to define, “What’s my purpose? What’s your purpose? What’s our shared purpose?” That managerial trust-developing, partnership-developing work is what will make this a success. I started, and I was rapped across my knuckles by Mr McCabe for saying too much—quite appropriately. At the end of the day, you are not going to get that through legislation. You are going to get it by creating an environment and properly holding us to account for what we are doing in these boxes.
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: Indeed. This is guidance, not legislation, so we have to develop a constitution of what we are doing, and we are committed to reviewing it. If today we think that we know what we will need in three years’ time, we are not asking ourselves the right questions, so we need to be reviewing constantly. That is one of the things that we have historically been very bad at in the NHS. We do something, we enshrine it, and then a few years later we throw it all away and start with a new thing. How do we evaluate it? How do we say, “This has been brill, this has been flaky. Let’s get rid of the flaky, and let’s put more of the brill in”? It is that sort of managerial question with us, rather than the very flat, “How do you hit this today?”
Dr Whitford
Q
Dame Gill Morgan: I personally think that we have to be very careful. I do not know if this is a role for legislation. A joke in the NHS is that pilots are phase 1 implementation. That is an old joke. It is not this Government; it is every Government. We have always said that. We have to be really careful that we build in evaluation across the piece and do not pick two or three metrics that look as if they have gone the bad way to prove what we wanted to argue before. That is done both in favour of things and against things, and we end up with this sort of noise in the system. Let us plan now and get a proper, effective academic unit to build in some evaluation at the end of this time, and then let us all take stock in two and a half years and say, “Hasn’t this been brilliant”—in my opinion, it will be brilliant—or, “It won’t do any harm, but it’ll be nothing”. We have got to do better than nothing.
You will gather that I am in favour of ICSs. [Laughter.]
The Chair
I think we drew that conclusion from your evidence—absolutely.
May I just thank you both very much for giving evidence today? I am sorry that I had to interrupt you, but I am an obsessive timekeeper. Such is life. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Ed Hammond and Andy Bell gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Good afternoon, both. Can you both introduce yourself for the record, starting with Ed?
Ed Hammond: My name is Ed Hammond and I am the deputy chief executive at the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny.
Andy Bell: I am Andy Bell and I am also a deputy chief executive, but at the Centre for Mental Health.
Dr James Davies
Q
Andy Bell: It is a really good question and I think that, on its own, the legislation certainly has some potential to assist with that. Of course, there also need to be a number of other things and I can talk about those if that would be helpful.
The first positive thing to say about this legislation is that the idea of integrated care—the practice of providing care that actually links across between mental and physical health, NHS and social care, and prevention and treatment—undoubtedly is the way to go. I think we have a number of areas within the system where we know that people at the moment get very poor support for their mental and physical health, as a result of the lack of integration in the system.
Examples would be people who have both alcohol and mental health difficulties at the same time; people living with long-term physical illnesses, such as diabetes or kidney disease, who get really inadequate and often very poor emotional support, if indeed they have any emotional support at all; and, indeed, people living with long-term mental health conditions, whose physical health is very often very badly neglected, and they have very little support. Integrating care—actually doing that on the ground—and achieving a real change in the way that services are organised around people’s needs would undoubtedly make quite a significant difference and reduce some of those inequalities.
I think the way that the Bill and the various bits of guidance are written gives us some hope that that may happen; it certainly does not answer all of our questions about it. In and of itself, I think it is potentially a step in the right direction, but we need to give some thought to a number of caveats around that.
Dr Davies
Q
Andy Bell: Yes, sure. Again, “integrated care”—we like the words; they are good—but the difficulty in a way is, first of all, the fact that this is very much an NHS-dominated set of proposals. It was written by NHS England for NHS England. I think that if we have a genuinely integrated system, where people will get support across the whole range of services, we need this to be an equal partnership between the NHS, local government, and voluntary and community organisations.
If you look at the proposals, in a sense what they are doing is taking decision making and power within the health and social care system further away from local communities into what are effectively sub-regional groupings. There is not anything very local about integrated care systems in many places, and that gives us some pause for thought. It is very much NHS dominated. If we look at the current health and care system, public health and social care are often the less well-funded and less well-resourced parts of the system. From what we see from the spending plans, it looks like that will become even more the case if you have legislation that, in a sense, reinforces the power of the NHS over other partners. I worry we are not going to get that real shift.
Dr Davies
Q
Ed Hammond: In terms of scrutiny generally, it is a challenging picture, as Andy said. There is a challenge around the need for effective local accountability. That scrutiny is best exerted at a local level. Local scrutiny is much more able to assess and make accurate conclusions about what outcomes have been reached. We do a lot of work as an organisation supporting local councils in their formal health scrutiny functions. The past 20 years of that has demonstrated a significant degree of success in local government being able to lead with local healthwatch in, alongside and on behalf of local people, seeking to understand how local health services design and deliver effective outcomes, challenging, where necessary, through the referral power for substantial variations.
My worries echo Andy’s in that the Bill as it stands moves a lot of decision making, commissioning and direction activity up to system level. Depending on the character, relationships and personalities of the key individuals involved, there is a risk that decision making therefore becomes remote from local accountability, making effective scrutiny of outcomes more challenging to achieve.
Karin Smyth
Q
Ed Hammond: In answer to your first point, I think it is clear. As we become more familiar with what is a complex system—and health governance is complex—some of this confusion will dissipate. As we start to operate practically within these systems, familiarity will breed a degree of confidence in understanding whose roles relate to what. As with all complex systems, it is vital that everybody understands their individual and collective responsibility for governance within those systems and accountability.
It is great when you have a partnership-led framework, in which everybody in the system is working together, and everybody has some stake in the system and in decision making. It is not a hierarchical, dictatorial system; it is one based, hopefully, on dialogue and, to an extent, consensus. The risk of that is that it necessarily dilutes accountability. Where everybody has a stake in decision making, you need some kind of external source of local accountability. That leads on to a second question. I think there is a need for a distinct and separate form of local accountability within these new arrangements at system, place and neighbourhood level. That role is currently performed at a local level in two main places: through local Healthwatch, from whom you will be hearing later, and through local health overview and scrutiny committees.
For me, the risk of these new arrangements is that, first, the removal of the power of referral to the Secretary of State by health overview and scrutiny committees on matters of concern relating to substantial variation of local health services is a worry for us, as it is for NHS colleagues. Also, the focus on system-level decision making will, by definition, make it more challenging for local health overview and scrutiny committees to co-ordinate to form, where necessary, joint committees to effectively oversee, scrutinise and hold to account ICS, ICB and ICP activity at system level.
The Chair
Do you want to add anything to that, Andy?
Andy Bell: Yes. It is a really important question. From the perspective of mental health, we have seen an enormous amount of progress in recent years from local Government really embracing the mental health agenda in many areas and becoming both a partner but also a scrutineer of the NHS through scrutiny committees and through the role of health and wellbeing boards too. The importance of that natural connection through, between the health and wellbeing board with the ICP in particular, the partnership bid, feels like there needs to be a very clear and close relationship and, again, where possible, decisions being made at place level—in the new language—feels really important to allow for that kind of relationship to build and actually become a really positive relationship, because so much of this does come down to relationships. However, clearly, the need for some kind of external scrutiny is incredibly important.
When we think about it from the mental health perspective, where systems or governing bodies—be it the integrated care board or anything else—are allowing mental health to slip through or particular groups of people are being poorly catered for by the system, some kind of external scrutiny and clear accountability is incredibly important. One thing we have said we would like to see in the Bill is an extended and expanded role for the Care Quality Commission to really scrutinise the degree to which integrated care boards and the decisions they are making—and, indeed, partnerships in their strategies—are looking across the board at health inequalities.
At the moment, the Care Quality Commission is very good at inspecting services for whether they are working appropriately with individuals they are seeing, but it has no powers to scrutinise whether the health system as a whole is working fairly and appropriately across all different groups of people. Unfortunately, that means, certainly from what we see in the mental health world, that there are a number of groups of people who get very poor support for their mental health—actually, very little help at all—and there is no current means in the system to address that.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q
Andy Bell: It is difficult to tell; the Bill is largely silent on mental health. If we had a system where there was genuinely equal regard for both mental and physical health, we would not have to worry about that, because we would know that the system would treat mental health fairly and equally, and there would be no disparity in the way it was thought about. Unfortunately, all our experience tells us that that is not what happens within many health systems at different levels, from very local to national, so we would like to see some assurances in the Bill.
From our point of view, that could happen in one of two ways. Legislation only gets you so far, but it could place specific duties on both NHS England and integrated care boards—I am being very careful in specifying integrated care boards here—that they must take action to ensure that mental and physical health are given equal regard in their decision making, particularly on resource allocation. We feel strongly that there needs to be a voice for mental health within integrated care boards. That is highly likely to happen within integrated care partnerships, but within integrated care boards we do not have confidence that mental health will be properly represented at the top table where important decisions about resource allocation are made.
We think that would help. There are no 100% safeguards in legislation, but one positive thing we have seen with the 2012 Act is that a clause at the very top of the Act talked about mental and physical health as one of the key purposes of the NHS, and that has been used positively and helpfully to make the case for parity in health systems up and down the country. A few simple words can sometimes make quite a big difference.
Edward Timpson
Q
Ed Hammond: For me it starts with an understanding of what decisions are best made at system level and what decisions are best made at place level. Certainly, I would imagine one of the first things that ICBs and ICPs would need to do, once established, would be to determine how to set up a system-wide framework for ensuring equality and equity in terms of how its health and care service is delivered, and then determine how and where it is most appropriate that more detailed decisions come to be made at place level. Otherwise, the system simply becomes too unwieldy.
There are risks that those partners sitting at that system level will draw decision making into those spaces, rather than pushing it back out to localities, because it is the simplest, in many ways the most efficient and apparently the most co-ordinated way of doing it, but in practice it will not serve the interests of local accountability or better outcomes. That raises the prospect of certain services being delivered in different ways in different localities, depending on the political priorities of different councils, but that is local democracy—that is local government bringing its understanding of the demographics of the populations it serves into the conversation.
I think this can all be made to work if there is sufficient transparency in the system, so that those within and those outside it understand how decisions are being made, on what subjects, and by whom. When you have that clarity, it becomes easier to unpick what is happening at place level. Are decisions being made at system level that would be more appropriately made at a lower level? Is there consistency across the entire system? What does the geography mean for decision making and commissioning, and these kinds of things? It provides assurance, and it provides everybody with more confidence that decisions are being made properly in the interests of local people.
Going back to the point I made before, that is also why some external local accountability is so important, because effective local external accountability can challenge the system on whether the right decisions are being made at the right level, and whether they reflect and are responsive to what the local needs are. Local scrutiny committees are, at the moment, anchored at place level within local authorities. They are well able to publicly draw in the voice and concerns of the public about those kinds of issues, and transmit them to health and care partners so that there is a clear way for those concerns and issues to be responded to.
Dr Whitford
Q
Ed Hammond: That is a challenge, because it brings into focus the role that different accountability partners play in the system. We have already heard a little about the CQC and the work it does in assessing and monitoring clinical outcomes. Of course, within ICBs and ICPs there will come to be—one would hope—robust and effective performance management arrangements. Certainly, looking at the Secretary of State’s expectations around the exercise of new powers, one would expect that, for the Secretary of State to understand where he chooses to intervene and direct services, that would be on the basis of evidence that would need to be collected in a consistent and systematic way across England, but also within individual ICBs. Presumably, we can expect some kind of performance framework to be established nationally to provide evidence to support the Secretary of State in the exercise of their powers.
Then at local level, you have, as I mentioned before, local Healthwatch and local health scrutiny communities. Now, local scrutiny committees obviously cannot bring the clinical expertise to bear on issues of concern; the CQC naturally leads on many of those issues. I think what those local partners in local Healthwatch and scrutiny committees can do is understand where there are gaps in the system; where there are concerns about aspects of performance that others have perhaps not picked up on; where there are concerns emerging from conversations within local communities that councillors are hearing about day to day, because they have direct contact with local people; and those concerns that might not otherwise find their way on to a performance scorecard, but might relate to things that are not being monitored, measured or managed particularly well. That local connection is a vital part of what makes health scrutiny work.
Dr Whitford
Q
Ed Hammond: Yes. Where ICBs and ICPs are putting those monitoring arrangements in place, I would certainly expect local clinicians to have a role in assessing, evaluating and analysing that data and evidence. As I have said, committees of local councillors would also be able to do that. I think we have a resource challenge in how that local government scrutiny operates, but as a matter of principle local councillors are increasingly adept at that data analysis, despite the fact that they may not be clinical experts. They are able to carry out some form of analysis. Collectively, we can see that, together, those partners can bring to bear a form of local accountability, primarily at system and place level.
Dr Whitford
Q
Andy Bell: We have hugely underinvested in it, and indeed very poorly appreciated it. What we have seen in recent years, which we hugely welcome, is huge progress on mental health awareness and understanding. That was not there 10 or 15 years ago. It has not been that long since in a debate in the House of Commons the first Member stood up and spoke about their own experience of mental illness; that was hugely powerful, and began quite a significant social movement. However, we do not yet have literacy around that issue, or indeed a real understanding about what we can do to promote the public’s mental health. With the creation of the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities—I must remember to get the name right—there is an opportunity to make public mental health as important as public physical health. How we translate that to local areas will be really interesting.
When I talk to people working in local public health departments, I see a huge enthusiasm for and interest in how they can better support mental support in the communities they serve. We have seen incredibly creative work from around the country, such as in Leeds and Bristol, from public health teams that are leading the way who understand that the things that determine our mental health are very much about the society and environments we live in—the families we come from, the schools we go to, the amount of income we have, and the homes and neighbourhoods that we live in. There is a growing understanding of that. However, we have not yet put that into practice on a large scale, and indeed the resources available to public health departments to do that are very threadbare. Many have to be very creative in how they do that.
We very much welcomed the promotion and prevention fund set up recently by the Government, which gave funding to local authorities in the 40 most deprived local areas in England for mental health promotion activities. We are really looking forward to seeing what that money is used for, and we very much hope that it will be the beginning of something much bigger. Our worry, in relation to the Bill in particular, is the understanding of prevention, and indeed the understanding of prevention that I read in yesterday’s Command Paper on the health and social care plan. It is still based on physical health, and the idea that public health is about telling people how to live their lives and how they should behave, rather than what really determines our mental health: how much money we have coming into our home, how safe we feel, and our position in society. It is really clear that very often the way that economic and social inequalities affect our mental health also affects our physical health. Very often it is poor psychological wellbeing that leads to later physical health problems, so we really have to start taking public mental health as seriously as any other part of public health.
Justin Madders
Q
Ed Hammond: The obvious mechanism is the Secretary of State’s power of intervention. It is all about that referral upwards really to the Secretary of State to act. Ideally, these kinds of things can and should be resolved through dialogue, because the Secretary of State can intervene only so much. One of my worries about the focus in certain elements of the Bill on the new and enhanced powers of the Secretary of State is that it sort of assumes that the Secretary of State will need to have fingers in lots of pies to be aware of where these issues are occurring across England, and be prepared to step in where they are happening, which requires the exercise of a significant watching brief across a wide range of areas in a way that does not currently happen.
Ideally, these kinds of things can and should be thrashed out by the people involved at local level. The Secretary of State can intervene but does that intervention persist if relationships have effectively broken down? What do you do then? You cannot run everything from Whitehall; there has to be some kind of mechanism to rebuild relationships and trust. One would hope that it would not get that bad, but I know of past tensions. There are divergent priorities between local authorities, NHS partners and other partners in respect of health and care issues. The logic of ICPs is that you are aligning those priorities better, but that is not guaranteed.
That is one of the reasons we consider that there should be a role sitting with local health scrutiny committees to escalate matters of particular concern to the Secretary of State, so there is not this assumption that the Secretary of State is exercising a continual watching brief over everything that is going on. There is that formal power of escalation from an external body holding the system to account that can, before that escalation, exert some kind of influence at local level to try to knock heads together and bring some form of agreement in place, so that you are not in a situation where you have a persistent assumption that Whitehall will need to step in in every case where these kinds of issues occur.
Justin Madders
Q
Andy Bell: At the moment, it is really impossible to say. I would like to see the Bill achieving parity of esteem for mental health. As I say, the principles of integrated care could certainly enable that to happen, if combined with a lot of other very significant and important activity to shift the culture in the health service, apart from anything else. The lack of specific provisions in the Bill to ensure that parity is taken seriously is a real worry. I think there are still gaps in the Bill that could be very simply addressed and would help to ensure that system leaders, wherever they are—whether they are on integrated care boards or any other three-letter acronym that gets created—realise that their personal responsibility is to bring about parity for mental health.
I think we are at a point now where there is some recognition in most parts of the system that mental health is important, but very often, outside specific mental health services, there is still an assumption that mental health is something other people and other organisations do, and there is not that shared responsibility for it in quite the way that we think would help to move us forward.
Justin Madders
Q
Andy Bell: This is incredibly difficult. We have some very ambitious plans now—the NHS long-term plan ambitions for mental health. There is, quite rightly, an awful lot of money going into that, because we have a very big gap in our ability to meet people’s needs. The only way that is going to succeed is if we have a very significant expansion in the mental health workforce.
We need to remember that that workforce is not just what people think it is. It is obviously nursing and obviously psychiatry, but it is also social work—a lot of really important mental health provision is in local government under social care. We need to think about the importance of advocacy and the importance of peer support, the importance of employment and housing rights workers, who we know make a big difference to people’s lives. There is also the key role of the voluntary sector in providing forms of support that may not come under traditional clinical headings, but none the less make a huge impact in people’s lives. We need to build the workforce.
The Bill gives some steps forward and summary assurances. In some ways, it is not quite the right place to be dealing with this. This is about whether the various parts of the system—the health education system, the NHS itself and its partners in local government—have the resources and the right ways to encourage people to come and work in mental health. It would be great to see the kind of recruitment campaigns we have had for the NHS as a whole to really help bridge that very big gap in the mental health workforce. At the moment, I think the Bill is probably neutral on it. It would be good to see some stronger assurances, at the very least holding the Secretary of State to account for how they are achieving the workforce ambitions set out in the long-term plan and future policies that will have to come.
Edward Argar
Q
Building on what you have already said about the legislation, what would you identify as the opportunities of the legislation, if properly implemented or interpreted in the right way, for furthering that linkage and that joined-up mental health provision? Obviously, that goes beyond local council services and the NHS. There are a whole wraparound series of services that impact on someone’s mental health. What do you see as the opportunities in the legislation that we either need to draw out further or at least not lose sight of?
Andy Bell: This is about building real, sustainable, long-term partnerships. One of the things I know colleagues in the NHS and local government find very frustrating is that they just find a way of working with each other and then the legislation changes again and they have to start all over, so it is about having a system that actually works and stays working, that builds on the best of what is there already. I think there is some frustration in places where they spent a long time building relationships between clinical commissioning groups and local authority colleagues, sometimes with jointly employed staff, and now they have to start all over again because we are moving to a different thing. That will be immensely frustrating for many folk.
If we take the principle that this is about integrating care and equal partnerships between different players, including the voluntary and community sector, and if we give that time to work, we will enable partnerships to form with a clear voice for people—for example, in the case of mental health, for people living with mental health difficulties—so that decisions are being made with and in partnership with the people who use them rather than remotely by professional experts on their own.
Collaboration is incredibly important too. One thing we really welcome about the Bill is that it is moving us away from a system of competing providers to providers working collaboratively—literally, in providing collaboratives. There is a slight risk that all the power will be vested in one organisation and there will not be that check and balance between commissioner and provider. But some of the early provider collaboratives working in children’s mental health services that we have looked at have made really huge strides really quickly to reduce, for example, the number of children forced to go to hospital outside their local area in a mental health crisis. They have come together, looked at what support is needed for children in a crisis and put community services, in particular, in place to achieve that.
One further thing that will be important is that there is some positive provision in the Bill to ensure that ICBs—I think it is ICBs, yes, it is—have to take into account inequalities in access and outcomes. That is great, but there is not that requirement to pay attention to inequalities in health and to go out and identify which groups of people are experiencing health inequalities and what the system can do to deal with that upstream rather than waiting for people to need formal healthcare. That would be the other part that would really help in the Bill—to build on some of the positive noises and moves in the right direction in collaborating at the level of prevention and on the things that determine our health as well as in the provision of services when things have reached a point where people need care.
Edward Argar
Q
Ed Hammond: Broadly speaking, yes, that is fair. My central point would be that those structures and the opportunity that local government has through this Bill for more direct and active involvement in health and care decision making are good, but there still needs to be that separate independent source of accountability that we feel sits properly at a local level with democratically elected local councillors who have powers through health scrutiny committees to talk to local people about their needs. That needs to be there and needs to be strengthened. In respect of the Secretary of State powers I was talking about, my worry would be that we would see ICBs and ICPs looking over their shoulder at what the Secretary of State might want to do rather than looking down to local communities to understand where local need lies, with decision making being led somewhat by what people think national priorities should be.
Part of the solution to that problem is the things we have proposed around, for example, requiring the Secretary of State to consult with local scrutiny committees before exercising those powers, having the powers for local scrutiny committees formally to escalate things to the Secretary of State to act on, and what we have suggested for more effective joint scrutiny by multiple councils of the ICB at system level as well. Those are all part of that strength and accountability framework. It is about saying, “Okay, we have involved local government in decision making through the ICPs and through continuing the health and wellbeing process, but in doing so we also have to enhance and build on our existing health scrutiny arrangements.” As things stand, the Bill removes elements of those by removing the power of referral. It is about having a balance of accountability arrangements and ensuring that that strong external accountability continues.
The Chair
We had better leave it there. We are out of time. I thank you, Andy and Ed, for your evidence today.
Examination of Witness
Sir Robert Francis QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, Sir Robert. Could I ask you to introduce yourself for the record, please?
Sir Robert Francis: I am Sir Robert Francis. I am chair of Healthwatch England.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have until 4.30 pm for this session. I call Mary Robinson.
Mary Robinson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: That rather depends on what arrangements are made in the new system. I have seen no guidance issued yet as to how this should work, and I am not surprised at that, because until you know precisely what the structures are and what the accountability and information flows are, it is quite difficult to do that. But I would agree that it is vital in the ICB and the ICP world that sufficient provisions are made for people who have concerns—whether they be staff, patients or the public—to make those concerns known safely to those responsible for doing something about them. In terms of this new world, that means that the ICB and, I suspect, the ICP need to have people who are directly responsible for that. Unless that happens, whistleblowers are going to find themselves in an even more parlous and uncertain place than they are at the moment.
Mary Robinson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Unless there is certainty on guidance, policies and guardians, of which I am a great supporter, people do not know where to go. Clearly, where things are going right in terms of an open culture, there are many people whom others will go to as a matter of ordinary business. But if we are talking about places where, unfortunately, that is not the case—I think they do exist—people do not know who to go to for help. They need to know that they have protection to go to places to provide information of concern, and they need to know that they are going to get support. If there is no guidance and no clear framework, none of that will happen, and secrets will remain at provider level, when they should be sent elsewhere. Existing mechanisms, such as going to the CQC and your local Freedom to Speak Up guardian in your trust, will still exist—I see no reason why those should not—but I suspect there will be areas and subjects where that will not necessarily be the answer to the question the individual wishes to pose.
Jo Gideon
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Healthwatch England welcomes the requirement for Healthwatch and representatives of the public to be “involved”—that is the word—in the strategy, but we would like to see that enhanced, as I am sure many people would, and we just heard that expressed very articulately. In order for these new reforms to work, it is absolutely essential that the public whom the system serves are able to engage with it and participate in the design of the services that they are going to receive. In order to do that, in our view, they need a visible presence on the ICB board and the ICB partnership. Although that can of course be done by local discretion and local arrangement, we think it would be a powerful boost to the importance given to the people’s voice if there was a representative on the ICB—not as a voting member but, in NHS England’s parlance, as a “participant”. It would be a requirement that one of the participants be such a representative, and you will not be surprised to know that we would advocate that person being a representative of Healthwatch.
That can be done through a coalition of local healthwatches—in many places there will be more than one—so that they have a presence on the board and are able to raise things. It is not just a question of the ICS deciding what to ask people about; they need to have a flow of intelligence coming in about what people are actually concerned about, and those two things are often different. It should be someone who is able to question what is happening in a constructive way.
Of course, part of that is done by local government representatives, and this is not a substitute for local democracy, but we consider that Healthwatch has a local and national ability to reach out to groups who do not often get considered, for instance, and that is particularly relevant if you are seeking to tackle health inequalities. Through the relationships that a good local healthwatch has with groups who feel—rightly or wrongly—that they have often been ignored, the questions that they pose can be put and the answers given back to them. That is a two-way process; you need someone who is independent from the system but in the room, and they also need to be able to transmit into the room information from patient services and the public, and transmit information back. They are part of the mechanism for explaining to the world at large this extremely complicated new concept—namely, a system of which the public has no understanding at all at the moment. A lot of professionals do not either.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Clearly, patient choice and view include information about people’s experience of the service they have had, where they think the gaps are, and their needs. The less you have a competitive exercise with different organisations coming in and saying, “We can provide this better than X or Y,” the more you need to know what people think about what you are proposing, or indeed the more you need to know to inspire creative thought about how you meet the needs that people are telling you they have.
Our view is that while we actually welcome the removal of the requirement for tendering and all the bureaucracy that, quite often in our healthwatches’ experience, interferes with and delays getting solutions to things, that should not mean that we do not have a concentrated effort to involve patient services and the public in the design of what they are being provided with. In effect, that would include how you commission the service that they are going to be provided with. You then need a constant flow of information and dialogue about whether that is working. Frankly, I do not see a great deal of clarity in the Bill about how performance will be monitored after having commissioned services and worked out your strategy and so on.
Edward Timpson
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Definitely, and it would be quite wrong to think that children and young people cannot be fully involved and consulted in the design of the services that are required for their benefit. Many local healthwatches have been very good at doing just that.
Dr James Davies
Q
Sir Robert Francis: I do not think it prevents it, but the extent to which it allows for it will depend, as I understand it, on the strategic decisions being made locally within the system. The answer is that I am not quite sure.
Karin Smyth
Q
Sir Robert Francis: First, there is no ideal person to do the job. I think that past iterations of what is now Healthwatch may have been slightly too full of people who were more interested in constitutional matters than the actual provision of health services. That was the impression I formed during the Stafford inquiry, but I think that is not true of Healthwatch. The presence of a Healthwatch person—by the way, this requires a new level of Healthwatch collaboration and function, but that is not difficult to provide in the Bill—will not produce, in itself, the culture that you talk of. The health service is still an organisation that, in the jargon, is top-down and is delivering things to people, rather than getting their ideas and responding to them. But the presence of the Healthwatch person, or some independent person, is at least a symbol of the need to have such a culture and to develop it. It will be someone whose principal task may be to question whether that culture is being led and developed.
If you have that person, you can back it up if you need to—in regulatory terms—with whatever form of systemic review the Care Quality Commission is tasked with doing. Its reports could certainly be a very valuable tool in relation to this, but you need a channel of communication between the ICB, if that is to be the centre of all this, and the wider world within its constituency. Unless there is someone whose independent role is to oversee whether that is happening, I am not sure it will. All organisations currently in the NHS have directors of engagement and communication. I suspect that, with the best will in the world, most of them see it as their job to defend the organisation. This is not about defending an organisation; it is about welcoming constructive comment from the public and responding to the needs that people communicate to them.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: What I am about to say in answer to your question is my personal view. Healthwatch England, for reasons you will understand, does not have a view on that—apart from welcoming the existence of this body and the fact it has a statutory function. I confess to some concern about the safe place provisions, and I said this in part to a parliamentary Committee before. On the one hand, I fully endorse the need to protect people who come forward to give information—sometimes potentially damaging to themselves—so we can learn the relevant lessons of safety. Therefore, I absolutely support the idea that anything said in these circumstances cannot of itself be used to prosecute or discipline them, or indeed be used in civil proceedings.
On that point, as a lawyer, I would be very hesitant on the advice I would give to someone on the basis of the Bill as it stands, because there is no certainty that what goes into the safe space stays there. It is all a matter of discretion, albeit a High Court judge’s discretion or sometimes a coroner’s discretion. That would have to be worked out. It is probably difficult to reinforce more, but if it could be it should be.
However, I think that is different from denying bereaved families and victims of an incident, if they are still alive, knowledge of what has been said to the investigation board. At the very minimum, I would like to see there be discretion to share that information with families. I can see there may be circumstances in which that is not possible, and I can see that it might be necessary for there to be quite stringent conditions around what they personally can do with the information they are given. What worries me about the position at the moment is that it starts from a presumption of dividing the staff from the patient from the families, and you get straight into, I presume, an adversarial situation. That is not necessary the case, and if we work the system and the learning culture properly, everyone will be trying to contribute to learning rather than blaming each other. You are not going to get that if you are denying one half of the incident the information that the other half has.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Yes, or something closer to it. After all, it is rather artificial. The family will often know the people involved in the treatment of their loved one. Where there is already likely to have been a breakdown of trust and confidence, this would be perpetuated and possibly increased if they are not given access to information that it is possible to share responsibly with them. I can see circumstances in which that would not be the case—that is why it would have to be discretionary—but I think many concerns of people I know who would have possibly been settled if only they had seen something more than they get in the report.
Dr Whitford
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Often, if I may say so, things that patients and their relatives have seen for themselves. If I were a relative of someone who died in hospital and I was being told, “This is due to a systematic fault. It was not down to the nurse or the doctor,” I would want to know a bit more about that. I would want, if I could, to talk to those individuals so that they could perhaps learn a little more from the impact of all this on people. I am not saying that it should happen in all circumstances, but in order for the family to have a true understanding of it. It does not necessarily mean they need to know the names in that sort of case that you mentioned, but I do not think it should be automatically assumed that they will be excluded from that information.
Alex Norris
Q
We have spoken quite a bit in these proceedings about the relationship between the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership, the fact that the board has to pay “due regard” to the integrated partnership’s plan, and what that due regard means. You talked about that in your written evidence, and you suggested mechanisms for resolving the situation—or at least making account for a situation where the board sets aside the ICP’s plan. Could you talk a little more about that?
Sir Robert Francis: The first requirement is that there needs to be clarity about what happens in those circumstances, which I am not sure we see in the current legislation or in the guidance that NHS England has produced, which I briefly read. Our suggestion is that there should be a provision inserted into the Bill that, if there is a disagreement, and the board decides to do something that is contrary to the views put forward by the partnership, it should then be obliged to set out their reasons for that. In other words, there should be transparency, which enables accountability, if it is necessary, to be more easily handled.
That would be the major thing we would require, but there also needs to be a better understanding, as far as the public is concerned, about the relationship between the two. I have heard what has been said today, and I must say that I am not clear that the partnership is a sub-committee of the board. That is because the Bill explicitly says that the creation of the partnership is a joint matter between the board—I think, or the NHS—and the local authority. It strikes me that that is not clear.
That is important because, if there is a disagreement, local people are entitled to know why. It would be good if they could also be persuaded that whatever is happening is actually the right thing for them, but they are certainly entitled to be part of the discussion. For that to happen, there need to be reasons given. Another thing that might send a shiver through some spines is that if there is an obligation to give reasons, it might be easier for those who object to the course being taken to challenge it.
Alex Norris
Q
Sir Robert Francis: Yes.
Alex Norris
Q
We will move on to something else that you said in your written evidence. On Tuesday, we had a very good conversation about data, but the whole thing was about quantitative data. In your written evidence, you talk about qualitative data, and it is very easy for us, as Members of Parliament, to conceive of the importance of that, as it is something that we routinely draw on. With your insight from leading Healthwatch, how can we develop systems that properly trap that, use that and prioritise that just as much as the quantitative data?
Sir Robert Francis: Technically, these days, that is no problem at all. You will not expect me to explain that to you, but the qualitative data—comments from the friends and family test, or similar things—is easily mined these days. You can develop a view of the sentiment that comes through it, and you can then dig down more closely into specifics if you need to. That information is extremely valuable to Healthwatch in determining what people think about a particular subject or services, and we feel that there should be a recognition that that data, in that form, should be capable of being shared with a statutory body like Healthwatch, and possibly others.
We also think that—I am sure others might agree—while quantitative data is extremely important, it is informed by qualitative data. The personal impact—good or bad—of things that happen in the service are best described by the people who have received that service. If you just look at figures—I am afraid that this was a problem at Mid Staffs—you lose a great deal, and the trigger for change and improvement is lost.
Edward Argar
Q
We sought with this Bill to be permissive rather than prescriptive; behaviours, and how things work on the ground, are often as, if not more, important than the framework. Notwithstanding your on-the-record comments about Healthwatch participation in ICB levels as a formal member, what else would you draw out as opportunities within the framework to build on patient participation and accountability to those who pay for, and use, the service? Are there other opportunities, that, with a small tweak either in guidance or in the Bill, we could seize more effectively?
Sir Robert Francis: I suspect that there is something around reporting, particularly with the oversight of quality, inequalities and matters of that nature, which would be of assistance. I agree that flexibility of engagement is really important, and Healthwatch claims no monopoly over this. I see it taking place in guidance. If the emphasis is to change culture to one where the service is being responsive to people’s needs, as opposed to providing them with what the service thinks they need, there could be greater emphasis in the Bill on ensuring there is a strategic plan for engagement. There could be more emphasis on how the ICS is going to engage with local people and communities, and an actual requirement that it provides comprehensible information to the community about how people should be able to communicate with it. I know they sound like matters of detail, but if there is an obligation to make such things clear, it does not prevent flexibility, but it does oblige organisations to actually do it—and mean it. There will be lots of other ideas, I am sure.
Edward Argar
Q
Sir Robert Francis: In relation to a decision of whether information should be capable of being used in legal proceedings, there is no better qualified person than a High Court judge—so, absolutely. My advocating that there should be some qualification in relation to the family does not mean, in any way, that I suggest they should then be able to use that for litigation or other purposes. Indeed, some of the conditions you might impose on them in order for them to get the information are that they do not do those sort of things. There will be areas where it can be said that it is too sensitive for that. Of course, there may need to be a balancing of people’s rights of privacy. It is really about ensuring that families feel that they are not being excluded or that something is being hidden from them. We need to build trust. I do not think that that decision needs to be taken by a High Court judge, because it is not about legal proceedings; it is about something really quite private.
The Chair
Thank you, Sir Robert.
Examination of Witnesses
Stephen Chandler and Gerry Nosowska gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Stephen Chandler: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Stephen Chandler. As you said, I am currently the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. ADASS is a small charity that represents directors such as myself. My day job is director of adult services in Oxfordshire—up and down the country. It is probably important to say by way of context that I have only worked in the public sector. I left school and started my training as a nurse. The first 20 years of my career were in the NHS. I reached trust board level via a route of joint commissioning. The second half of my career is in local government, so in a way I am living proof of integration, if there was one.
Gerry Nosowska: I am Gerry Nosowska, and I am the chair of the British Association of Social Workers, which is the professional body for social work in the United Kingdom. We have around 22,000 members. I am here to represent the voice of social work, and our experts by experience who have worked with us.
Edward Timpson
Q
Stephen Chandler: It is a really good question. We see the importance of bringing that collective data together in one place at every level in the stratified system. If you take the integrated care system, at the macro level it is really important for population-based planning. My local integrated care system covers Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire—colloquially, BOB—and for some conditions dealing with it at that footprint is really important. Having data, for example, around cancer care and some of the specialist mental health services is really important.
The first thing that I did this morning was to chair a call looking at urgent care activity in our local system, and it was really important for the staff from the community trust and social care, as well as the acute staff, to be looking at a single view of the citizen—the patient—in that instance. We have done a lot of work to get there already. Again, this is about building on some good foundations, but it is critical for practitioners to do their job to have that data there, flowing readily, as well as for us in the planning and commissioning sense.
Edward Timpson
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. The link between health and social care data is obviously essential, because health care impacts on people’s lives and social lives, and social determinants impact on health. Joining those things up will help us to have a much more holistic picture, which is what social workers are interested in. For social workers, what we really want to understand are the trends, the gaps, and the barriers to wellbeing. In practice, having that data and that understanding—ideally a really local understanding—is important.
We would want to see social workers and experts by experience input into the kind of data that is collected, with an understanding in particular of under-met or unmet need, so that we can become more preventative, which is another aim of integration, and we have information about people who might fall outside of statutory responsibilities—self-funders, for example. We know that there is a real need to understand much more about the pressures on carers. This is an opportunity to think about how we can build more fairness locally through understanding the inconsistencies in people’s experiences and outcomes. We also have a need to understand the impact of digital developments on people—how to ensure equity as we move into a wider range of working. Another hope would be that, ultimately, our health and social care leaders will be able to be more proactive using the data, because very often it feels like we are on the back foot.
Karin Smyth
Q
Every project that I have seen or witnessed on integration—joint commissioning; joint collaboration—has fallen apart in the end because of accountability for the money. A finance director in a local authority has to account for its budgets, and the finance director and accountable officer of a health authority ultimately has to account for their budgets. If agreement cannot be held at that point, those projects fall apart.
We heard earlier that we still do not know any detail on the tariff or money flows as a result of changes in the Bill—changes that will come into place in April. We also have the better care fund outwith the Bill, and this week’s announcement of a major change in funding is also outwith it. I wonder, with your ADASS hat on, how can you now help the Government to get around the problem for organisations regarding accountability for the money so that they do not fail?
Stephen Chandler: Again, that is a really good question. To be honest, a real challenge for those of us working in both health and social care is that uncertainty and delay in knowing the financial envelope we are working with. The announcements this week help to provide some clarity of what the future funding arrangement is likely to look like but, of course—from a local government point of view—until the spending review confirms the final settlement later this year, we will not know.
Some practical examples of how to mitigate or manage some of that uncertainty clearly come down to how much you are able to put together—and feel confident to put together. I suspect it was probably there in your day in Oxfordshire, but Oxfordshire has a large pooled budget arrangement—some of it completely risk-shared, but some of it not. That reflects the confidence and experience we have in using that money together. If I were not here providing testimony to you, I would be chairing a joint commissioning executive. In Oxfordshire, across health and social care, we have responsibility for more than £500 million in health and social care expenditure.
We are talking about continuing to build on some really good relationships and experiences that have existed but, rather than allowing them to evolve because individuals—either at a system level or a personal level—believe it is the right thing, it becomes policy and direction. I think that the success for us has to be looking at where systems have been able to resolve some of those challenges. I am still working with my CCG colleagues in Oxfordshire around what we believe the better care fund will look like, having signed the agreement at the beginning of the year. That is about us becoming much more involved and therefore much more confident in each other.
You will appreciate that ADASS members are constantly providing reassurance and at times caution to our elected members on how far we could and should go in relation to sharing and using our resources. Some of the developments in the Bill around the establishment of integrated care partnerships fully provide a vehicle for some of that greater transparency and greater opportunity to look at the problem, the challenge and the opportunity from a place, and then from a system, point of view.
Karin Smyth
Q
Stephen Chandler: Yes, indeed. Without giving away too much personal information, my wife and I have a joint account. We each have our own accounts. She is not here, so I will say that I think I have the authority on the joint account, but if she was here she would probably say that she has.
The point I am trying to make is that a lot of this works on the formal agreement, but as much of it also works on the trust and confidence you build in those relationships. However, you cannot take away the facts, as you said. Equally, my elected members are very clear with me that I am responsible for ensuring that Oxfordshire County Council’s resources are being managed and used in the way that they have approved.
Dr James Davies
Q
Stephen Chandler: The principles that underpin successful discharge are, quite simply, a person-centred, strength-based approach to enabling that individual to get back, preferably and ideally, to their own home, in a timely manner, with the level of support that they need to continue the recovery that will have started in the hospital but will not have finished in the hospital.
Where we have got that process right—I think the discharge to assess arrangements have really helped us in this—is by clarifying that the destination for discharge, for the majority of patients, has to be home. It is pathway 1—“Home First”, as it is often described—with the appropriate reablement support to maximise the recovery. That is good for the patient; it is good for us in local government, because it reduces the level of ongoing care needs in many cases; and it is good for the NHS, in that it frees up acute hospital beds. Those are the principles.
The way you successfully do that is by ensuring that the focus is on the patient and getting the patient—the citizen—to their home, not on the organisational form and who is responsible for it; in fairness, we all are. Discharge to assess has helped us to clarify “Home First” or pathway 1, and it has provided for some of those systems where one of the stumbling blocks was the resources to make that happen.
The challenge we have, though, is that we have introduced “Home First” at a system level nationally at a time when demand, linked to covid and the unintended consequences of covid, has really impacted. I reference my first meeting this morning, looking at acute pressures in Oxfordshire. We pride ourselves on getting people home, and “Home First”, but when I was chairing that call I heard myself saying, “We need to move people into some interim beds”, because I needed to create capacity in the acute system. I am hearing that coming through from director colleagues up and down the country; we are making less than ideal decisions for people because of just how much demand there is in the system. Let us be very clear: good discharge is discharge home, to your bed, with the support to enable you to maximise your recovery.
Dr Davies
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. I completely agree with Stephen on the principles behind discharge to assess, and we have good experience within social work of it working when there is clear shared responsibility and the person is kept at the centre of it. We also have evidence from our members of the potential for rapid discharge to assess, without real advocacy and potentially without the involvement of social work, to lead to some undermining of people’s rights around potentially being placed in a more restrictive environment and potentially struggling to have access to their family. It is partly about resourcing, but it is also about the ethos of human rights and people’s right to be heard and to have choice, and then having the practical backing to follow things up well.
I think that people with experience of social care and health want to have a really clear and transparent process. For that to happen well, we still need some safeguards around that transition. It is a complex moment in people’s lives, and I would want to see social work involvement in the guidance around that. But we also need to be thinking, if we want people to have more of their care closer to home, about how we rebalance resources—this relates to the previous question—by making sure that there are incentives for the resource to be put into community and local support and not just into the most urgent matters.
Stephen Chandler: Could I come back in? One thing that I omitted—it was remiss of me—was that we also need to never forget the importance of the support for carers, particularly around hospital discharge. All too often we are focusing on the individual in the hospital bed and the need to get them out, but we also need to ensure that we are not overlooking or not giving due regard to the role of the carer in that. If I could ask you to do anything, it would be this. Can you just ensure that the emphasis on the role of carers and how all of this is going to help the role of carers is brought through? Without carers, the health and care system would disintegrate rapidly.
Chris Skidmore
Q
Stephen Chandler: You are right: discharge to assess and, indeed, the “Home First” model of three pathways is not new. It has been around and used up and down the country for a decade or so now, so there are some well established services that you can draw some really good data from. Before I was in Oxfordshire, I was in Somerset, and we did a lot of work in the Somerset system to develop “Home First”, because our delays were really poor. We saw significant improvement in the outcomes for patients in the first instance. We then saw significant improvements in the flow from the acute hospitals, and I would say we also saw some significant benefits to the local authority in relation to the commitment it had to individuals on an ongoing basis.
I have been out of that system for over two years, but the work that it has done since then to take that even further is phenomenal, and I would encourage you to talk to some of the health and social care professionals in that system. One of the hallmarks of the system is that it does not rely solely on health and social care professionals. It has brought what it refers to as community agents and village agents into the hospital to help with discharge. It has got the voluntary sector as an equal partner. It is helping the individuals beyond the health and care needs that they have in leaving hospital.
I personally believe that discharge to assess is a robust and positive model, and I am hearing nothing to the contrary from director colleagues. What I am hearing from director colleagues, though, is real anxiety about conclusions that might be being drawn from the very point you made, which is that we have tried to evaluate discharge to assess in a very short period of time, and at a time when demand and pressure on the service has been at its most acute. Remember that it is not just the physical demand on those services that we have been experiencing; we have been working on an assumption that there is likely, at any point, to be an immediate surge in the demand for acute services, so we have been working to try to ensure that there is always capacity behind us should a further wave—either a local or a national wave—occur. We have been, up and down the country, operating systems at a pace that I have never seen before, as a result of covid. I would be cautious about drawing out any strong opinions around discharge to assess from an evaluation that was done during that covid period. For me, it is the only model that really helps people leave hospital in a timely manner.
I do not know about any of you, but as I get older and hospital admission becomes more likely, I want that hospital admission to deal with the acute need that requires it, but I want to go back home as quickly as I possibly can and to be able to continue to regain the independence I had. I do not want to become reliant on the local authority for all my support, which is why that reablement support at discharge is so critical.
Gerry probably wants to add to this, but the multidisciplinary approach that has a social worker and the local authority at its heart, building upon not just the professional expertise we bring but the relationships with our communities, our voluntary sector and our social care providers, is critical to that success.
The Chair
Do you want to add anything, Ms Nosowska?
Gerry Nosowska: Yes, please. The issue with getting out of hospital is not about getting out of hospital; it is about getting your life back and getting back to your normal life. We know that reablement can be a really important part of that. The persistence, co-ordination and attention to the impact of a transition from hospital to home is something that social workers can really help with, and I do not think we should underestimate how potentially complex that can be. It is not just a question of somebody going back home and picking up where they left off.
Having really good support rapidly following up is absolutely essential. We have concerns about evidence of either inappropriate support or lack of support, support that has not been there or follow-up that has not happened. I would want us to be careful about checks and balances here.
Dr Whitford
Q
Gerry Nosowska: I think that this can achieve some strengthening of integration if it is not just a reorganisation that sucks in energy and resource, but a change that is absolutely about relationship, trust and understanding of local services, and it leads to a flow of resources and attention to that idea of home and community. There is potential, absolutely, but we have seen efforts to build integration before. What makes them work, certainly from a frontline point of view, is parity of esteem, trust, understanding and recognition of expertise, and relational time together.
One question I have is about how the integrated care partnership and the board have the appropriate input, the right people in there and the right people engaged, so that those relationships can really build, bearing in mind that we might be talking about quite a large area. We also have to make sure that from the point of view of the person who needs help or care, it is about their local community and neighbourhood. If I were going to change something, I would want to make sure that there was lived experience and social work expertise at the heart of those integrated structures.
Dr Whitford
Q
May I ask you the same questions, Stephen? Do you think it will improve integration? What is the one thing you would change?
Stephen Chandler: I do believe that it will improve integration. As I said earlier, anything that helps those people who have yet to be convinced that integration is a good thing or provides them with some of the roadmaps for putting integration into place is great. From a local government point of view, strengthening the role that local government has in relation to the health and wellbeing of its citizens in the way that this does is good. I look forward to the refined guidance around the roles that health and wellbeing boards will have, because when I talk to my leader, I emphasise to her the importance that that gives her, as an elected member who chairs that board.
On whether I would change anything, we risk focusing a lot on either people who are acutely unwell or the elderly. From a local government and social care point of view, we work with people across their life course, including working-age adults, many of whom often have very complex underlying health and care needs. Recognising the need to ensure that health and care systems work well for a 25-year-old with learning disabilities who is trying to achieve his potential, or to help somebody with a severe and enduring mental illness to maintain their employment and therefore their accommodation, is really important.
Unfortunately, those voices are not always as obvious in what we are doing, but they are so important. I have been quoting this a lot of late, but each and every one of us is just one accident or life-changing illness away from needing that. We all recognise that we may need healthcare to deal with it, but very few of us think that we may then need and want the support of social care. In my case, if I had an accident or a significant stroke on the way home, I would need help maintaining my family. All the things we take for granted are only possible for a lot of people through the help that local government and social care provide, but doing that together with our health colleagues offers even greater opportunities.
Dr Whitford
Q
Stephen Chandler: It absolutely is. If you think of a young person with a complex health need associated with a learning disability, we need to work together to ensure that we are allowing them to maximise their potential while managing the risk associated with their health needs. For somebody who is coming out of the criminal justice system, maximising their potential to reintegrate into society, get a job and get a house is only possible if we work together. That is why integration must be much more than just a focus on the frail elderly.
Dr Whitford
Q
Stephen Chandler: I will come back to you on that. I cannot immediately think of a part.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: It is a genuine concern, yes—partly because, as Stephen was saying, it was rolled out very rapidly, at scale, during an unusual and very pressured time. Social workers have often been involved in those transitions, and very well, to advocate and to ensure that the person’s voice is heard and that people do not get lost somewhere in the system or forgotten, but the concerns are around the potential weakening of that social work role.
Not everybody will need that, but I advocate for a social worker being available to anybody who might need that kind of co-ordination, therapeutic support and advocacy at the point of such a major life transition. We want a review of the model, but we also have concerns about just taking out wholesale all the elements around notification of social care and everything that was in the care Act. A lot will hinge on what the statutory guidance says about this. We must make sure we do not lose people in the system, because there is always an incentive to free up a valuable resource in hospital, but our statutory job is to promote wellbeing.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: My understanding was that the discharge to assess was due to be reviewed, but I do not know why there has been a delay on that.
Justin Madders
Q
Gerry Nosowska: I am not aware of a large-scale, formal review of it, no.
Justin Madders
Thank you. That is all I have, Chair.
Stephen Chandler: If I could help, I am aware that the Department of Health and Social Care has undertaken a review of some discharge to assess arrangements. It is not a national review, but I think about eight separate systems have been subject to a review. I have not seen the outcome of it, but a review of a limited capacity has taken place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
No, my question was covered earlier. I had assumed that I would be called as a Back Bencher, if you see what I mean, as I am not the lead Minister on this Committee.
The Chair
I apologise for that, but I understood that we had decided to share the time between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, and I counted you among the Front Benchers. There we go. Never mind.
Jo Churchill
Q
Stephen Chandler: The Bill reaffirms and formalises the requirement to plan very carefully for the population at a place level first, and then at a system level. In doing so, it sets up an integrated care partnership with a clear set of objectives, based on the population. Of course, it emphasises the importance of prevention as a way of helping people remain healthy and well for longer.
In Oxfordshire, we have set up our shadow partnership, and one of the areas we are looking at is our out-of-hospital support—particularly how we can avoid the need for hospital admissions. Again—this goes back to a point I made earlier—in doing so, we are looking at how we as a system can contribute individually, and therefore collectively, to reducing crisis and therefore the need for hospital admission. It has changed the tone of the discussion from, “Isn’t that an NHS responsibility, whether primary care or secondary care?” to, “How can we do better for our population?”.
You might say, “Well, hold on. That sounds like a very subtle change.” Let me be clear: some of these subtle changes really do make an impact. Coming back to an earlier question about resources, this also enables us to have the conversation around the prioritisation and impact of those resources. Instead of saying, “Here is the county council’s budget plan and here is the NHS’s”, we can ask how we make best use of that collective resource. The Bill helps by formalising that and providing some additional structures and focus on that.
The Bill is helpful, but it will be interesting to see how it works where, perhaps, systems have not had positive relationships or have had a more adversarial approach. I was really lucky in Somerset, because the emerging ICS there was coterminous with the local authority. It was a single provider. It was perfect in a way. I am in an ICS now where there are three different population groups. We know some ICSs have significantly more.
The opportunity is there to be grasped. This provides a fantastic focus if it can be ensured. In fairness to colleagues, the focus seems to be “start at place and work upwards”, rather than “start at system and work downwards”, in order to make really good differences to people, particularly around hospital admission avoidance. It also gives me, from a local authority point of view, greater leverage to challenge my NHS colleagues around their investment in secondary care and community care resources, because that area has, unfortunately, seen significant reductions over the years.
Jo Churchill
Q
Stephen Chandler: Absolutely.
Jo Churchill
Q
Gerry Nosowska: Prevention is always undermined by the resources moving into urgent and acute needs. In practice, social workers are not able to do therapeutic, restorative support work that they would be able to if they had the time to spend with people who need that. There is a fundamental resource issue that the Bill does not address directly, but it may help with the potential for pooling resources. Again, people in the community do not care whether it is a health or social care resource. If there is a need emerging that can be responded to, and preventive work can be done, it should happen without health and social care arguing about exactly whose purse it comes out of.
There are some really successful examples of reablement and preventing avoidable hospital admissions. We know it is possible. Scarcity does breed competition rather than collaboration, so that is something to think about. As for what the Bill might also do, the partnership strategy ought to have a very strong preventive element to it, and that needs to be dug down into locally—into particular communities, neighbourhoods and streets. That is where you really need lived experiences. I have a question about the regard that the integrated care board would have to that, and the potential for a wonderful, collaborative partnership strategy around prevention to be disregarded because of an acute need. I was listening to Robert Francis, and I think his suggestion that there be a written explanation to a local community if that happens is very good.
Edward Argar
Q
I will turn to Stephen first and then to Gerry. We have sought to be permissive rather than prescriptive in this Bill. Have we struck broadly the right balance, or are there areas where it might need to be tweaked, either in legislation or in guidance?
Stephen Chandler: Your director colleague was absolutely right. I think that you have got the balance right in relation to permissiveness. I worry that the guidance does not prescribe directly how we should develop that culture, but having worked as long as I have, I realise that you cannot prescribe how relationships are formed and how cultures work. You have to create the conditions for success. Some of those conditions are in the Bill. I have talked about some of them in relation to the pooling, the boards and the assurance methodology. What has to be absolutely clear—and I am hearing it clearly, so it is not that I have not heard it—is the importance of seeing this as a vehicle for meaningful change to people’s lives, not a restructuring of health and social care. Rather, this is a vehicle for improving the lives of people in communities and systems, and for allowing health and social care professionals to maximise their individual abilities for that collective good. In a way, there is a duty on me as a leader in the system to create that culture and environment.
You have not gone into the area of assurance, but for me it is really important that when assurance looks at a system, it looks at the leadership and how that leadership translates the freedom, the permissiveness, but also the accountability, clearly. The feedback I am hearing from our members is, “We favour the permissive approach that is taken in this.” We would not say that the tolerance should be changed one way or the other.
Edward Argar
Gerry?
Gerry Nosowska: Apologies, I think I lost my connection for a moment, so I might repeat some of the things that Stephen said. On the balance between permissive and rigid, we have an interest in the consistency of opportunity and outcomes for members of the population. Areas face different challenges, so it is important that locally there is flexibility around how those challenges are met. What will hold those models together are the principles of ensuring transparency around decision making; the involvement of lived experience and clinical expertise in both social care and health; and real local accountability. Certainly, more local community decision making, planning and work, and less centralisation, is much more in tune with responding to the lived needs of people and their day-to-day priorities.
Edward Argar
Thank you, Gerry and Stephen. I have no further questions, Mr McCabe.
The Chair
May I thank our witnesses for their evidence? That brings today’s oral evidence sessions to a close. The Committee will meet again on Tuesday in Committee Room 14, with Mr Peter Bone in the Chair.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 14th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2021 - (14 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with the current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when sitting and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for today. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or a new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so.
Clause 1
NHS Commissioning Board renamed NHS England
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) The Board of NHS England shall be made up of—
(a) a Chair appointed by the Secretary of State,
(b) five other members so appointed of which—
(i) one shall be appointed to represent Directors of Public Health,
(ii) one shall be appointed to represent the Local Government Association,
(iii) one shall be appointed to represent the interest of patients,
(iv) one shall be appointed to represent the staff employed in the NHS, and
(v) one shall be appointed to represent the Integrated Care Partnership.
(c) one further member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after being recommended by the Health Committee as a person with appropriate knowledge and experience,
(d) executive members as set out in Schedule 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
(1B) In making the appointments in (1A) (a) and (b) above the Secretary of State must have due regard to—
(a) the need to ensure diversity and equality of opportunity and must publish a list of at least 5 persons considered for each appointment and the reasons why the particular individual appointment was made, and
(b) that no person who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest by virtue of their current or recent employment or investment holding in any organisation with any role in the delivery of services to the NHS may be considered for appointment.”
This amendment changes the makeup of the Board to acknowledge its new role in the integrated NHS and bringing representatives as non-executive members on the Board as with integrated care boards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Murray, and to serve on the Bill Committee.
The amendment was moved in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The Minister whom I shadow is helpful—we will see how helpful during the course of proceedings—and we start in a spirit of optimism. I am grateful for the support of my colleagues on the Opposition Benches who, between them, contribute some relevant and highly knowledgeable experience. They are all passionate, as we all are, about the national health service and the care system, which are the subject of the legislation.
With your indulgence, Mrs Murray, I take this opportunity to make a few short points about the general context of the legislation. First, this is an important Bill. It could easily have been two or three pieces of separate legislation, so it requires proper consideration. We have a concern about whether enough time has been allocated to deal with everything in the detail that we would like, but we will do our best to get through it. We intend to make our contributions short but relevant and, we hope, persuasive.
Secondly, we share the apparent desire of the Government to repeal the worst aspects of the disastrous Lansley Act. Many of our amendments will be directed at trying to ensure that, in doing so, the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater. Thirdly and finally, as stated by the chair of the British Medical Association in the evidence sessions last week, we remain of the view that the Bill is the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
The amendment seeks to define the composition of the board of NHS England to align better with what we see as the new requirements set out elsewhere in the Bill. In looking at the issue of who should be on the board, we all ought to agree that it should not be open only to the friends and relatives of Ministers. Board members in our view should be subject to more independent assessment of their value and must pass at least some fit and proper test to avoid obvious conflicts of interest.
The amendment would ensure that the key influences on the board come from public health, local government, the patients themselves and the staff, without whom the NHS does not exist. At this point, I take the opportunity to place on the record, as I often do, Labour Members’ thanks to those in the NHS who have been so magnificent, not just over the past couple of years but over many years. They deliver a service that is rightly a source of great national pride. They deserve a seat at the table, as do patients. The Bill does not do enough to amplify the patients’ voice. We will be discussing a number of amendments over the coming weeks by which we will hope to change that.
We also need to look at what NHS England mark 4 will be required to do if the Bill becomes an Act. Other parts of the Bill deal with the powers and duties of this new version of NHS England, originally the NHS Commissioning Board. It is, in many ways, the pinnacle of the reversal of the Lansley position. The new NHS England does not bear much resemblance to what was envisaged under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is a good start, but one aspect of the Lansley view—that the NHS requires some degree of operational independence—has been shown to have some merit. Every clock is right at least twice a day, and we have found the one piece of the 2012 Act that proved to be correct. We will discuss some amendments later on to limit the power of Ministers to interfere with those who we believe should be operationally independent.
The new NHS England is pretty much in place anyway, as a result of the actions of those managing the NHS over the last few years. They desperately and very innovatively at times tried to find ways to circumvent the edicts of the 2012 Act, while Ministers looked on passively. It has been an unusual and interesting passage of time in the history of the NHS. We have seen legislation simply ignored and Ministers have allowed that to happen. It is little wonder, given the experiences of the 2012 Act, that many of the NHS witnesses we heard from said they wanted as little prescription as possible. They have had their fill of prescription. We would differ, I think, on the level of prescription necessary in the Bill.
New NHS England will be an amalgamation of the old NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It will commission some specialist services. It will be the regulator, regulating a market that no longer exists. It will performance manage both commissioning by the integrated care boards, which, for the purpose of brevity, we will refer to as ICBs, and the provision of services by trusts and foundation trusts. I am afraid that how that wide range of responsibilities sits with the role of the Department is as vague as ever. The ability of Ministers and others to interfere and micromanage depends on whether the rest of the Bill survives in its current form.
Above all, the board oversees the operational running of the NHS, shaped by the mandate, which gives the direction of travel. Perhaps the most crucial policy change is that new NHS England sits at the top of the system, based on the integrated care boards as the major commissioner of services. That means who sits on the board is highly relevant.
The explanatory notes and the Government pronouncements about the new integrated bodies strongly assert that the role is to drive the reintegration of the NHS, repairing the worst of the fragmentation caused by Lansley and, I hope, once and for all, ending the obsession with marketisation, which has been shown to be a failure. We need board members on NHS England who might be seen to be more in tune with the new philosophy of partnerships and collaboration—not markets and competition, not business leaders, hedge fund managers, marketing experts.
In the new world, we want the NHS to be bound by its core principles—comprehensive, universal, free and funded from general taxation. That is a topic that we may touch on later; it may also be discussed in other business of the House today. What should be valued in board members is that they have some record of commitment to those principles. They should have some claim to be aligned to the new values, which favour a stronger role for patients; the public to have influence; a view that the NHS is contributing to reducing inequalities, as well as improving wellbeing; and the greater alignment of NHS services with local government.
The current make-up of the board is, put simply, the chair plus five other non-executives, all appointed by the Secretary of State, and then of course the appropriate executive directors. This amendment deals only with the non-executive directors. Given the huge importance of the NHS, it is appropriate that the chair and at least some of the non-executive directors are appointed by the Secretary of State. We will concede that. In another world, perhaps they could be elected in their own right, but we will not be travelling down that road on this occasion. However, we cannot ignore some of the headlines over the last 18 months and the huge media coverage of quite blatant abuse of patronage in appointments in the NHS more generally in recent years. Cronyism, I am afraid to say, has become a default position, and we think that has to be challenged.
To be fair to past Ministers, the NHS itself can also appoint people for the wrong reasons, moving out disgraced leaders if they go quietly, only for them to re-emerge somewhere else in the system. If the NHS is an organisation—it is a stretch to use that term after the mess created by the 2012 Act—appointments should accord with the highest standards of fairness, and inclusion is notably absent, so let us change the approach. Let us set the tone from the very top and enshrine in law the kind of people whom we as a Parliament would like to see—not, of course, specifying individuals but setting out in general terms some of the main interest groups that contribute towards the NHS and that we think should be at the very top table.
The amendment therefore seeks to give some direction to the Secretary of State in making these appointments and to ensure that at least one non-executive director is put on the board through a genuinely independent process and is not simply placed there by the Secretary of State. The kind of representative appointments that we set out in the amendment should, in our opinion, really be the standard. We would hope to see a similar standard adopted for the ICBs. We should appoint people who can really contribute to the future, with direct experience across the board in terms of the integration that the Bill seeks to achieve. The amendment also sets out how the Secretary of State must appoint suitable people and be able to justify their appointments against some sort of standards.
I hope that the Minister will at least acknowledge that some of the recent questionable behaviour around appointments needs to be addressed. No doubt he will refute the allegation of cronyism, but he cannot deny that there is at least a very strong perception that that is what has happened with some appointments.
In conclusion, I draw attention to how the NHS has already, effectively, blatantly put up two fingers to this Committee and anything we might decide, because it has already decided for itself how it will appoint people to roles within the new integrated care boards and has appointed some already, with the remaining positions, as we have seen from newspaper headlines, up for advertisement. That does not actually do us any favours, because Parliament has not decided that that is what we want to do, but we will see whether we get to that point later. That is all I have to say on the amendment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I fear—predict—that there will be occasions when the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and I may not be entirely of the same mind, but it is a pleasure, as always, to serve opposite him on this Committee, because I know that even where we may disagree, the debate will be measured and reasonable. I will address the amendment tabled by the shadow Minister and, in the same speech, clause 1 and schedule 1 stand part if that is appropriate and in order.
As has been the practice on numerous occasions in these Committees, I will start by expressing a view shared by all members of this Committee. It has already been expressed by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and we join with him in expressing our gratitude to those who work in our NHS and in care services and—as he and I have often said in this place—all those, including in local government, who work in this space and have done amazing work over the past year and a half particularly.
As ever, the hon. Gentleman picked his example carefully in citing some of the witnesses whom we heard in oral evidence. As he will know, the overwhelming majority—possibly with only two exceptions—stated that this was the right Bill at the right time, albeit they may have picked up on particular clauses or elements. They did state that this was the right time for this legislation.
As the shadow Minister has set out, amendment 18 in his name and those of his hon. Friends seeks to make changes to the make-up of the board of NHS England, the provisions for which are currently set out in schedule A1 of the National Health Service Act 2006. It also outlines conditions that should be met in relation to the appointment process. I share his view that it is vital that robust governance arrangements are in place for overseeing public appointments. It will not surprise him that I refute his assertion that in the case of NHS England board appointments there is a so-called cronyism or a suggestion that any of those people are appointed on anything other than merit. However, I believe that those strong and robust governance arrangements are already in place for managing appointments to the board of NHS England. Those appointed already are deemed to be fit and proper people to hold those appointments.
The existing provisions, which the shadow Minister alluded to, setting out the membership of the NHS England board in the National Health Service Act 2006, provide the flexibility required for the fully merged NHS England to lead our more integrated health and care system. The clauses we will be addressing this morning in this part of the Bill reflect the evolution of NHS England and NHS Improvement and what has happened on the ground since they were originally formed. With this, we seek to create a legislative framework that catches up with where they are and is permissive, rather than prescriptive. That is something else the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee will have seen from the evidence sessions. Witnesses were clear that the Bill struck the right balance between permissive and prescriptive.
As we look to continue the fight against the covid-19 pandemic and, in parallel, prepare for the recovery of our health and care system, it is imperative that the most suitably experienced and knowledgeable candidates are appointed to the Board. I know the shadow Minister will share that sentiment. Unlike appointments to integrated care boards, the appointment of the chair and non-executive members of NHS England are rightfully public appointments made by the Secretary of State and managed in line with the governance code for public appointments and regulated already by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The appointments are made on merit in a fair, open and transparent manner and in line with that governance code. They also require due regard to ensuring they properly reflect the populations they serve, including a balance of skills and backgrounds, supporting the Government agenda of promoting more diverse public sector organisations and board appointments.
The role of non-executives on public bodies includes helping set the strategic direction for the organisation, ensuring the organisation meets the highest standards of good governance and holding the executive to account for day-to-day business delivery. They come from a variety of backgrounds and bring a valuable range of skills and experience to a board position. It is important to note that they are not routinely or normally appointed to be representative of a particular sector or group. They are on the board in their own right and their independence in that context is paramount.
All public appointees are expected to uphold the standards of conduct set out in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s seven principles of public life, as included in the code of conduct for board members of public bodies, and they must adhere to that. The code sets out clearly and openly the standards expected from those who serve on the boards of UK public bodies and includes a clear process for managing any conflicts of interest. The Commissioner for Public Appointments regulates those appointments to ensure they are upholding the values of that Government code and works with Government to encourage candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds to consider applying for such public appointments.
Finally, while I share the shadow Minister’s view that it is hugely important to have diverse representation on the board of NHS England and to ensure that diverse voices and viewpoints are reflected, the duty under section 13H of the 2006 Act already requires NHS England to actively
“promote the involvement of patients, and their carers and representatives”
without the specific need for a named non-executive patient representative. It is clear that comprehensive processes and codes are already in place to regulate public appointments such as those we are discussing in the context of clause 1 and amendment 18, as well as schedule 1, including on diversity, conflicts of interest and conduct in office. I emphasise once again that the role of non-executive members is not that of representing a specific or particular sector, which could be at odds with the independent and broad approach they are required to bring to the role.
I now move specifically and briefly to clause 1, which changes the legal name of the NHS Commissioning Board to NHS England, and also to schedule 1, which contains consequential amendments where the changes will take effect in another Act. Since 2013, the NHS Commissioning Board has been operating under the name NHS England, and I think it is fair to say that that is how all of us in this room, and the public, know it, rather than by the slightly clumsy name of NHS Commissioning Board. This move reflects what the public already regard as the body’s name. The organisation, including the new functions provided to it by the Bill, will continue to operate under the name NHS England; this clause aligns the legal and technical name with the operational and publicly used name for clarity, and updates associated primary legislation.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although disappointed that he does not agree with my amendment; I fear that may be a regular experience over the next few weeks, but we will carry on in hope rather than expectation.
As a final response, I would like to reflect on the kind of people we currently have on the board of NHS England. This is not meant to be a criticism of them at all—they are all very experienced and talented people—but their experience is not in healthcare; it is mainly in things such as retail or finance. They clearly have great qualities, but if hon. Members look at what is in our amendment and the kind of people we say ought to be at the top table, it is clear from the past 18 months how critical a role those people play.
Take, for example, the directors of public health. They have been the unsung heroes of the pandemic. I certainly know my local director of public health much better now than I did at the start of 2020, and he has been absolutely magnificent. He has always been available and, along with just about everyone else in the public sector, the amount of work that he has put in is phenomenal. That breadth of knowledge and experience deserves a seat at the top table.
Similarly, there should be a representative of the Local Government Association. Obviously there is some overlap with directors of public health, but local government has been magnificent, as the Minister noted, during the pandemic. We know that the vaccine roll-out, for example, and the ability to dispense tests quickly have been down to the agility of local authorities working in partnership with the NHS and the voluntary community sector.
There should also be a representative for patients; it seems a little odd that their voice is not at the top table, and I say the same about a representative for the staff. We talk a lot in here about how much we value the efforts of the staff, but we should put that into practice by acknowledging that they deserve a voice at the top table.
Clearly, the Minister will not accept the amendment, so I will seek to withdraw it, but I think we have made our point clearly about the kind of people we think should have a say in how NHS England is run. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Power to require commissioning of specialised services
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 2, page 1, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1), leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.”
This amendment, with Amendment 37, NC20 and NC21, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 13, line 18, leave out “it” and insert “the Secretary of State”.
This amendment, with Amendment 36, NC20 and NC21, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
New clause 20—Secretary of State’s duty to promote health service—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 1 (Secretary of State’s duty to promote comprehensive health service) substitute the following—
“Secretary of State’s duty to promote health service
(1) The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.
(2) The Secretary of State must for that purpose provide or secure the provision of services in accordance with this Act.
(3) The services so provided must be free of charge except in so far as the making and recovery of charges is expressly provided for by or under any enactment, whenever passed.””
This new clause would restore the wording of section 1 of the NHS Act 2006, concerning the duties of the Secretary of State regarding the promotion of the health service, to its original form, before it was amended by section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
New clause 21—Duties on the Secretary of State to provide services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must provide, in England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements—
(a) hospital accommodation,
(b) other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under this Act,
(c) medical, dental, ophthalmic, nursing and ambulance services,
(d) such other services or facilities for the care of pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(e) such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(f) such other services or facilities as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness.
(2) For the purposes of the duty in subsection (1), services provided under—
(a) section 82A (primary medical services), section 98C (primary dental services) or section 114C (primary ophthalmic services), of the NHS Act 2006, and
(b) a general medical services contract, a general dental services contract or a general ophthalmic services contract,
must be regarded as provided by the Secretary of State.”
Justin Madders
These amendments and new clauses are significant because, if accepted, they will put an end to the seemingly endless arguments that we saw during the passage of the 2011 Health and Social Care Bill. There is a whole shelf of books pointing out the changes in wording in what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and how they marked the end of the NHS as we previously knew and understood it. Allegedly expert barristers—although I have never met a barrister who did not claim to be an expert in something—wrote articles about how that new wording changed everything. On the other hand, the Government explained that they had changed nothing, and had simply put the reality on the ground into words.
David Lock QC, a genuine expert on NHS law, said that this technical change attracted considerable and possibly misguided criticism, but it did not involve any substantial change in practice. However, as reported by the noble Lords, it caused considerable confusion and suspicion. This confusion revolves around what is included in the NHS; what defines the comprehensive NHS; and how services required for the NHS are to be provided. Over time, the NHS has had many different structural solutions for providing these services, and indeed we are on yet another iteration of such a solution—we will see how long this one lasts.
The debate on that change of wording took up days of the Public Bill Committee’s time—or, should I say, the first of those Committees, as they had two goes at it on the last occasion. Let us hope we do not suffer a similar fate. Following that, there were hours of debate in the other place. The issue was then considered by the Constitution Committee, and some sort of compromise emerged, with insertion into the 2012 Act of what became, in the end, section 1(3) of the National Health Service Act 2006, as amended, which said:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England”—
we hope that that is always the political reality, no matter the wording used in the legislation.
The extra wording proposed in new clause 20 sits within section 1 of the 2006 Act, and states:
“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.”
I will not read out the whole amendment, but I want to compare that section of the wording with that of the founding National Health Service Act 1946, which says:
“it shall be the duty of the Minister of Health to promote the establishment of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and for that purpose to provide or secure the effective provision of services”.
We have this curious word “promote”. To my mind, promoting puts a positive onus on the Secretary of State, but if he has a duty to promote a comprehensive NHS, how exactly should he do that? In 1948, did Nye Bevan drive up and down the street with a megaphone, urging people to go and see their doctor? Today, it would probably mean the Secretary of State sending out a tweet to do the same—although, given what we hear about GPs’ workloads, they would not thank the Secretary of State for that. Or does this duty mean that when we are in the Chamber, and some rogue Member claims that we should abandon the NHS and move to some kind of insurance-based model, the Secretary of State should leap up and promote away?
Over the past few years, even before covid, we have seen more and more people going for private treatment because waiting lists are so long. We know that whatever is decided in the legislation in the main Chamber today, those waiting lists are not going to reduce significantly for some considerable time. Is it in fact the case that the Secretary of State is not complying with his duty to promote the NHS by allowing these waiting lists to grow and grow, thereby forcing people to secure alternative provision? The word “promote” can have multiple meanings, and I can think of a few Secretaries of State who have lamentably failed to promote the NHS, and should probably not have been promoted in the first place.
The contentious bit of this issue is really about what makes up the NHS. It was claimed about the Lansley Bill, and has been claimed about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people would be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, an ICB decides to exclude a particular service, and there is no duty on the Secretary of State to stop that happening. A few points are clear enough: the Secretary of State promotes the comprehensive NHS, but does not provide it. The boundaries of what the NHS actually is change over time, as we all know. Social care is now outside the NHS, although that will probably alter slightly over the next few years. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence can redefine the boundaries; primary care trusts and clinical commissioning groups could exclude treatments on a whole range of different criteria that, while they may not have admitted it, did amount to an exclusion; and of course, advances in medical science mean that many things that were not available in 1946 and, indeed, could not possibly have been conceived of during the original Act, are available now on the NHS. Those boundaries are never entirely clear, and it is often up to the courts to draw out a decision about what healthcare amounts to.
However, in the 2006 Act, there was at least a bit of definition in clause 3:
“The Secretary of State must provide throughout England, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements—
(a) hospital accommodation,
(b) other accommodation for the purpose of any service provided under this Act,
(c) medical, dental, ophthalmic, nursing and ambulance services,
(d) such other services or facilities for the care of pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(e) such other services or facilities for the prevention of illness, the care of persons suffering from illness and the after-care of persons who have suffered from illness as he considers are appropriate as part of the health service,
(f) such other services or facilities as are required for the diagnosis and treatment of illness.”
I could go on, but I hope Members will take my word for it that this is very similar language to that of all the previous NHS Acts, going back to 1946. That is essentially what new clause 21 seeks to reassert and confirm for the purposes of clarity, so that where there are subordinate bodies such as PCTs, CCGs or even NHS England, those duties are very clearly set out at the top and can then percolate down.
Under the current Bill, the ICBs have a responsibility to provide services for a defined population that is phrased much like the above definition, but there is no duty on the Secretary of State to provide throughout England; in other words, there is nothing specific to say that the duty on the Secretary of State should be delegated to ICBs, which we say there should be. Our intention is to restore the position that the duty is placed on the Secretary of State, which he then delegates down to NHS England, ICBs and so on. We could spend a lot of time on this, as our predecessors have, but I do not think that will be the best use of our time, so we have attempted to avoid going down that particular rabbit hole with a straightforward amendment, with what I hope has been a straightforward explanation.
The Lansley changes were made to align with the NHS structures that the then Secretary of State introduced, which were essentially market structures, distancing the Secretary of State in the sense that they were unlike anything the NHS had done previously, which was part of the reason why there was so much debate about them. That is why in 2015, 2017 and 2019, we made it clear in my party’s manifesto that we would reinstate the duty to promote and deliver the NHS, so there would be no doubt that it was a public service and could be restored to that footing. Our argument is that for simplicity, we should restore the duties to those of the pre-Lansley era, to reflect that the Lansley experiment has failed and we are in a new world—a new world with the old wording, which we wish to reinstate. Let us keep it simple, save everyone a lot of work and go back to the old wording, so that there is no doubt about where the duties and responsibilities lie.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Government would be wise to take note of the proposal. As my hon. Friend said, many hours, days and weeks have been spent by not only Members of Parliament, but expensive lawyers and lots of concerned constituents across the country, arguing—as I have often thought myself at times—a slightly nuanced point, which is lost on people. I have absolutely been persuaded, however, that it is important to restore that duty. If the Government are rightly binning the Lansley Act, the amendment is an obvious one to consider and accept, as it puts the duty absolutely beyond doubt.
Running throughout the Bill, as we will discuss over the next few days and weeks, is a real problem of clarity and accountability. We should not let the Bill out of this place while it leaves that lack of clarity on duties, responsibilities and accountability for the NHS to decide, along with local government. There is a balance between permissiveness and diktat, and starting with clear duties on the Secretary of State would help. Later, we will discuss how the Government seem to want to give the Secretary of State enormous power to interfere in the most minute aspects of healthcare in our constituencies, something that concerns a great many people, organisations and the NHS itself.
If the Government are serious about rehabilitating themselves as the supporter of the NHS following the Lansley Act, an amendment to clarify that absolutely central role would be a wise thing to accept.
Edward Argar
Amendments 36 and 37 and new clauses 20 and 21 are in the name of the shadow Minister and his colleagues. I do not believe that what is being proposed reflects the reality of the role of the Secretary of State or what it should be, which is a strategic oversight role with the ability to intervene when necessary to ensure accountability. The hon. Gentleman might correct me, but I think he cited Mr Lock, who said that there was no substantial change in practice. That goes to the heart of why I am unpersuaded by the amendments.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the idea that the Secretary of State himself provides services has not reflected the reality of the structure of the NHS for many years, not least since 2003-04 with the introduction by the Labour party when in government of foundation trusts as independent entities in the health system. That purchaser-provider split, long established in the NHS and retained in the Bill, allows some of the health services in England to be provided by those such as NHS foundation trusts, which are legally distinct from the Secretary of State.
In the years since those changes, and as the many vigorous debates in Parliament since and during the passage of the 2012 legislation have demonstrated, there has rightly been no loss in the strong sense of governmental accountability for the NHS felt by Governments of all parties and by parliamentarians. As the proposers of this group of amendments have themselves been among the most eloquent and capable colleagues in holding Ministers and Government to account for the NHS, I find it slightly strange that they feel that their amendment is necessary.
At the time of the 2012 Act, as the shadow Minister alluded to, there was a great deal of debate in the other place on the value or otherwise of this wording. Eventually, the noble Lords concluded that it was better for the law to reflect the reality of the modern NHS. However, it remains the case that the Secretary of State has a firm duty to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service in practice. He does this through setting the strategic direction and his oversight of NHS England and the other national bodies of the NHS, and in the future, subject to debates in this place—I do not want to prejudge what the Committee and the House may determine on those clauses—through the extra lever of the proposed power of direction. At all times, he remains responsible to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.
NHS England also has a duty to arrange for the provision of services for the purpose of the health service in England and a concurrent duty to promote a comprehensive health service. Integrated care boards will, subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, also have functions in relation to arranging the provision of services.
I understand the point that Opposition Members are seeking to make with the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary as law. The Secretary of State has the duty to promote the competence of the health service in practice. He is accountable to Parliament for the comprehensive health service, and I believe that local NHS leaders and NHS England are best placed to know what is needed to serve individual communities.
This goes to the heart of what I suspect will come up a number of times in our debates in this Committee, which is the extent to which the legislation should be prescriptive, or permissive and flexible. I suspect the shadow Minister and I will disagree on where the balance should lie, in a number of areas. We believe that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance.
The shadow Minister talked about flexibility in redefining the boundaries of what the NHS does. Throughout the history of the NHS, there have been tweaks along those lines. The Labour party introduced charges for glasses and dentures; the Conservative party introduced charges for prescriptions shortly afterwards; the Labour party abolished them, and then reintroduced them two years later. I use those examples because I think we should be wary about being overly prescriptive in primary legislation.
Clause 2 makes a number of amendments to the power allowing the Secretary of State to require NHS England to commission certain prescribed services. It ensures that the Secretary of State can still require NHS England to commission specialised services and facilities, but recognises that aspects of the commissioning might be carried out by other NHS bodies through joint or delegated working arrangements or by directing integrated care boards to provide those services.
Specialist services are commissioned to support people with a range of complex and rare conditions. Those services could involve the treatment of patients with rare cancers, genetic disorders, and complex medical or surgical conditions, for example. As such, it is right that NHS England has overall responsibility for the services and can decide whether they might be better delivered through joint or delegated working arrangements or through directions to ICBs—I am happy to adopt the shadow Minister’s suggested shorthand, otherwise we will be taking a very long time repeating the same words on multiple occasions.
The clause also removes the requirement of the Secretary of State to consider the financial implications for CCGs—to be replaced with ICBs—when requiring NHS England to commission certain services. The change focuses the decision about categorisation of specialised services on the complexity and impact of the service and the ability of ICBs to support commissioning services for their populations, reflecting the fact that ICBs are significantly larger than CCGs and, correspondingly, so are their financial resources. In some circumstances, NHS England may request that a service is no longer nominated as a specialised service or facility—that could be used, for example, as the technology improves and it becomes more appropriate for it to be commissioned by an ICB instead. The clause inserts a new provision in the NHS Act 2006 which requires the Secretary of State to provide reasons for any refusal to requests from NHS England to revoke provisions requiring NHS England to commission specialised services.
I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press his amendment to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, not least the promotion he inadvertently gave me by referring to me as shadow Secretary of State. We should have a Division on that, should we not? I understand what the Minister is saying, but our aim with this amendment is to reflect the new reality. No one has really got to the bottom of why the wording came out in 2012, but we are clearly moving back into a pre-Lansley era and the end of the marketisation, so we should go back to the previous wording. In terms of the services and duties in our new clause 21, I do not think the Minister said he disagreed that any of them should be provided. I am trying to do him a favour here and help him to avoid the Bill being bogged down in the Lords. If it comes back in ping-pong, we will quote the relevant new clause and say, “This is something that could have been avoided.”
I understand that the Minister does not want to be too prescriptive. He is right that the Bill will centre largely on the right balance between permissiveness and prescriptiveness, and we will no doubt have disagreements on that. I have tried to be helpful to him, but he does not want to accept that assistance on this occasion, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
NHS England mandate
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 12, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
“(e) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) The Secretary of State may revise the mandate should urgent or other unforeseen circumstances arise.
(6B) If the Secretary of State revises the mandate, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament the mandate as revised with a written explanation of the urgent or other unforeseen circumstances that justify the revision and an impact assessment of the proposed change.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
“(6) No mandate may be laid before Parliament unless the Secretary of State has supplied a statement on how the mandate will be funded.”
Justin Madders
These amendments to clause 3 deal with the mandate to NHS England. The mandate was part of the changes that were introduced to attempt to distance the role of Government and Ministers from the sound of the bedpans dropping. We can talk about how much the Secretary of State should be involved in that, but we will focus our comments on the mandate today.
What we saw was, in effect, an artificial distinction—one that, like so much else in the last piece of legislation, has largely been subverted or ignored. Despite the intentions, Ministers still try to micromanage and sometimes interfere, for what we would describe as political reasons, and the mandate has rumbled on. During the tortuous passage of the Lansley Bill, the Government had to concede that the Secretary of State remained politically responsible to Parliament for the NHS, which, as we have just discussed, has always been the reality.
It would be brave, however, for someone to suggest that the mandate has had the same level of parliamentary scrutiny. The mandate is presented to Parliament each year, but is that anything other than a ritual? I do not think Hansard records energetic and fierce debates about the mandate, although I am happy to be corrected by the Minister, if he can point me to a particular section.
The idea of the mandate is not entirely without merit. It is good that the NHS knows what is expected of it, and we all agree that it should be free from sudden announcements or other surprises—such as the Secretary of State announcing that the following week all NHS staff would have to wear face coverings before informing them that that was what was required. That is just one example from an extreme situation, but the point is that we all crave certainty. The mandate is an attempt to provide that; and without it, it is unclear how accountability works.
As was clearly articulated in last Thursday’s evidence session, the NHS welcomes the mandate’s ability, in theory at least, to give it stability and enable it, if possible, to plan for the medium and long term. I am sure we could have a debate on whether that is indeed what has happened; it is pretty clear in recent times that, for genuine reasons, that has not been possible. However, most experts would suggest that the NHS would benefit from stability and the ability to plan over at least a three or five-year period without lurches in policy and—crucially and pertinently given today’s business in the Chamber—with a degree of funding certainty to match the requirements.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I wish to make one simple point, following what the right hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, which is that the annual funding of any health system based on the tax year—I can speak to this, having spent more than three decades on the frontline—means that clinicians will inevitably be contacted in January or February and asked, “What equipment do you need? You have to obtain it by 31 March.” Providers of medical equipment will happily admit that prices go up in the first quarter of the year and then drop, so this hand-to-mouth method actually costs all health services massive amounts of money. Simply being able to smooth that out so that we know what is coming several years ahead would save millions of pounds on procurement and allow that money to be directed to clinical care.
Karin Smyth
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The mandate is important. It is awaited by clinicians and managers in the health service as it affects how they are to operate in the forthcoming year. Often guidance arrives the week before Christmas, as I remember from my time in the NHS, so we were starting to plan for the very short term, which really is unhelpful. It is a regular statement intent, and it is a way in which the public can see what is happening or is due to happen to their services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston quoted from the King’s Fund’s written evidence, which mentioned the
“multiple plans and strategies in each ICS”
and the need for a “more ‘local’ place level”. As we heard in our evidence sessions, this is already a very confused picture, and one that we are going to try to navigate our way through. Although I do think that there should be greater permissiveness, so long as it is accountable at local level, the mandate gives us a degree of accountability at national level, on the Government’s intent, published in their stated aims, and that gives the general public and taxpayer confidence.
On our amendment about 18 weeks, that target was often criticised as not being clinically referenced. It was brought in after the then Conservative Government talked about an 18-month target being highly ambitious for people waiting to be seen clinically—some of us are old enough to remember those dreadful days, to which we have returned. Now, we could argue whether 18 weeks was the right number, but it was something that drove up standards of care, and it meant that the NHS said to the taxpayer, “We accept that you deserve a better standard of care and treatment, and it is completely unacceptable to be on a waiting list for 18 months to two years”—it was often longer. It focused minds, drove service redesign and made clinicians go back over their lists, because if someone has come on to a list two and a half years earlier, many things would have happened and, sadly, in many instances that person would have died.
By supporting our amendment, the Government would show that they are ambitious for the NHS and the people it serves. If the Minister is not prepared to support that 18-week commitment, what is acceptable to the Government? We and all our constituents know that waiting lists were rising out of control before the pandemic, and that the target had not been met for several years. Clearly the pandemic has exacerbated the situation, but let us be clear that targets not being met was a pre-pandemic problem.
We hear utterances from the Government in the newspapers about what they think about the targets—“nonsensical” is what the Secretary of State said at the weekend. The targets were put in place to give people confidence that their taxes were funding a service that they could hold to account in some degree, and it drove some positive behaviour. It will take a massive effort to get waiting lists down, so what discussions has the Minister had with clinicians and managers about the loss of targets? Why would he not support putting that target back in the Bill? The long waiting lists are miserable for everyone concerned. They need to be published. We need to let people know what they can expect from our service. I strongly urge the Minister to accept the amendment, or at least its intent. If he is not prepared to do so, what does he think is an acceptable length of time for people to be on a waiting list?
Edward Argar
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is having a good day; I promoted him to shadow Secretary of State and I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made him a member of the Privy Council, so he is doing well this morning. Although we may resist many of his amendments, I take the point that he did not table them from a partisan perspective but genuinely approached them with sincerity. He mentioned that on a previous occasion the Bill Committee had to be run twice. Fond of him as I am, I think both of us would prefer not to have to do this twice together.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for promoting me to the Privy Council. At this rate I will be Prime Minister by lunchtime and supreme leader of the universe by the end of today’s sitting, in which case the Bill will no longer be required.
The hon. Lady made an important point about the effect of annual budgets and, frankly, the opportunism that follows from those providing services. We know that happens in all sorts of sectors, but the amendment sets out very clearly why a longer-term footing is needed. What the hon. Lady referred to was a boom-and-bust approach, but we will leave such terms to history.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South articulated clearly some of the challenges as well. She made the point about accountability, which really does matter. As she said, there is a theme throughout the Bill that accountability is somewhat missing. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of the impact assessment—better late than never. The White Paper was issued in January and the Bill had its Second Reading in July, so there has been plenty of time to get everything sorted.
The amendments seek to stop the Government’s propensity to announce policy by headline and then work out the detail later on. The Minister has helpfully said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that the mandate will be fully funded, and we will make sure that he commits to that. We probably do not need to press amendment 20, but we will press amendment 19 to a vote. We think the Government intend to move towards a longer-term plan for the mandate on an annual cycle, but the legislation as it currently stands does not prevent it from becoming stop-start, and there will be circumstances when it will be necessary to change within year. It is important, for reasons of accountability, that that comes with some conditions attached.
The Minister said that we are trying to take away flexibility from the Secretary of State, but we are not. We are trying to encourage accountability alongside flexibility. We accept that there will be circumstances in which the mandate will need to be changed in urgent situations and we would not want to impinge on that, but if the Secretary of State has the power to move things forward in that manner, he should be accountable to Parliament when he does. Again, we are trying to be helpful and assist him. We hope he does not have to do it very often, but if he does issue a mandate in urgent circumstances he will want to know what the impact will be on the NHS. He will want to know that the funding is there and that the NHS has the capacity to deliver the demands placed on it. Those are questions that any member of the Department will ask, so we hope to put in the Bill what ought to happen in practice. It is important enough to press the matter to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS England to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people of England must be NHS England’s primary consideration.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
Amendment 23, in clause 19, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim explicitly to require integrated care boards to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 24, in clause 19, page 18, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people it serves must be the primary consideration of an integrated care board.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
Amendment 25, in clause 43, page 47, line 32, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS trusts to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 26, in clause 43, page 47, line 32, at end insert—
“(1A) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, the health and well-being of the people it serves must be the primary consideration of an NHS trust.”
This amendment would assert that duties to patients come above any other (e.g. organisational) considerations.
New clause 13—Secretary of State’s duty to set targets on population health and reduction of inequalities—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least every five years, publish a report setting targets on—
(a) the improvement of the physical and mental health of the population, and
(b) the reduction of health inequalities.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report recording progress against the targets in subsection (1).”
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray, and to make my first contribution to the proceedings. It will perhaps give my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston a chance to bask in his new-found responsibilities, while I pick up the cudgel with the Minister. I am afraid I do not have such luxury as he does.
This group of amendments relates to health inequalities and to the priority that we give to the health of the nation, rather than the structures that serve the health of the nation. I will go through each amendment in turn, but I want to talk about a couple of themes that cover them all.
I strongly believe that addressing health inequalities ought to be a foundational priority of any Government of the day. What could be crueller than having such a significant element of a person’s future—how long they will live, how long they will live in good health and what diseases they are likely to acquire—preordained at birth? That has always seemed cruel to me.
Government are not a passive part of that process. The decisions that are taken in this place play an active part in those inequalities. For example, the decisions taken later today and on universal credit will widen them. We should seek to use this Bill as a turning point in our battle against health inequalities in this country. This should be the Bill in which we say that the national health service, and those who need it locally, must be central to addressing health inequalities in this country and that the Government will resource them properly to do so.
It is not a moment too soon to do this. The legacy of this decade of austerity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston talked about, is that for the first time in a century the increase in life expectancy has stalled. What does it say about us, the most technologically advanced generation in history, that the increase in life expectancy stalls on our watch?
Within that there is a yawning gap in healthy life expectancy between those who live in the best-off and the worst-off communities. On the basic life expectancy measure the gap is 10 years, but on healthy life expectancy, measured by the age at which people have their first disability, the gap is 18 years between communities like mine and the communities that are best off in this country. How sad that is; how sad is what it says about us.
As the 2020 Marmot review concluded,
“health is getting worse for people living in more deprived districts and regions, health inequalities are increasing and, for the population as a whole, health is declining…the country has been moving in the wrong direction.”
Again, we heard evidence about that in the evidence sessions of this Committee. We ought to use this Bill as a moment to do something about it.
These inequalities are not just about socioeconomic status; they are about race as well. Research by the King’s Fund shows that
“people from the Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities have the poorest health outcomes across a range of indicators.”
Covid has shone a light on both race and socioeconomic background as drivers of inequalities. We entered the pandemic thinking it would be a great leveller and that the virus would not know people’s postcode, job or ethnicity. Actually, we quickly learned that that was not the case and that someone was twice as likely to die from covid if they lived in the most deprived communities. A man from a black African background is nearly four times as likely to die of covid as I am. Those inequalities, and how they played out, whether in housing, in occupation or pre-existing health, offered a breeding ground for the virus. That is devastating for individuals, but it is worse for all of us, because it has spread and strengthened the virus. Those health inequalities are bad for everybody.
Just before I turn to my amendments, I should also say that it is strange, given that half of all health inequalities are driven by smoking, to see a Health and Care Bill that does not talk about smoking at all. I hope that when we get to part 5, where some of the public health elements are found, we might collectively do better there.
Amendment 21 seeks to address the point about inequalities by adding to the triple aim for NHS England as set out in clause 4. The triple aim for the national health service is a good thing. It shows the system and those who work in it and lead it, whatever their role, what we want them to prioritise. The three strands of that triple aim are noble: the health and wellbeing of the people of England, the quality of service provided and the efficiency and sustainability of resources. However, that is not robust enough to ensure not just due regard for health inequalities but strong action.
I will not prejudge what the Minister will say, but I suspect he may say that promoting the health and wellbeing of people in England is the aim that covers inequalities. That is an important pursuit, but it is not explicit enough. It is just about general improvement. For example, we hope the Government would expect to see a resumption in the increase in life expectancy. That would be a general improvement in the health and wellbeing of the people of England. The problem with that is that it would not address the point about healthy life expectancy. There would be general and maybe even aggregate improvements for possibly a great deal of the population, but not enough to deal with the extraordinary and growing gaps for others. I think we ought to want to do something about that.
Accepting the amendment would mean the Government would send a signal to NHS England that tackling health inequalities ought to be at the centre of its mission. A quadruple aim may not be as elegant as a triple aim, but it is important that tackling health inequalities is recognised in the Bill. I know that the Minister wants the legislation to stand the test of time. He suggested I said something from a sedentary position about multiple pieces of legislation, which I genuinely believe I did not, but we ought to say that we are here because the 2012 Act was so bad. That there have been nine years since that Act is not a strength on the Government’s part; it is a weakness that they have defended something that has not worked for a long period of time. If we want the Bill to stand the test of time, then we ought to say what we want the health service to do. By putting that in the Bill, we would do that.
Amendment 22 also addresses the triple aim and creates a hierarchy within. High-quality and sustainable services are important, but when commissioning decisions are being made at a national level, as happens with NHS England, and those decisions affect our constituents, we do not want equal weight being given to organisational considerations. The whole point of the Bill as explained on Second Reading is to move to an integrated system that is built around the health and care needs of the population, rather than around organisational boundaries. We all recognise where that butts up in our casework and the frustration that that causes for us and, more importantly, for our constituents—those who have to make multiple calls to arrange care for loved ones and so on. If that is our purpose here, we want health and wellbeing to come first. The amendment seeks to do that and says that the primary aim of the three is the health and wellbeing of the population. If that means that there is a knock-on effect on political decisions on funding, as discussed in the previous set of amendments, so be it. It will be for the Government of the day to ensure that NHS England has the resources to do that well.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the very recent precedent in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, the Bill Committee for which took place in this room or an identical one. I was a member of that Committee, as were the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, who is not in her place at the moment, and the hon. Member for Erewash. When we discussed the triple aim of that Bill, I moved an amendment to prioritise patient safety over all other considerations, because I thought that was an uppermost consideration. It was originally rejected in Committee, but the Government brought it back in later stages, which was the right thing to do. Rather than waiting to bring this back later, we could address it today. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
Amendment 23 is a counterpart to amendment 21, but it operates at local level. Whereas amendment 21 applied to NHS England, amendment 23 applies to local integrated care boards—to say that, as part of their responsibilities, they must take inequalities into account. Of course, all the arguments that I have made for NHS England also apply here, so I will not repeat them, but this is quite a profound case at local level. From the written evidence, the hearings and the contributions from hon. Members throughout the Bill’s stages and elsewhere in this place, we can see that there is considerable anxiety that we will end up devolving fixed financial settlements down to the integrated care system level. That suits Ministers, because it means that they can devolve financial responsibility so that the Treasury can know what it is spending on a certain function, but all the tough decisions that get us to that point have to be taken at local level. I do not think that is a dystopian scenario, because that is literally what we do with social care already in local government.
The Government know that they do not resource local authorities sufficiently. As a result, social care is squeezed. What happens in those circumstances is that the systems start to worry about running out of money. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made a point about end-of-year capital that I recognise from my time in local government, but it works in reverse—when Christmas comes about, there is a spending freeze on everything, and the chief executive of every council in the country ends up reviewing every purchase of more than about a fiver. That is the reality for the systems, and local commissioners will be pressured to think in the interest of resourcing their system, rather than tackling health inequalities. That runs straight into the argument for amendment 24, which is a counterpart to amendment 22 and which says that the hierarchy within the triple aim ought to apply at an integrated care system footprint.
In paragraph 44 on page 18 of the explanatory notes, the Government have told us that the purpose of the triple aim duty is to
“require organisations to think about the interests of the wider system”.
I get that, but I do not think it is quite right, because the primary responsibility is to think about the interests of the wider population. It flows from there that the best way to address the health needs of the population is a system-based approach, which is the Minister’s central argument for this entire piece of legislation—so organisations have to think about each other. However, the primacy is the need of the population.
Perhaps the Minister will say it is axiomatic that health systems will prioritise the wellbeing of their community above everything else, but I do not think it is inconceivable at all that at some point in any given year—never mind at some point in the future—system leaders in one of those footprints will feel distressed about their finances and may take the wrong message, or perhaps the wrong bit of cover on a commissioning decision, about putting population wellbeing in the same tier as system sustainability, as if those two things could be co-equals and, if in tension, could be resolved either way. I do not think that is right, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that.
Amendment 25 requires health trusts to pay regard to “health inequalities”. Again, it is a counterpart to amendments 23 and 21, and it is for the same reasons as for NHS England and integrated care boards, so I will not repeat those arguments.
Amendment 26 is a counterpart to amendments 24 and 22, requiring the prioritisation of population health and wellbeing at trust level, for the same reasons that I have just mentioned. Again, I will not repeat those arguments.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support these measures. The longer those of us who work in the NHS spend on the frontline, in particular as a breast cancer surgeon in a specialist area, the more we realise that we are constantly catching someone who falls, instead of building a handrail to stop them falling in the first place. Anyone who works in health or social care recognises that health inequalities are a major issue, going right back to the Marmot report of 2010, the Black report and, indeed, many decades. Therefore, they should be a priority at every single level.
The public have a real appetite to see a different approach after covid, because they are aware that covid was not a leveller. It absolutely hit the weakest, most vulnerable and poorest communities. To change the prioritisation to health and wellbeing is also critical. More money is spent picking up the pieces than investing in health in the first place. That is often the health of children; we should try to tackle child poverty and the issues that come from that.
I took part in a report in 2016 that heard from the UK Faculty of Public Health that the UK loses 1,400 children a year before the age of 15, as a direct result of poverty and deprivation. It is clear that the aim of the Bill is not just to take away the appalling section 75. It is to drive integration and the health of the local population. That should be set as a key priority, if the aim is to come out with an approach of putting health in all policies, within local government, the ICS boards and the NHS.
Karin Smyth
I concur with the comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. The hon. Lady referenced the Black report, which first got me interested in working in the health service. I was shocked that, after all those years, the NHS had not improved the dreadful health inequalities that much of the population, including my own constituents, suffered. Here we are 40 years later, and we still have some really quite shocking health inequalities, even in the wealthy city of Bristol.
This is a really important point. We learned a lot in the pandemic, and hon. Members spoke about meeting their directors of public health recently. I have known my director of public health in Bristol for some 20 years because we have worked together over that period. I supported the movement of DPHs into local authorities. I think that was the right move, although the lack of funding that followed has made their job really difficult, and we have not made the improvements we should have made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined.
There is real enthusiasm among clinical and financial leaders for some of the movement in the Bill to bring organisations together in integrated care partnerships or ICSs—wherever we think the power will be—to look at population health. Financial directors I have talked to have said, “This is the direction we need to be going in. We need not to be looking just at our own institutions.” There is a will with the Government, but not including health inequalities is a major mistake. I appreciate that when they drafted this legislation, they were perhaps not thinking in that form, but a number of organisations have asked for that addition to be made.
The pandemic required us to talk closely to our clinical leaders, and it really educated people in individual specialties, who are not terribly knowledgeable about health inequalities—perhaps we think they should be. Even in terms of our understanding of where vaccines have been successful and unsuccessful, and how different communities receive information and engage with local health and care services, the pandemic has been a wake-up call and a good education for many of those leaders. We need to capitalise on that.
I know that drafters do not like to change things, but if we were to put addressing health inequalities in the Bill, as we seek to do, it would focus the Government’s drive on place-based commissioning and service delivery, and send a message to the powerful acute trusts—which at the end of the day run the money, and still will—that addressing health inequalities and looking at where and how their services are delivered to the most vulnerable will be a really positive outcome for the entire system. I therefore support the pursuance of the amendments.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
To encourage the Minister to accept the amendment, I point out that addressing health inequalities would coincide with the Government’s stated aim of levelling up, so there is a happy coincidence there that might persuade him. Health inequalities are reflected geographically, and large parts of the country clearly suffer from them more than others. That pertains to England, but were I standing in the Senedd in Cardiff, I would say the same about Wales. That is slightly off the point, but there we are.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister and all other hon. Members who have spoken for the expertise that they bring to this debate. It is one of the quirks of this House that lawyers are hon. and learned Members and members of the armed forces are hon. and gallant Members, but we do not have an equivalent for those who serve in the medical profession. Perhaps we should think about that.
I am very grateful to hon. Members for bringing this debate to the Committee by tabling these amendments, which relate to the important issue of health inequalities, in the context of the new triple aim duty set out in the Bill. Even though we may not reach the same conclusions about the best way to do it, it is right that we debate this crucial issue in Committee.
With your consent, Mrs Murray, and that of the Committee, I will start in reverse order with new clause 13, and then work my way through the amendments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North. The new clause would place an additional duty on the Secretary of State to produce a report setting targets on the improvement of the physical and mental health of the population and the reduction of health inequalities.
I appreciate and understand the intention behind the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. He is right: health is the nation’s greatest asset. Preventing ill health, improving people’s health and wellbeing, and tackling long-standing inequalities are all fundamental to the economic and social strength of our country. However, the creation of a new statutory duty to set the type of target identified in the new clause is not necessary, in the light of the existing duties on the Secretary of State around improving public health and seeking to reduce health inequalities, as provided for in the 2006 Act. I may not agree with everything in it, but I pay tribute, where it is due, to the Labour party. Labour Members will hear a number of references to what is in that Act and to the retention of what is in that Act in many areas.
Of course, ICBs, too, have duties to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities whenever they are exercising their functions, to promote integration where it would reduce health inequalities and to set out how they will tackle health inequalities in their plans.
I hope I can reassure members of the Committee that the Government are already taking strong action in these areas and that there are already a number of targets relating to improving the population’s health that cannot be met without addressing those underlying inequalities. For example—I know that this is something that the hon. Member for Nottingham North feels very strongly about—we cannot achieve our existing commitment to a smoke-free generation by 2030 if we do not address as a priority the needs of those people and populations with the greatest levels of need and help people to give up smoking. He is right, and this involves the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds. I suspect that when we reach the latter parts of this legislation that are about public health more specifically, this issue may feature, rightly, in the Committee’s discussions again.
To support our strategy to improve the population’s health and reduce health inequalities, at the beginning of October we will launch the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities within the Department. We have also announced that we will create a cross-Government ministerial group with a remit specifically to identify and tackle the wider determinants of poor health. Our broader focus on levelling up, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, recognises the wide range of factors such as good jobs, homes and local environments in which we can take pride, alongside a range of other factors, that all support and interact with our physical and mental health.
In contrast, I fear that the new clause, although I can see its intent, could make it more difficult for us to swiftly focus on ensuring that such inequalities are identified and acted on. Had we a fixed, five yearly set of targets to work towards, I fear that it would introduce more rigidity, rather than the agility and flexibility that we seek in meeting the changing assessments of what underlying health inequalities must be tackled as a priority. I hope that I can persuade members of the Committee, although perhaps not all of them, that a five-year fixed plan is potentially inflexible and is not necessary in the context of this legislation.
I turn now to the amendments that relate to the duty known as the triple aim. Amendments 21, 23 and 25 would add a fourth limb of tackling health inequalities for NHS England, ICBs and NHS trusts. As I have stressed, we do recognise the importance of tackling health inequalities, but again, we do not feel that the amendments, however well intentioned, are necessary. As we have discussed, there are existing statutory duties on bodies in this area, many of which relate specifically to health inequalities. NHS England and ICBs will have to have regard to such duties alongside the limbs of the triple aim. NHS England will also have to consider such duties when it produces the guidance on the triple aim.
The triple aim is compatible with and conducive to addressing health inequalities and furthering the delivery of these duties. Indeed, tackling health inequalities is a theme that runs throughout the duties. Having organisations consider the wider effects of their decisions will, we believe, encourage greater collaboration and engagement with communities on how best to meet their needs, which in turn will assist with tackling health inequalities nationally, but also flexibly at a local level.
The triple aim duty requires consideration of the health and wellbeing of the people of England. As the shadow Minister alluded to, that would also include consideration of the health and wellbeing of those who are not accessing health services. Similarly, it is a key element of the second limb of the triple aim—the improvement of the quality of services—to consider those areas where services are in most need of improvement. We expect guidance from NHS England to make clear how bodies can discharge the triple aim duty in a way that is fully commensurate with the reduction of health inequalities.
Alex Norris
Turning briefly to the points made by colleagues, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made the same arguments I did about patient safety and the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. She made very good points about the health and wellbeing amendments, and I thought she was right to say that there is a real public appetite, now in particular, to tackle inequality. I do not think the public would be surprised to see the Government enter this space.
The hon. Member for Arfon made a similar point about whether levelling up is a political slogan or a public policy programme. It is very hard at the moment to find evidence for the latter, but this would be a really good piece of evidence for it. It is not just a north and midlands versus south issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, there are some constituencies, like my own, where every single super output area would be in the hardest pressed decile in the country. However, there are many more where there is a greater range—they have some of the poorest parts of the country, but they also have some of the best off. This is something that ought to be at the top of the priority list for every integrated care system in every constituency.
On new clause 13, the Minister said that five years is too rigid. He almost suggested that the Government might outperform. I will believe it when I see it, but there is no evidence from the last 11 years to suggest that that is in any way a risk. Nevertheless, if he brings this back with a two, three or four-year time period rather than five, I will be the first to join him in the Division Lobby to support it.
On amendments 21, 23 and 25, the idea of a “fourth limb” made it work conceptually—I quite like that. What I did not give much succour to was the idea that inequalities lie somewhere else on the statute book, in a way that health and wellbeing and organisational sustainability do not, and therefore it would not need that co-equivalence because it already exists. I did not agree with that point at all.
On the point about inequalities being part of the guidance, I suspect that that will not be the last time that is said in this Committee. Guidance is guidance; legislation is legislation. One of those is an awful lot more powerful and eminent than the other. My view is that if we want to send a clear signal about something, we do not take it out and stick it in the guidance.
I do not give much succour to the point about elevating one of the triple aims either. The Minister said that that would undermine the triple aims. He talked again about the interest of the wider system, but I think all of us are more interested in the wider population. One of those clearly comes before the other. The needs of the one flow into how to organise the system. To organise a system that is supposed to come together in the interests of population health, I would really like to think that population health is more important than the system. I am not sure about the idea that, as a result, worse decisions would be made, and I would be interested in hearing an example. I have to say that that point did not resonate with me.
I am conscious of the reply from the Minister and, indeed, of the time, so I will not press new clause 13 and amendments 22 to 26. However, I do wish to push amendment 21, because if we are talking about NHS England—that totem of healthcare in our country—I really think we ought to send the signal that health inequality should be one of its priorities.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
The clause places a new requirement on NHS England to consult and involve carers and representatives of those individuals to whom health services are provided when exercising its commissioning functions. NHS England is currently required to involve and consult individuals to whom healthcare is provided when carrying out its commissioning functions; the clause extends that existing requirement to consulting with their carers and representatives as well. We want to ensure that we have a health and care system that is accountable and responsive to the people who rely on it.
The clause recognises the immensely important role that carers and representatives play in supporting our health and care system, and ensures that our legislation remains in step with current practice within that system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee and hope that all Members feel able to support it.
Justin Madders
I am sure we are all excited to get this one passed—I am certainly not going to oppose it. However, I have a couple of questions of clarification.
Health and Care Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 14th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 September 2021 - (14 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Elliott.
We were left on a cliffhanger before lunch. I was about to ask the Minister some questions. He might have preferred the advantage of having two and a half hours in between to think of an answer, but I am sure he will cope. Actually, it is a fairly straightforward question, so I hope for a fairly straightforward answer.
The clause refers to carers and their representatives. Will the Minister clarify who that is? Is that carers’ groups or, for example, someone who might hold power of attorney? That is really the only comment I wanted to make on clause 5.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, I think for the first time in Committee.
To answer the shadow Minister briefly, I certainly envisage that the clause encompasses those with power of attorney, because in effect and in law they are the legal representatives of individuals who do not always have capacity to speak for themselves. In that context, I also hope that we will see carers’ organisations, as well as others who do not necessarily have power of attorney but act as advocates or representatives for individuals, having their views heard and taken into consideration. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Support and assistance by NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause confers a power to provide assistance and support to NHS foundation trusts, NHS trusts and other persons providing services as part of the health service in England to work to secure continuous improvement in the quality of the provision of such health services and their financial sustainability. That new power replaces a range of existing support functions sitting with NHS England and the NHS Trust Development Authority. In particular, it replaces the function of the NHS Trust Development Authority to take steps to assist health service providers as conferred by directions. It also replaces the existing power of NHS England to support clinical commissioning groups and primary care providers, which enables NHS England to provide direct financial support to integrated care boards and providers within the scope of the provisions, and to provide other support and assistance to all those bodies exercising functions within or part of the health service.
The clause is an example of the positive improvement that the merger of NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority will bring to the health service. It will allow NHS England to take such steps as it sees as necessary to identify and address areas of concern early, while also providing support to leadership and guidance where required to shape the services that are delivered for the greatest benefit of patients. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
The Opposition will not oppose the clause, but I have one or two queries that we hope the Minister will be able to answer. Obviously, it is a broad power. I assume that the reference in proposed new section 13YA(1)(a) to “person” relates not just to individuals. Perhaps the Minister will expand on what that is meant to cover.
Also, specifically, at proposed new subsection (3), on integrated care boards and the provision of financial assistance, as we remember from the evidence sessions, there was not a great deal of clarity about the costs that NHS England anticipated might be incurred as a result of the legislation. Will the Minister assist us by providing some estimates of that, as well as whether the powers under clause 6, including the financial assistance, are subject to any limits or reporting requirements back to the Secretary of State, and whether Parliament would have a role in that at any point?
Proposed new subsection (2) talks about providing
“employees or any other resources of NHS England.”
The Minister said that “employees” could include secondees. I think it is clear from the guidance that certain roles on the ICB should not have any, for want of a better description, conflicts of interest or hold any other roles within the wider NHS. I want to make sure that the Minister is clear that that requirement is not going to cause us any difficulties.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the shadow Minister for his succinct questions. I will try to address them all in turn. He referenced the term “person” in proposed new subsection (1). It is a legal definition. In the context of the services provided—I mentioned primary care—it could be a GP practice. Having gone through the drafting with officials, my understanding is that it is a legal term and does not alter what is currently possible.
I may take the questions slightly out of order, and I hope he will forgive me. On proposed new subsection (2), I think he was referring to subsequent new clauses and amendments he has tabled around ICBs, who the suitable persons to sit on them are and the management of conflicts of interest. I suggest to him that, given the amendments he has tabled, the most appropriate time to discuss those issues would be in the context of how we do or do not further refine the definitions around memberships of ICBs. The Committee will reach that on Thursday, I suspect. On reporting and transparency, I entirely share his view and reassure him that I expect transparency to play a key role when public moneys are spent this way.
Finally, on proposed new subsection (3) and the cost to the NHS and the Exchequer, no specific limits are stated in the legislation, but, obviously, any assistance provided would need to meet the purpose set out in the Bill and be transparently awarded. I hope that gives him some reassurance, but I am always happy to revert to him if he wishes to follow up on any detail—either now or in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Exercise of functions relating to provision of services
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am getting my exercise today in bouncing up and down in my seat. Clause 7 enables NHS England to direct one or more integrated care boards to exercise certain NHS England functions and to fund the exercise of those functions. This relates to NHS England functions such as the commissioning of specialised services, health services in justice settings and armed forces settings, primary medical services, dental services, primary ophthalmic services, pharmaceutical services, and any of the Secretary of State’s public health functions that are exercisable by NHS England on his behalf. In future the intention is that ICBs be responsible for the majority of health service commissioning in England. This approach will ensure that decisions about services are made closer to the patient and in line with local population needs, enabling greater integration in the way that services are arranged and delivered.
Clause 7 ensures that NHS England has the appropriate powers to make sure we achieve our policy objective, by allowing flexibility for ICBs to take on these additional commissioning responsibilities as delegated functions from NHS England. We intend that this can be used by NHS England to delegate primary care functions while ICBs mature, before we transfer them fully to ICBs at the appropriate time using clause 16 and schedule 3, which we will debate in due course. This will allow NHS England to keep a closer watch on how ICBs are discharging these functions, and managing the transition, before they are fully delegated to and embedded in ICBs.
The Secretary of State will have the ability to make regulations under this clause, meaning that, where appropriate, certain conditions or limitations can be placed on NHS England’s power to direct ICBs, including the ability to prescribe functions that the power does not apply to at all. Any directions issued by NHS England under this clause must be published. I know that the transparency point is one that the shadow Minister has raised on a number of occasions, so I reassure him that they must be published ensuring that such directions are made transparently, and that responsibilities between NHS England and ICBs are clearly set out.
This clause is essential to give NHS England the flexibility, and the appropriate mechanisms, to delegate the commissioning of these services when the time is right to do so. Therefore, I commend it to the Committee.
Justin Madders
We will not be opposing this clause. Clearly, as the Minister has set out, it is necessary to enable the functioning of the health service.
I have one question about the powers under proposed new subsection 13YB(4), which are effectively prohibitions on the ICBs from delegating arrangements further. Will the Minister set out what circumstances are envisaged, if any, where this power may be necessary? There will obviously be delegations, not only to the services listed there, but to place-based organisations. In that situation, what does the Minister see the role of the ICBs as? Will it be the ICB itself that delivers those functions, or will it be another body?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Further to those points about clarity around the exercising of powers, the move to give NHS England that power is entirely sensible. The medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services have had a lower profile in our constituencies over the last few years, as I think we would all agree. It is important to give them the profile they need to be integrated into the system, because they have certainly not been so far.
The evolution of delegating that power to CCGs came late in the day, and remains muddled around the commissioning of primary care services. Therefore, while allowing the delegation of function is entirely sensible, it is not clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has said, when or how that delegation will be sought. I think the Minister was referring to the involvement of the Secretary of State, but I am not sure in what circumstances the Secretary of State would be doing that, and why this would not be when NHS England, or NHS England regions, decides that the ICB is of a maturity to accept commissioning responsibilities.
One assumes that NHS England believes that at the moment some of those putative organisations are mature enough already; will some of them start doing that on day one, six months in or a year in? How will we know and how will they be resourced to do it? Is it a transfer of power? How NHS England and the local ICB, without representatives of medical, dental, ophthalmic and pharmaceutical bodies, will be taking that on board is all very opaque.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has a local Mayor, but my community does not. If someone lives in Greater Manchester there is a Mayor, but in other places there may not be. We have a very asymmetric model of local devolution. Does she agree that an asymmetric model of devolution, where some ICBs had certain powers and others did not, would be undesirable and may create more confusion than it solves?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about asymmetrical power and who does what. I may differ slightly, in that I think that that may suit local circumstances, but the judgment about what a mature ICB is, and which powers it should be responsible for, has been made behind closed doors and according to criteria about which we know nothing. The professionals in those services certainly deserve to know better.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the importance of trying to join up different primary care services and the commissioning arrangements. There has been, under Governments of all complexions, a fragmentation in that, with some services commissioned nationally and others locally, and the Bill gives us an opportunity to create a more coherent, place-based commissioning approach.
On the specific point the shadow Minister asked about proposed new subsection (4) and the
“direction under subsection (1) to include provision prohibiting or restricting the integrated care board from making delegation arrangements in relation to a function that is exercisable by it by virtue of the direction”,
my understanding is that it is a pragmatic clause, basically limiting the ability to sub-delegate further. We would envisage this being a consensual and collaborative approach between us and NHS England in the region, and of course the Government would be guided by NHS England.
In the nature of having to make regulations in this House to do it, the wording reflects the fact that it will be the Government laying those regulations, but we would envisage that being guided and led by the NHS. As the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly said, the NHS region will often be the best place to advise on the readiness or otherwise of different ICBs at different stages in the process.
Karin Smyth
Would somebody be able to appeal to the Secretary of State if they disagreed with that delegation, for example?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that there is no formal right of appeal in this context. I suspect that dispute resolution and formal rights of appeal is something we will come back to in other contexts.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Preparation of consolidated accounts for providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 8 places a duty on NHS England to prepare, in respect of each financial year, a set of accounts that consolidate the annual accounts of English NHS trusts and foundation trusts. The transparency of financial reporting across NHS providers will be diminished without this provision, as the consolidated provider accounts collate the financial reporting of all NHS trusts and foundation trusts to give an NHS provider position that is laid before Parliament, and has been since the 2017-18 financial year.
In addition, NHS England has a duty to provide a copy of the consolidated accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and a duty to lay copies of the consolidated accounts and the related report before Parliament. To ensure adequate financial scrutiny, the Secretary of State has the power to give directions to NHS England on the principles and methods to be applied in preparing the accounts and their content and form, and can direct that the accounts must be accompanied by any reports or information deemed necessary. The Comptroller and Auditor General must, as their responsibilities stand currently, examine, certify and report on the consolidated accounts and send copies of the report to the Secretary of State and to NHS England.
The provisions set out in this clause not only provide continuity to the system but place in law strong levels of oversight relating to both NHS trusts and foundation trusts. That ensures the transparency that we would all wish to see and the robustness of the process and procedures governing financial health at a local level. This clause is an important way of ensuring NHS England discharges its responsibilities as system regulator in delivering appropriate and adequate stewardship of the health system and, ultimately, public money.
Justin Madders
Again, we will not oppose the clause, but I have a query about the powers under proposed new section 65Z4(4), particularly in the context of what the Secretary of State said at the weekend about targets being a lot of form-filling and nonsense. It seems rather odd to give himself powers to direct trusts to provide any reports or information that he requires when, clearly, the Secretary of State gets all sorts of information and reports from the NHS at the moment. Could the Minister say what he is not receiving at the moment that he thinks the powers will allow him to ask for?
Edward Argar
I consider proposed new subsection (4) to be purely pragmatic, as there will be circumstances with individual trusts and situations where clarifications to accounts or data may be required. Therefore, it is prudent to give the Secretary of State the power to ask for further clarification. He will be accountable to Parliament for how the money is spent, so it is entirely appropriate that he has explicit power, given by Parliament, to ask for information over and above the de minimis specified in the Bill, to ensure he can be completely transparent with Members and the public more broadly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Funding for service integration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Currently, one of the objectives of the Government’s mandate to NHS England—a process we discussed in Committee this morning—is that an amount of the annual sum paid to NHS England must be used for service integration. In practice, that must be contributed to the better care fund. The better care fund is the national policy driving forward the integration of health and social care in England. However, as we have discussed, other provisions set out in clause 3 will remove the requirement for a mandate to be published every year. As a result, the mandate will no longer be an appropriate vehicle for setting an annual ring fence for service integration. Therefore, the clause will put in place a new power to allow the Secretary of State to direct NHS England to ring-fence an amount of its annual allotment for health and social care integration through the better care fund, to continue the work of that fund and to direct it on how that amount should be used.
The change will have no impact on the operational policy intent of the better care fund; the provision will simply ensure the better care fund can continue to be set annually, notwithstanding changes to the mandate, which will not be made annually in the future, should this legislation be passed. The better care fund has enabled and improved co-operation between health and social care partners at local level. It is therefore important for it to continue. This clause ensures that that will happen, regardless of proposed changes to the mandate.
Further minor amendments are made to NHS England’s corresponding power to enable it to require that an amount of the sum paid each year to an integrated care board be used for service integration. That power exists currently in relation to clinical commissioning groups, and the amendment seeks to ensure that the better care fund continues to operate effectively once ICBs are established.
Justin Madders
Again, I will not detain the Committee for long: I just have a question for the Minister. The more we get into the Bill, the less permissive it appears to be. I have no doubt that will still be used by the Minister in defence against various amendments we will move later today. Given that we have been told that the role of ICBs is to direct health systems in their local areas, it is not at all clear what the situation is if the powers under this clause require them to set aside a certain amount of money for service integration, but doing so would mean a reduction in service elsewhere in the system. How would that dispute be resolved? Who would have the final say?
Edward Argar
As I made clear in my remarks, the clause does not so much direct ICBs specifically; it is primarily about setting aside an amount of the annual sum paid to NHS England to go to the better care fund, which is then allocated. This technical change will have no impact on the operation or policy intention of the BCF, and it should not have an impact on ICBs’ ability to operate. The intention is simply to make sure that as we move away from an annual mandate with an annual financial settlement for the BCF, we can still set an annual amount to go to the BCF so that it can continue its work, and for that to then be allocated to systems.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Payments in respect of quality
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause removes the Secretary of State’s powers to make regulations about payments by NHS England to CCGs in respect of quality. We are not abolishing quality payments, but in future they will be made to integrated care boards rather than CCGs—hence the change. However, the current clause conflicts with clause 37—General power to direct NHS England—which provides the Secretary of State with broad powers to give directions to NHS England. Clause 10 removes the power to make regulations setting out the principles or other matters that NHS England must consider in assessing any facts in relation to payments to a clinical commissioning group. However, clause 37 will allow the Secretary of State to use the general power to direct NHS England if required, including in relation to quality account. That will give additional flexibility to shape quality payments in order to better incentivise quality, reflecting our priorities and changing circumstances.
I reassure the Committee—I am not sure whether the shadow Minister will take the reassurance, but he may do—that there is no intention to use these powers frequently, but they will ensure that we have a robust legislative framework that is flexible and responsive enough to support the health and care system in future, in the event that such powers are needed. If Ministers were to direct NHS England in this area, they would be required to do so in writing, ensuring that the direction is in the public interest, and to publish that direction. That will ensure transparency, so that Ministers can be held to account. I suspect that we might return more broadly to that underpinning principle when we come to debate further clauses relating to it in the coming days. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Secondments to NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I have only a couple more of these clauses before the shadow Minister will have his turn with a few amendments.
Secondments can be an extremely useful way of bringing key expertise and resource into an organisation at short notice. We have seen the benefits of such a flexible approach in a number of organisations, including NHS England, and particularly during the pandemic. The clause builds on the practical importance of secondments and makes it clear how they can be used by NHS England, by amending schedule A1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the constitution and membership of NHS England.
The Bill has given us an opportunity to provide NHS England with powers to appoint secondees across the organisation and use them in the same way as its own employees, and it allows secondees from specified NHS bodies and health arm’s length bodies to be appointed to NHS England’s board. The power to allow employees from specified NHS bodies to be seconded to NHS England and appointed to its board will allow those individuals to exercise NHS England’s functions on the board’s behalf, in the same way as other board members.
As we continue the fight against the covid-19 pandemic and, in parallel, prepare for the recovery of our health and care system, it is imperative that NHS England has access to the most suitably experienced and knowledgeable candidates for executive roles, and that those holding the roles be part of the important decisions that the system will face. The clause will assist NHS England in doing just that.
The clause also includes a regulation-making power, allowing the Secretary of State to make it clear that a reference to an employee of NHS England in the context of the National Health Service Act 2006 should include people seconded to NHS England, should that be considered appropriate in future. That power will ensure that the legislation assesses the continued effect of operation of secondment arrangements throughout NHS England. Any regulations—again, I hope that this offers some reassurance to the Opposition Front Bench—made under that power would be subject to the affirmative procedure in the House, so I commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not repeat my earlier comments about secondees and ICBs, because we will pick that up later. In our evidence sessions, the role of the healthcare safety investigation body and its independence from NHS England was raised. Is the Minister comfortable that that role will not be compromised in any way by the requirements of the clause?
Edward Argar
I assume—and the hon. Gentleman will probably shake or nod his head—that in this context he is referring both to the Care Quality Commission and HSIB—[Interruption.] Yes, I am reassured and confident that the provisions in clause 11 will not impact negatively in any way on the ability of either safety organisation to conduct inspections and do the work that we envisage them doing. In the case of HSIB, we may return to that when we discuss the relevant clauses. I believe that what is proposed remains consistent with their specific roles, responsibilities and obligations and what we are seeking to achieve for patient safety.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Role of integrated care boards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause replaces section 1l of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the general function of clinical commissioning groups, with new section 1l, which sets out the general function of integrated care boards. It provides, in a similar way to CCGs, that ICBs have the function of arranging for the provision of services for the purposes of the health service in England. As a result, ICBs will now be the new commissioner responsible for the majority of health service commissioning in England. Later clauses will set out the details of the services that ICBs are responsible for commissioning, but we intend that they should include those currently commissioned by CCGs and some that are commissioned by NHS England, as we discussed in relation to a previous clause, such as primary care, dentistry, pharmacy and optometry services.
The clause is crucial to establish ICBs as the new key commissioners for the NHS in England in future. Our proposals bring together leadership across the health and care system, and without the clause ICBs will simply not have a clear purpose. It seeks to manage effectively in legislation the smooth transition from CCGs to ICBs, and I commend it to the Committee.
Justin Madders
Obviously, we will spend time this afternoon discussing ICBs, so I will not discuss this clause in particular. I will draw attention to proposed new section 14Z26, especially the proposals in subsections (2) and (3) for integrated care boards, which effectively allow clinical commissioning groups to determine their own processes to consult on ICBs. We do not think that the consultation process has been adequate—indeed, it has been non-existent in some situations—but we will probably return to the question of ICB geography later in this sitting.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Establishment of integrated care boards
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 13, page 8, line 34, after “board”, insert
“NHS trust, NHS foundation trust, trade union, patient representatives and local authority”.
This amendment would ensure that trusts and local authorities are consulted before any changes are made to the number, shape and size of ICSs.
There are two big themes on integrated care and the White Paper in the Bill and associated documents. Our points are aligned with those of local authorities, using the integrated care partnership as the vehicle to bring the planning of services, such as social care and housing, into the wider framework. It is also the development of the concept of place.
Local government, as we know, does place; the NHS probably does not do it in quite the same way. The clue is in the name. The “local” in local government means that it has always done community engagement; it already has to integrate multiple public services around the needs of a defined population. It is fair to say that the NHS has operated in a very different way in the past and can appear to have a different geography for every service that is accessed.
The Bill settles on 42 as the magic number of areas that the NHS is divided into, which could be influenced by “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” and the ultimate question about life, the universe and everything. That might make more sense than what has been put forward so far as the optimal configuration for the integration of services. The view of many of those who we have spoken to is that 42 is too many for the commissioning of most acute and tertiary services, and too big for the commissioning of primary and community services and social care. Like a lot of things, it is a compromise. It is a fudge. It is an accommodation between competing interests and views.
There is very little explanation in the Bill—in fact, we have zero explanation—about how place will work. We need to understand more about that from the Minister. How will place fit into the commissioning framework? I hope we can have some further guidance in the Minister’s responses. For us, the concept of place is just that—a concept. It is not really pinned down or articulated clearly in the legislation.
As Members will be aware, the NHS has had local government as its key partner in healthcare from the outset. That is recognised by various bodies. For a long time, boundaries were not an issue. We sometimes forget just how intimately involved the NHS and local authorities were at the outset of the NHS. That has obviously changed over the years. It would be fair to say that the current integrated care system boundaries are really a product of the NHS and the way that they have been imposed implies a great weakness in the whole Bill. It is supposed to be about integration between local authorities and the NHS, but it is almost all about what the NHS wants and what it thinks is the best outcome. It should have been co-produced with local government, not presented as a fait accompli. Is the Minister able to tell us how much local authorities and mayoralties were involved and consulted in the design of ICS boundaries?
There is a dilemma here. In our view, starting this way, with boundaries that do not always reflect the natural communities that they are meant to serve, will store up problems. We are less than impressed by what has happened to date, and while we might well be stuck with the 42 configuration that we have now, that does not mean that we agree with the process. I use the term “process” in the loosest possible way. We do not believe it should be a template for the future. Amendment 49 seeks that, in future, any changes in ICS boundaries should be decided in consultation and conjunction with trade unions, local authorities and trusts, and that they are consulted before any further changes to the shape or size of ICSs are made.
The problem we see is how the big acute trusts fit into the system. It has been a problem faced in places such as Scotland and Norway, which are further down the integration pathway. As would be expected, the big trusts dominate, but while they might take 80% of the budget, the vast majority of interactions for the patient are in primary and community care and, of course, in social care. All of those sit far more comfortably in the local authority footprint, as the National Health Service Act 1946 accepted. It is even simpler to consider place in terms of districts and wards or even super-output areas. Those terms are all very familiar to local government, and local authorities already take them into account when they consider how to deliver their services. When the Pandora’s box is opened, we assume place is aligned with something that has already been defined, and we do not try to invent yet another new geography, as has been attempted with ICSs.
I would like to hear from the Minister what the impact might be of further revisions to the boundaries. I understand that Ministers have looked at that and they have apparently changed some but not others, without publishing any real rationale. I note that there have been some cosy fireside chats, after which various changes have emerged. That reminds me of how the Conservative party used to anoint its leader, but it is hardly a transparent or open way to do things.
Let us do the job properly, transparently and openly. No ICS should have a boundary that has not been agreed with all the relevant local authorities. I have had some information from the Minister in reply to a written question about discussions that he has had with hon. and right hon. Members, and I am grateful for that. However, I am still waiting to see all the evidence and civil servants’ recommendations that he had to hand when he made his decisions. One of the main themes during the evidence sessions was the concern that the Secretary of State and Ministers could make decisions for party political, or other less than noble, reasons. Of course, I do not accuse the Minister of doing that, but when decisions of this magnitude are taken in this manner, such questions will be asked.
Whenever we have changed the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies, there has been an extremely lengthy process. When my own local authority, Cheshire West and Chester, came into existence, I recall that regulations were approved by Parliament. I know that because I lived through the trauma of that change; for the record, I should state that my wife is a member of that local authority. The point is that the contrast between what happens with that sort administrative border change and what has happened here is stark. I should also make it clear that I have another hat on. As the Minister will know, there have been many discussions about the ICS area in Cheshire and Merseyside, and, as I understand it, the configuration will be reviewed within the next two years. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury agrees with me that any decision on that should be made with more transparency than we have seen to date, not less.
As an aside, it is probably worth saying that if we pretend that everything can be resolved on a single footprint, we fail to acknowledge that there are regional arms of what is pretty much a national ambulance service, some trusts operate multiple services across clinical commissioning groups, and even tertiary services are commissioned by NHS England for large population areas. Acute care will not be commissioned at place or even ICS level, so we need to think about a simple place-based model for the rest. In terms of transaction volumes, the vast majority of care services, and indeed wider public services such as education and housing, are already provided on a local authority footprint.
At this point, I will mention our proposals for elected chairs, which I will come to shortly. With the right boundaries, it would be a lot easier to enact that. Proper co-location brings healthcare into line with the rest of the public services—local authorities, police and fire. It makes no sense at all for ICS boundaries not to be coterminous, and I do not think the Minister should disagree with me on that. The boundaries need to match those of combined authorities and mayoralties, and they should be set by local authorities and their partners, not just by the NHS. In terms of transactional volume, the vast majority of patient care interactions are in primary, community and social care, and for the patient they are all classed as local.
This veers into a bigger debate about devolution, mayoralties and combined authorities. The trend is one way. If we start with a blank sheet of paper, the answer is obvious: align along existing populations and boundaries. This matter should have been discussed well before the switch from sustainability and transformation partnerships to ICSs; indeed, that should have been done when the STPs were formed. That was the time to develop a proper and open process and deal with concerns. That is history now, but at least with this amendment we may be able to avoid repeating those mistakes.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this Bill Committee, Ms Elliott. I rise to speak on the amendment, not to support it, I am afraid, but I do want to show some sympathy with the arguments the Opposition have raised about the way ICSs have come into being and particularly about their size and population.
As was hinted at by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, this is where we have a shared experience of the shadow integrated care system in Cheshire and Merseyside, which has, I think, been through four different leadership teams in the last five years. Concerns have been raised with us, by local government but also by many working in the health service in and around Cheshire and Merseyside, about how the construct of this ICS will impact on their ability to deliver local place-based healthcare.
On size, the majority of the evidence we have had in the sessions to date has suggested that the formulation of ICSs needs to have a level of flexibility and permissiveness. However, we also need to be cognisant of the fact that there are populations that will need to be served differently, based on past experiences of borders that already exist. Cheshire and Merseyside will to cover 2.6 million people—that is over eight times the size of some ICSs. It will incorporate 9 CCGs—more CCGs than that, but in Cheshire itself it has moved from four to one as recently as April 2020. There will be 19 NHS provider trusts and 51 primary care groups. It is going to be an almighty body trying to make sure we deliver healthcare at the very local level as best we can.
If that is not done well and there is not the right level of scrutiny, transparency and accountability, the number of bodies on the Cheshire and Merseyside board, for example, could end up being 63 if every body that falls within that geography and that has asked to be on it has a place at the table.
We contrast that with the example of Gloucestershire. We had evidence from Dame Gill Morgan, who is the chair of that ICS, which is one of the much smaller ICSs. In one of our evidence sessions, she was very clear from the experience that she had had:
“If you have a really large ICS and you are trying to do it all, you are so distant from patients, citizens and clinicians that you will never have the contact. Place, in those bigger systems, has to be where you begin to pull those things together, by getting the right people to engage and developing the right level of trust.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 129, Q177.]
Where that will be vital in an area such as Cheshire and Merseyside is on my second point, around population. The ICS will incorporate a huge and diverse population across the Liverpool city region and Cheshire. Those who have only a cursory knowledge of that part of the world will not be surprised to hear that, within it, there are very different health populations, needs and inequalities. The concern that has been raised with myself and other local representatives is that, over time, there is a risk that that might have an impact on some of the priorities, and where they sit within that large area, as well as on what allocations that might bring to deliver the right level of healthcare.
In one of the unitary authorities in Cheshire—Cheshire East Council—somewhere between 55% and 70% of its overall budget is spent on social care. It is so important that these bodies have an integral role in making sure that the place-based services match what they know is needed within their own budget.
There has been some amelioration of that issue, by virtue of the local authority representation on the integrated care board—I think it has two representatives. I was pleased to see in my hon. Friend the Minister’s written statement on 22 July that as part of the boundary review of the ICSs, which has been referred to, Cheshire and Merseyside will have a period of two years where the current arrangements will be reviewed. I seek assurance from the Minister that that review will have veracity and deep-rooted scrutiny of the performance of the ICS during that period, to ensure that it does not fall into the trap that some of the larger ICSs could do unless we have the balance right between the role of local government and local healthcare providers, alongside this larger organisation, which will have to encompass a huge range of demands and pressures on its time and resources.
I have every confidence that my hon. Friend will ensure that the exercise is fruitful, that in Cheshire and Merseyside—particularly in Eddisbury and in Ellesmere Port and Neston—we end up with a better system than we have, and that our patients and residents will be able to get the healthcare that they need when they need it, irrespective of where they live.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is important to recognise the changes that the NHS in England has been through over the past 20 years, moving from about 100 strategic health authorities to primary care trusts, too more than 200 CCGs, to STPs and now to this. Witnesses in the ICS session said that although some were making great progress, it was those with boundary difficulties that were falling behind. The Bill talks about population health and wellbeing, but local government drives a lot of those things: housing, active transport, social care or what the town centre looks like. It is therefore important to get the boundaries right, or in a few years’ time there will be yet another upheaval.
In Scotland we got rid of trusts and went to health boards in 2004, and we have had 17 years of stability since then. If people keep moving around who they are connected with, the Government are breaking relationships and expecting people to form new ones. This is not a minor thing. I would like the Minister to explain what the basis was for deciding the number, the size and the geography of the boards. Was some formula used? Trying to get that right will be a major influencer of the outcome of the whole policy.
Karin Smyth
Ms Elliott, you were not with us last week when I bored the Committee about how many different jobs I had done in the NHS over the 20 years to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referred. I feel as if I have lived and breathed that journey from the health authorities’ commissioning function through to primary care groups and primary care trusts. Much like the hon. Lady, I was prompted to come into this place by the Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We all knew on the ground that, as was warned of and as has now been shown, it was completely nonsensical. It was never going to work, and it was hugely detrimental to the progress of securing better health in an efficient and effective way—more so than anyone could have imagined. I came here in 2015 for a bit of a quieter life—that has gone well for me!
Locally, I objected to the geographical footprint—we do not want to get into the footprints, but they are important to local people. The Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire footprint makes no sense to anyone apart from the chief executives of the local trust, because it is about acute sector flows and absolutely nothing else. That is why it is disappointing that we have not, for example, added health inequalities to the triple aim, because that would force such bodies to look at something more than the bottom line of those large acute sector trusts.
Dr Whitford
On that issue, when one of the amendments was turned down earlier, the Minister suggested that there was already a responsibility to deal with health inequalities that sits within the NHS. Yet, after 70 or 80 years, we have failed to do that, so do we not need not such priorities in the Bill? They need to be taken into account in shaping the ICSs.
Karin Smyth
I completely agree and, as I said, in that sense it has been refreshing to talk to financial directors locally. People who go to be finance directors in NHS organisations have healthcare in their hearts—they want to see only good healthcare and good outcomes—and some of this forcing together of clinicians, finance directors and other managers to look at population health is welcome. They recognise that the way in which the current funding model works—we will come on to the tariff—often stops them doing that, so adding in health inequalities would help. For the moment, we have lost that argument in Committee, but we will see how we get on in future.
In essence, where we have got to now is large CCGs coming together. That is what they are: they are rebranded CCGs. The wording in the Bill has been cut and pasted from 2012. I have other words for describing them: they are an NHS cartel. The CCGs commission and the big providers in that group all decide locally how the NHS cake should be cut—we will come back to that in future amendments. They are accountable neither nationally nor locally. That is deeply problematic. Even the partnership bit, as I think we established last week, is a committee of the ICB, although the Minister may want to clarify that. Sir Robert Francis did question whether that was the case. That goes to show that the architecture is really unclear.
The ICBs are creatures of the NHS, and well done to it for getting that on the statute book—almost—but this is essentially the same model. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire alluded to in talking about the past 70-odd years, we need something better. The danger is that, as before, these bodies have no real discretion over spending; mostly, they are just the conduit for payments to existing providers. There is no real clout or sight of where we develop new services. They have very few levers to pull to drive innovation or service improvement.
All Members should be concerned about how we get that innovation and how we drive service improvement into the system. We need the ICBs to be better. They need to attract and retain the highest quality management or they will fail. They need to be perceived by the public as relevant and they need visibility. They must be the place where ambitious managers seek to work. They have to be the powerhouses, because they are the controllers of the money. They need good managers if they are to have an impact. They need to have local relevance—we will come back to that in future amendments. I am keen to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about elected chairs and non-executive directors. Being held to account by the NHS region is very unhelpful.
In relation to Healthwatch, Sir Robert Francis—we should certainly take note of someone of his stature—told us the other day:
“All organisations currently in the NHS have directors of engagement and communication. I suspect that, with the best will in the world, most of them see it as their job to defend the organisation. This is not about defending an organisation; it is about welcoming constructive comment from the public and responding to the needs that people communicate to them.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 150, Q212.]
We can disagree on how that happens, but some of our amendments are designed to help that happen. This cartel is deeply problematic for all hon. Members locally.
As commissioner organisations, accountability does matter. No one is going to walk down the street saying, “Save my CCG” or “Save my ICB” while carrying a banner to save their local hospital. But CCGs control over £75 billion of taxpayers’ money, and they will continue to spend that sort of money. In my area, it is upwards of £1.5 billion or £2 billion. That dwarfs the council’s budget; it totally dwarfs the police’s budgets, yet we allow it to be done in this way. Even as a Member of Parliament with 20-odd years in the health service, I have sometimes found it almost impossible to find out who is accountable when a constituent comes to me with a particular issue. That is why I have focused on accountability and good governance.
In the proposed new organisations, who will be hauled up when something goes wrong? Who reports to the Public Accounts Committee? If the budget is inadequate, who decides what is cut and what is closed? If the boards are making those kinds of decisions, we need to know who appoints them. How do we know that they are independent? How can we remove them if they do not perform? If big decisions are planned, how do we know? What restrictions, if any, should constrain our right to know? The Bill should spell out those things. All our witnesses, and reams of written evidence, are grappling with that issue.
Politically we might disagree with the centralisation of the NHS and the diktat as opposed to the permissiveness. I am definitely on the more localised, permissive side. I think we need good managers and good clinicians to lead and develop our health services and to be accountable for that money. They must be really accountable.
I hope that in his reply, the Minister will take the opportunity to push back on some of the negative language about administrators and managers in the health service. There is a very good article in The Spectator. I commend it to him, if he has not read it. Why would we have doctors and senior consultants on the phone to these 5 million patients, trying to reschedule their appointments? Who is going to go and fix the boiler? The list goes on and on. We need to make these organisations the beacon of good quality management.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions on the amendment. I may disappoint the shadow Minister—I will not accept it. I hope he will let me address why and deal with some of the questions that have been raised.
The amendment would place a requirement on NHS England to consult relevant NHS trusts, foundation trusts, trade unions, patient representatives and local authorities before revoking or varying an ICB’s establishment order. We consider it unnecessary, because under clause 13, proposed new section 14Z25, NHS England is already required to consult any integrated care board that is likely to be affected before varying or revoking an integrated care board’s establishment order. Given that each ICB will have a strategic view of the health service and population needs in its area, and given that ICBs will have members from different NHS trusts and local authorities, we consider that they remain the best-placed bodies to bring those views together to reflect opinion on what is an appropriate boundary or establishment area.
Section 13Q of the NHS Act 2006 already places a duty on NHS England to involve and consult the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, including in respect of any planned changes to commissioning arrangements. That includes, for example, if NHS England plans to change the range of health services available to the public or the manner in which they are delivered. That ensures the voices of residents and patients—those who access care and support—as well as their carers are properly embedded in decision making.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the requirement in clause 13, proposed new section 14Z26, for CCGs to consult any person they consider as appropriate on the first ICB constitution. That constitution will also be required to set out the process for making further amendments to the constitution.
Turning to the points raised by the shadow Minister and other hon. Members, the boundaries on which we are seeing the footprint put forward at the moment effectively reflect the evolution of STP and ICS boundaries to this point. They reflect local authority boundaries. By and large, the majority of ICS boundaries reflect one or more upper-tier local authorities. That was the criteria set by the Secretary of State. There are some exceptions, which I will turn to in a moment. I will also turn to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
As the shadow Minister will be aware, the previous Secretary of State set out a process where he wanted a presumption in favour of coterminosity—the shadow Minister appeared to be supportive of that—unless there were exceptional circumstances in a particular area that justified an exception being made. The principle of coterminosity is something that was argued against, in some cases, by Opposition Members—not Front Bench spokespeople, as far as I am aware, but Back-Bench Members of Parliament—and by some Government Members, in respect of where there should be specific exceptions.
The process, which was touched on, was entirely consultative. Local authorities were fully involved in those discussions. The local NHS was fully involved in the discussions. There were also what could be referred to as cosy fireside meetings, involving Members from across the House, reflecting their right as Members of Parliament representing their communities to write to and engage with Ministers, to reflect their views. There was a multi-layered approach, with the local NHS and local authorities working together to come up with recommendations, and then Members of Parliament having the right, as all Members do, to lobby Ministers and put forward their perspective on behalf of their constituents. The approach was transparent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury alluded to. We published a written ministerial statement, setting out for the House what had been decided, and we showed the flexibility and pragmatism that I think those consulted would wish to see.
In the areas where exceptions were made—the east of England areas and Frimley—contrary to what the hon. Member for Bristol South said, these are some of the most exceptionally high-performing ICS areas. That is one of the reasons why we decided not to go for coterminosity, because those systems are working well, with established relationships with local authorities, acute trusts and primary care. We took the view that we should not disrupt something that is working well—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That will not stop it being reviewed in future, should the local system feel that that would be appropriate. That was a pragmatic approach to the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury raised the issue of Cheshire and Merseyside ICS—I know that this will also be of interest to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, given the geography of his constituency. The ICS did meet the coterminosity test of one or more upper-tier authorities being coterminous, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about its size and about the differences between Cheshire and Merseyside proper, and between different parts of the area, and suggested whether it should more appropriately be split into a larger number of smaller coterminous ICSs.
In a sense, the reason that split did not take place goes exactly to the heart of what the shadow Minister was saying, which is our determination to engage widely, consult local authorities and the local NHS, and come up with a set of rigorously tested proposals. This was—for want of a better way of putting it—a late addition to the work being done earlier this year, because it was already coterminous and the commission was to look at things that were non-coterminous. However, in the light of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury and others, the Secretary of State was clear that it should be reviewed.
Two years was deemed an appropriate time in which to do that review, to allow that consultation with Members and others, and so that it did not straddle—subject to the passage of this legislation—the establishment of ICSs just at the time they were coming into being, and we could do that preparatory work properly. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury the assurance that this is a genuine and rigorous review process. When I emerge from this Committee room, perhaps I may, with Members on both sides of the Committee, discuss further what that looks like and how that might most effectively be carried out.
What that process has shown up, however, is that there is rarely a 100% consensus from all local authority partners and the local NHS on exactly what the right solution is where there is not coterminosity and we are moving towards it. That is why I am cautious about some of the language that has been used thus far, which essentially appeared to imply that we would have to have consensus, and that one part or other of the system would have, if not a veto, a right to put the brakes on changes. Were we to go down that route, I fear that, given different perspectives in different local authorities and areas, we would run the risk of paralysing any possibility of change. I think the right balance needs to be struck.
Karin Smyth
I hear what the Minister is saying, but on that basis—I think this is fundamental to all of this—why would we have local authorities or unitary authorities making any sorts of decisions? That is how local people exercise their democratic will. Bringing forward proposals in order to persuade sometimes results in a bit of stasis, but ultimately someone has to decide and break the deadlock, and the concern, as we come to some of the other amendments, is about how one does that. Local people should be able to have that in a transparent way.
Edward Argar
The approach that we have adopted thus far, which I believe is appropriate, is that we have that with local authorities and the NHS, but ultimately it is the Secretary of State who balances those in the case of these boundaries, and he is accountable to this House, so that strikes an appropriate balance. In the case of the East of England areas, certainly, we did have a very strong divergence of views as to what the right boundaries would be. It would be wrong if either local authorities or the NHS had the right to say, “No, it’s this.” That is where we have to have those views put forward together so that they can be considered in the round.
On the final point that the hon. Member for Bristol South made—I may have missed some points, but this is an important one that I want to put on the record—she is absolutely right to highlight the value of the work done by managers and administrators, or whatever title is used to describe them, sometimes pejoratively by some commenting on this matter. She is absolutely right about the value of their work. There is an analogy that I use all the time, with a much-hackneyed quote that Members will know: John F. Kennedy going to NASA, shaking the hand of the janitor and saying, “Thank you for putting a man on the moon.” What sits behind that goes to the heart of what the hon. Lady was saying. The NHS is a team. Without effective managers, people who can engage, and people who can manage budgets and ensure financial transparency and accountability, and without planning and people who make sure that patients are called and appointments are rescheduled, those on the clinical front line, if she will allow me to put it this way, would not be as effective at doing their job. It is not an effective use of a clinician’s time to ring up a patient to rearrange an appointment. Similarly, it would not be an appropriate use of the time of a highly skilled manager or administrator to be performing some other task. We have got to make sure that we have the right people in the right places, with the right skills.
The final point I would like to make again goes back to a point that the hon. Member for Bristol South made, about accountability. I think it was Amanda Pritchard, chief executive of the NHS—forgive me if it was Mark Cubbon, the chief operating officer—who highlighted, in asking who was accountable, that the ICB is an NHS body, working in partnership with the local authority, that is accountable for the funds it spends, which are voted on by Parliament. That is why it has an NHS official and there are routes of accountability up through the NHS to NHS England, and ultimately to the Secretary of State and this House. That is the structure of the NHS that has evolved over the past 70-plus years. I think that the hon. Lady sought—quite rightly—to press and challenge me on whether we think that evolution is the right approach, or whether we need to take a step back and challenge some of those assumptions. She is right to do that, but in this context, which involves the management of public money, the structures and accountabilities are correct.
I am sorry to disappoint the shadow Minister, as I fear that we will not be able to support his amendment. I hope he will not press it to a vote and that I have gone some way towards addressing the points made, particularly with regard to ICS boundaries and processes followed.
Justin Madders
We have had a fairly wide-ranging and useful debate. A number of issues have arisen that we will return to as the Committee makes progress. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Eddisbury could not come on board; perhaps I should not have made my little dig about barristers this morning, otherwise he might have been more inclined to support us. I noted the sympathy he expressed and I think he articulated very well his knowledge of the geography of the area and why there are concerns locally about proper accountability in such a large area.
The irony of the whole debate, of course, is that we are discussing the Bill today, but before we have even got to the end, we know that the Cheshire and Merseyside ICS may not survive two years. Before the Bill has even become an Act, some of its constituent parts may be reorganised in future. We will see what happens on that, and I look forward to engaging with the Minister in that process.
Let us not forget that the genesis of what is before us was the STPs. How were they put together? I think local NHS leaders were sent a missive about three days before Christmas to say, “Can you give us an idea of what you think the most optimal design of your local NHS would be? By the way, we would like the response back by the end of January.” As we know, the NHS is traditionally extremely busy at that time of year, and Christmas is hardly a good time to be engaging with the wider public sector or indeed the community, but that was where the genesis was, and that is where the Cheshire and Merseyside STP and now ICS came from. It would be interesting to know how many of the 42 areas have changed since that original geography back in, I think, 2017—perhaps even 2016. It was clearly then, as it still is, a creature of the NHS, not the communities it represents.
Dr Whitford
Does the shadow Minister think that the fact we have heard today that Cheshire and Merseyside could be reviewed as quickly as in two years’ time might undermine some of the commitment on the ground? If people feel that it will all change again in two years, the engagement may be weakened.
Justin Madders
I thank the SNP spokesperson for her intervention. That is undoubtedly a risk. It is possible we end up with two or three areas out of that review. I hate to think it would get any bigger.
In terms of what people think is their relevant community, Merseyside has a metro Mayor now with very clearly defined geography, and Cheshire is a different area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, people do not take to the streets with banners saying, “Save our CCG!” I suspect the majority of people do not even know what a CCG is or the area that it is meant to cover. I suspect even fewer people know what an ICS is and what area it covers. That will definitely have to change if we are to have a truly integrated health and social care system.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South about the defensive culture at times, alluded to by Sir Robert Francis, is a valid one. We may touch on that in the HSSIB elements of the Bill later on. She was asking the right questions—how can the board be challenged, and who is it accountable to? Those are points we will have to come back to, because there is, to our mind, a clear democratic deficit in the way these bodies have been structured.
Finally, the Minister referred to his guiding principle of coterminosity except in exceptional circumstances. Cheshire and Merseyside is coterminous, it is just coterminous for more than one local authority—and some pretty big ones at that—so I do not necessarily think that coterminosity is the answer.
The Minister referred to proposed new sections 14Z25 and 26 in regard to the duties to consult with members of the ICB. Some of the people named in amendment 49 might not actually be on the ICB, because they are not included in the legislation at the moment. We will come to our amendment on that in due course, and we might be able to change that. In proposed new sections 14Z26, CCGs must
“consult any persons they consider it appropriate to consult”.
That could be everyone and no one. I do not intend to press this to a vote, but I hope the Minister has taken on board several points that will lead to an improved process in the future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 13, page 9, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 10 and insert—
“(1) NHS England may, in connection with the abolition of a clinical commissioning group under section 14Z27, make a scheme for the transfer of the group’s property, rights or liabilities to NHS England or an integrated care board.
(2) NHS England may, in connection with the establishment of an integrated care board, make a scheme for the transfer of property, rights or liabilities to the board from—
(a) NHS England,
(b) an NHS trust established under section 25, an NHS foundation trust, or
(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28.
(2A) NHS England may, in connection with the variation of the constitution of an integrated care board or the abolition of an integrated care board, make a scheme for the transfer of the board’s property, rights or liabilities to NHS England or an integrated care board.
(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) to the variation of the constitution of an integrated care board is to its variation by order under section 14Z25 or under provision included in its constitution by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 1B.”
This amendment adds a power for NHS England to transfer property, rights and liabilities (including rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment) from certain NHS bodies to an integrated care board on its establishment: see new subsection (2). In consequence, new subsections (1), (2A) and (2B) restructure material currently in subsections (1) and (2).
Edward Argar
Both the amendments are technical ones. Amendment 10 amends proposed new section 14Z28 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which provides NHS England with the power to make transfer schemes to transfer property, rights and liabilities in connection with the establishment of, abolition of or change in the constitution of ICBs or the abolition of CCGs. The amendment widens the power to make transfer schemes when establishing integrated care boards, so that transfer schemes may include transfers from NHS England, English NHS trusts or foundation trusts, or English special health authorities.
We are widening the scope of those schemes to reflect further work done by NHS England, which has noted that a small number of people currently working in those bodies may need to transfer into ICBs. It is of practical importance for NHS England to be able to make transfer schemes that will ensure a smooth transition when ICBs are established, and for all the staff who may be transferring to newly established ICBs to be fully protected by such schemes.
For all but the most senior staff transferred from elsewhere in the NHS, I assure the Committee that NHS England’s employment commitment to continuity of terms and conditions, even if not required by law, will apply fully. That commitment is designed to provide stability and remove uncertainty during the transition. It is also possible for NHS England to use the schemes to transfer property and liabilities currently held by those bodies to ICBs on their establishment, although again we expect that to be rare in practice.
Proposed new subsections (1), (2A) and (2B) in the amendment restructure material in proposed new subsections (1) and (2) of the clause as drafted. That simply reflects the technical legal redrafting. The amendment therefore does not change the bodies that can be covered in transfer schemes relating to the abolition of CCGs or ICBs, or the variation of the constitution of an ICB. Those bodies continue to be CCGs, ICBs and NHS England.
Amendment 11 is consequential upon amendment 10 and is also simply a technical change. They are technical, but important amendments to ensure—and to be clear—that staff rights, liabilities and properties are in the right places in the NHS when we introduce ICBs into the system, and that the right protections are in place.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendment made: 11, in clause 13, page 10, line 13, after “(1)” insert “or (2A)”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 10.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 13, page 11, line 10, at end insert—
“Accountability
14Z28A Reporting: duties on integrated care boards and the Secretary of State
(1) Integrated care boards must report annually to the Secretary of State on their actions and policies and the outcomes for patients of the services they commission.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on the actions and policies of integrated care boards and the outcomes for patients of the services they commission and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
It is a pleasure to move the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends. The heading is “Accountability” and, as I am sure the Minister will have picked up by now, we think that accountability needs to be turbo-charged in the Bill. The new commissioning bodies, the ICBs, are directly accountable to NHS England and therefore on to the Secretary of State. That was explained by Amanda Pritchard when she gave evidence last week. Each year, the ICB has to prepare a report on how it has discharged its functions and specialist duties under the various headings—improvements in quality, public involvement and so on. It has to report under lots of headings. One has to wonder how it will be able to pick priorities from all that, but that is a matter for the ICB.
ICBs must also publish their plans. The NHS, in the form of NHS England, will then assess the performance of each ICB against how it discharges its functions. Presumably, that will be at least in part with reference to those plans.
The amendment, in essence, would add the accountability of the Secretary of State to what we would describe as a fairly cumbersome but necessary regime of performance management. The slant of the reporting in the amendment is less steeped in the kind of bureaucratic tick-boxing that we understand that the Secretary of State is not a fan of, and what has to be reported is outcomes to patients--perhaps, the thing that matters most.
In the recent comparative survey by the Commonwealth Fund, the NHS lost its top slot and went down to No. 4. It was close, but not close enough. Despite usually coming top, it does badly on one of the key metrics that goes into the assessment—patient outcomes. We do well on ease of access but not so well on outcomes, which is a sad reflection. The amendment makes outcomes a priority over other factors. While the ICBs may have much to say on the day-to-day running of the NHS in the area, the ultimate responsibility for the whole system lies with the Secretary of State, even though on a day-to-day basis it may be NHS England that does the real leg work of performance management. In its new integrated form, NHS England performance manages various trusts and foundation trusts. It also runs the failure regimes for them if needed.
Ways of managing providers are well developed, but most of the skills necessary to monitor whole system performance have been lost to some extent, as management capacity in commissioners has been nibbled away. That brings me to the current weakness in holding providers to account on outcomes. Payment by results was a euphemism, as the results did not matter: the process was the determining factor. Reports on outcomes, as with on patient satisfaction, are absolutely necessary. If any system is to be taken seriously, it must seek to improve. ICBs should not see this as added bureaucracy: they should see it as reporting vital elements of healthcare. I draw particular attention to the reference in proposed new subsection (1), which refers to outcomes specifically, because we do not believe that gets as much prominence as it should.
Leaving aside the desire to produce the right reports for the Secretary of State, there is also an issue about how to make ICBs more accountable to their communities—we will touch on that later. Giving them sight of a nice glossy annual NHS report will not be very enlightening, and it will not help communities understand what has been done on their behalf, even if they recognise the NHS as part of their community.
Dr Whitford
Is the hon. Gentleman talking about clinical outcomes? One of the issues is having national clinical standards against which every unit and every area should be able to benchmark itself. In Scotland, we have standards for 19 of the commonest cancers, which are continuously audited. I was directly involved in developing the breast cancer ones in 2000. We have data that goes back over two decades, which means we can see improvement. It is clinical outcomes that need to be the focus, and they need to be agreed nationally: it should not be for every local ICS to decide what it measures and how. Otherwise we cannot say, “We are getting rid of variability, we are saying that a patient with this disease in Newcastle will get as good treatment as they would in Liverpool or Wolverhampton.”
Justin Madders
The hon. Lady is right; we still have a national health service and we should have national standards, and they should be tagged to clinical outcomes. Of course, it would be down to the individual ICBs to deliver against those outcomes, but it is right that those performance measures should be comparable across different areas.
A robust system of reporting is easier to understand and is probably the most important thing from a patient’s perspective. It is so important that it should land on the Secretary of State’s desk. We will talk later about how ICBs can be more accountable to their communities, but this is very much about how ICBs can be accountable to this place. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support the amendment, particularly in relation to outcomes. The Government do not accept having reducing health inequalities as an aim. In my round-up of 20 years of CCGs and all the rest of it, the driver over the past 15 years has been to put primary care at the centre of those organisations, recognising that 90% of patient contacts are within primary and community services.
We heard from representatives of GPs last week, and I have spoken to my local medical committee as well. They are very fearful—we can dispute whether the evidence exists for whether clinical outcomes are better as a result of these organisations’ being supposedly primary care-focused rather than dominated by the acute trusts, and whether that actually worked, but as a policy intent the Government are very firmly moving away from that position—and wondering what their real outcomes would be.
Were the Government to move along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, a regular review of and look at outcomes in our local areas would perhaps help with that particular problem and highlight the driver that we need from community and primary care, as well as just looking at the financial dominance of the large acute trusts.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to rise to respond. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, is now having to do a lot of bobbing up and down with his amendments, and I am grateful to him for tabling this one. I fear he will not be entirely surprised that we cannot accept it, but I will try to explain to him at least why, and why I urge him not to push it to a vote, although obviously he will be the judge of that.
The amendment, as the shadow Minister has set out, would place new requirements on integrated care boards to report annually directly to the Secretary of State on their actions, and a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report for Parliament specifically on the actions of the ICBs. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to propose a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report no later than one month following its being laid in Parliament.
We entirely agree with the shadow Minister that there should be strong lines of democratic accountability from ICBs to Parliament. I hope I can give him at least some reassurance that the Bill already provides for much of the transparency and accountability that he is understandably seeking. The provisions in the Bill will create clear lines of accountability for ICBs to NHS England; they will be accountable through NHS England to national Government and ultimately, therefore, to both Houses of Parliament.
Proposed new section 14Z26 of the National Health Service Act 2006 already places a duty on ICBs to prepare an annual report explaining how the ICB has discharged its duties, particularly in relation to its activities to improve the quality of services, reduce health inequalities and have regard to the effect of its decisions on, and its involvement with, the public.
The report must also explain how the ICB has exercised its functions in accordance with its proposed forward plan and capital resource plan, as well as the steps it has taken to implement any joint health and wellbeing strategy. NHS England will also have the ability to give directions to ICBs concerning the form and content of the annual report, meaning that it could stipulate further reporting requirements for ICBs as necessary where information might be lacking. The report must be provided to NHS England and must be published
I hope the Committee will agree that that is already a comprehensive reporting requirement. Further, under proposed new section 14Z57, NHS England is also required to undertake annual performance assessments to review how each individual ICB has discharged its functions, including how it has delivered on its statutory duties. The Secretary of State will have the power to issue statutory guidance concerning performance assessments, meaning that national Government will be able to influence the methods and requirements of assessment if necessary. Again, NHS England must publish the results of each performance assessment, meaning that the public will have open access to information concerning the performance of their ICBs.
I hope the Committee will agree that the Bill therefore already provides much of the transparency and accountability that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is asking for, and that further duplicative reporting requirements would risk creating new and unnecessary bureaucracy. In respect of the ability of the House to scrutinise, he knows, and Opposition Members know, that they have many opportunities to table debates on a wide array of subjects. He and his colleagues have held me and other Ministers to account, not only in these Committee Rooms but on the Floor of the House in recent months, on a whole array of subjects. With the information I have set out that will already be published, for not only the House but the wider public to read, absorb and consider, there is scope for the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member to table a debate in which such reports can be considered if they so wish. I believe that that provides for sufficient transparency and accountability, and I encourage the shadow Minister not to press the amendment.
Justin Madders
I understand what the Minister is saying. We still say there is not enough emphasis on outcomes and accountability to Parliament, but, as he has pointed out, there are other avenues that we can use to pursue those matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause, as we have touched on in the various discussions on amendments already, inserts new chapter A3 into the NHS Act 2006, which contains a number of duties and functions in relation to the new integrated care boards. A new duty is conferred on NHS England to ensure that ICBs cover England and details the required process for establishing the ICBs.
The clause also makes provision for abolishing clinical commissioning groups, transferring staff, property and liabilities to ICBs, requiring the constitutions of ICBs to be published and requiring ICBs to make arrangements for managing conflict of interest effectively. The clause is essential for delivering on one of the core objectives of the Bill—creating statutory ICBs as a means to take an ambitious, collaborative approach to planning and delivering integrated health and care services in England. The clause will establish a smooth transition from CCGs to ICBs, providing clarity and consistency for patients as we move to these new arrangements, as well as creating continuity of employment for NHS staff.
Edward Argar
Yes, of course. I know the hon. Lady has a great interest in this.
Karin Smyth
I hope the Minister will address my earlier comments about the policy direction of primary and community care being front and centre in the last 15-odd years. This is a very different beast. I think that has perhaps not come out in the debate. These are very different bodies, and I wonder how he will make sure that the majority of patient contacts and the majority of the work that is done in the health service is not lost in the new organisations.
Edward Argar
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Lady. Although these organisations move beyond the CCG model to be much more collaborative, with more partnership working with local authorities and others, and the genesis of the new model is to bring those two parts together, there is no intent for, and I do not believe the practical consequence of this would be, a diminution in the voice of and the need to pay heed to primary care. She is absolutely right. For the vast majority of our constituents, the front door to the NHS is primary care services. The majority of their appointments, their consultations and their engagement is with primary care services. That voice is hugely important. I see that continuing to be front and centre.
The Bill brings together a range of other NHS system providers and the local authority. We may come back to the point when we discuss further amendments. I emphasise what we heard in the evidence sessions, which is that the membership requirements are de minimis. There can be increased numbers of voices for primary care on these boards, as Dame Gill Morgan mentioned in the way she is managing Gloucestershire. That may not fully satisfy the hon. Lady, but I hope I can reassure her that I am in the same place as her in recognising the importance of primary care and that the expertise that has grown up in understanding local communities is vital in framing a system that works effectively.
In requiring ICBs to maintain and publish registers of the interests of their members and employees—I expect we will return to this point in the future, in a different guise—the clause is an essential part of guaranteeing the integrity of each ICB’s decision-making processes. It will ensure that any potential conflicts of interest are declared promptly by individuals and managed effectively. As a result, the public will be able to trust that decisions are made in a fair, transparent manner, in the best interest of the ICB’s local population. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Integrated care boards: constitution etc
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 119, line 18, at end insert—
“(c) the process by which any proposed changes to the policies of the clinical commissioning groups within the area for which the integrated care board is established will be consulted upon and agreed.”
This amendment would require ICBs to be clear about how they would make changes in clinical policies and established models of care that have already been established and are applicable to patients in the area for which the integrated care board takes responsibility.
We are certainly getting a good workout this afternoon, Ms Elliott—hopefully the Minister will now be able to catch his breath.
As the hon. Member for Eddisbury suggested earlier, we have seen a rapid reduction in the number of CCGs in Cheshire and Merseyside—there are now nine, but there were more than that not so long ago—and it is one of the biggest ICSs, if not the biggest, in the country. I am not going to take the Committee through the angst on that again, but even with sensible coterminous boundaries, quite a lot of ICSs will have more than one progenitor CCG.
Under the old regime, every CCG had its own plans, policies, care pathways and models of care. For example, many had different rules about gluten-free products being available on prescription, and most Members will be acutely aware of the manifest unfairness of the postcode lottery for IVF treatment. The number of cycles people were entitled to and how old they had to be to access treatment all depended very much on where in the country they lived. It is tempting to say that, rather than having all that variation, we should just level up—the Government’s catchphrase of the day—but that of course will not always be possible, and there will be variations in CCG policy that we cannot easily equate into one optimum outcome or standard, so how do we go about moving the many into the one?
The amendment would add a requirement that, in drawing up the initial constitution CCGs, which of course should be aware of the issues, make a start on place-based approaches, but there is an important job to do on harmonisation at the outset, and that is important for patients and the public. It will be contentious. We can all imagine the outrage if something that is offered in one CCG but not another is then removed from everyone in the process of forming an ICB. These are possible changes that we will see over the next 12 to 18 months, and they will be a real test of how responsive and engaged ICBs are in their local communities. We may indeed see people holding banners with ICBs on them if things are not handled well.
In the amendment, we say that the process of harmonisation or variation should be arrived at only after proper consultation. That fits in with the duty, which we have talked about already, on harmonisation, public involvement and consultation. It also highlights a gap in the specification for the job of producing the initial constitution for each ICB, which is given to the relevant CCG. As I have pointed out, it is very much up to them to decide who they consider it appropriate to consult. We want a much stronger and clearer commitment to consultation on changes that might affect patient care on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment in order to air this issue in Committee. I fear that I may have to disappoint him once again; it seems I am getting into a habit, although perhaps at some point I will suddenly surprise him.
We agree that it is right that there is appropriate consultation when making decisions about commissioning policies and care. The shadow Minister set out very clearly, as he always does, some of the reasons for that. I hope that I can give him some reassurance that the Bill already provides for much of what he is seeking in terms of outcomes. In clause 19, new section 14Z44 of the National Health Service Act 2006 already places a duty on integrated care boards to involve and consult the public in respect of the planning of commissioning arrangements, including on any planned changes. That would include, for example, plans by an ICB to change the range of health services available to the public or the manner in which they are delivered. This will ensure that the voices of residents, patients and those who access care and support, as well as their carers and representatives, are properly embedded in ICB decision making.
Schedule 2, which concerns the constitutions of integrated care boards, states that ICB constitutions must specify how the ICB plans to exercise its functions, including the duty to involve and consult the public. ICB constitutions must, moreover, specify the arrangements that the ICB will make to ensure transparency in that decision making. NHS England will ensure that they are appropriate and include the relevant provisions.
Under clause 13, and new section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, NHS England will need to approve the constitution and make an establishment order for the ICB. In that respect, new section 14Z26 goes on to make it clear that NHS England can reject a proposed constitution if it is inappropriate. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the shadow Minister, and helps underline our commitment to ICBs being as transparent and as involving of patients and the public as possible. I encourage him not to press his amendment.
Justin Madders
In light of what the Minister has said, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 31, in page 119, line 28, leave out from “for” to end of line 29 and insert
“an initial chair to be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State, for a period of no more than 2 years and for subsequent chairs to be elected by the voters in the area for which the integrated care board is established in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State for that purpose.”
This amendment would require the first Chair of each Integrated Care Board to be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State for a period of no more than 2 years and for subsequent chairs to be chosen through local election.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in page 119, line 29, leave out
“, with the approval of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 51, in page 119, line 29, at end insert—
“4A The constitution must provide for all members of the integrated care board to be consulted, and for any views expressed to be taken into account, before a chair is appointed.”
Amendment 52, in page 120, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) The constitution must provide for all members of the integrated care board and of the integrated care partnership to be consulted, and for any views expressed to be taken into account, before a chief executive is appointed.”
This amendment would ensure the involvement of the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership in the appointment of the ICB chief executive.
Justin Madders
Amendment 31 is about the ICB having an elected chair. Amendment 50 relates to the Secretary of State’s approval to remove the chair from the ICB, amendment 51 relates to consultation on an ICB chair’s appointment and amendment 52 relates to ICB and ICP members and consultation on the ICB chief executive’s appointment. I hope there were not too many “ICB”s and “ICP”s in that statement, but I will now set out some detail on the intention behind each of the amendments.
I would like to make some general points about integrated care boards. I would also like to put some specific amendments to a vote—unless, of course, the Minister does surprise me, and concedes on some of these points. Many things have been said about ICSs, ICBs and ICPs that do not appear in the Bill. In discussing this matter, some care has to be taken in distinguishing between what is actually in the Bill as it stands and what is not. In particular, the NHS document on the ICS design framework came out in July. Is anything in that document to be regarded as interpretation of the Bill? Perhaps more pertinently, is anything in the design framework ruled out by the Bill or inconsistent with it? There is a huge contradiction in all this. Many actions have already been taken, such as fixing boundaries and appointing chairs, that presume that this Committee does not have a say—that this Committee is not going to change anything. That is almost contempt of Parliament, but we are where we are. No doubt the Minister will be able to justify why he feels it necessary to instruct the NHS to get on with these things before legislation has been passed. To be fair to him, that is what they have been doing for the past five years as they have been trying to avoid Lansley, but we are in a different world now.
For us, the most significant issues are ICB composition, ICB constitutions generally, and the vexed issue of what people on an ICB actually take responsibility for. In each of those areas, we have tabled specific amendments. As we know, ICBs are the latest in a long line of commissioning models: we have had GPs, PCGs, PCTs, larger PCTs, cluster PCTs, CCGs, merged CCGs, and now ICBs. Just maybe, if we do not get this right first time—if we have to keep reinventing the wheel—the problem here is that it is always the NHS making decisions about itself. Various retrospectives have shown that CCGs and PCTs have had virtually no impact on the design of services, or in terms of innovation or better allocation of resources based on need, and it is certainly difficult to show that they have had much impact on outputs. It is worth pointing out that in some cases, these ICBs will be allocating billions of pounds of public money—in theory, at least—so when we are talking about a multi-billion-pound venture, it has to be free of vested interests. It has to be open and transparent in a way that, I am afraid to say, has not been a hallmark of the Department in recent years.
We know that many of the NHS witnesses said in their evidence that they did not want more prescription. As we have already touched on, we are probably going to have some debate about where on the spectrum we land in terms of prescription, with one end being a totally prescriptive environment and the other being a totally permissive one. As it stands, the Bill is too close to the permissive end, in this area at least; as I have already said, we do get some prescription when it suits the Department in other areas. We consider that prescription is not an imposition: it is a vital safeguard to make sure that things are done correctly, and that there is proper accountability of roles and positions. Legislating for the removal of conflicts of interest to ensure that these bodies are more representative and accountable is not a frivolous or minor matter. These are not optional matters: they are fundamental in a democratic society. We should take this opportunity to widen public and patient involvement and end what is increasingly looking like a much more internal model than perhaps was envisaged when the White Paper came out—a pattern, I have to say, that is possibly being set from the top.
In our view, each ICB should have an elected chair so we are going to push amendment 31 to a vote, because we believe it is a really important principle that we should be exploring further. There are two justifications for that, the first of which is negative: we simply do not trust those who make these appointments. We have seen far too many family members and friends appointed within the wider NHS who, it would be fair to say, have not come with CVs that obviously lend themselves to being part of the NHS family. In fact, the NHS has already announced who the chairs will be for two thirds of these ICSs, showing a complete disregard for the work of this Committee, particularly when it was decided that councillors did not even need to apply. There are a number of former councillors on this Committee, not least myself, the shadow Minister, and the Minister himself. Perhaps we might not be the best people to judge who could go on those bodies as chairs, but I certainly think that councillors have a legitimate claim to be suitable people in a number of circumstances. We need to take control of this; we need to have a democratic system.
The positive argument for electing someone is that it signifies that there is some accountability. It also speaks to a trend that we want to see continue moving forward, improving genuine representation of the public and of patients. We have elected police and crime commissioners, and we increasingly see Mayors and other elected figureheads having growing powers over services in defined geographies. We have already touched on how ICSs may not mean much to people in the street, but if there is someone at the top who has been elected by the people of an area, that gives everyone a sense of ownership and identity—there is a tangible body there that they have some stake in.
Let us take the example of Cheshire again, as it is the one I am familiar with. The annual budget for the police authority is in the region of £200 million. We of course do not have sight of the equivalent for the ICS at the moment, but let us say it will be significantly more. Cheshire CCG’s budget is about six times that at the moment, and we have to throw in the whole of Merseyside on top. To my mind, we will have a rather unsatisfactory situation where someone is directly elected to represent our interests in police and crime, but no equivalent in health, where billions and billions more is spent.
We recognise that this is a departure from what has been worked on in the NHS to date, which is why the amendment would allow for a period of two years from the initial ICB appointment to enable the Government and probably the Minister to work through the detail of how elections would work, and the precise role and powers of a democratically elected chair.
As a country, we are being told constantly that we are taking back control. That should be put into practice. Local communities should be given a real say in who runs their health services. Throughout the evidence sessions, it was far from clear with which individual the buck stops.
Amendments 50, 51 and 52 reflect our concerns about the frankly arrogant way that the membership of ICBs has been formed to date. If we do not get our wish for a directly elected chair, we still think there is a clear need for more local accountability for the appointment and removal of ICB chairs. As the Bill stands, there is a danger that the chairs are answerable only to the Secretary of State—not to the partnership, not to the community and not to the patients.
Why does the Secretary of State need to approve the chair? Is the chair there to represent the Secretary of State or to represent the ICB? As we have already covered, there is a less than glorious record on appointments by the Secretary of State. Let us take him out of the equation and ensure, as amendment 51 would do, that members of the board are consulted and their views taken into account before any chairs are appointed. After all, we would not want them to be appointed and then not have the confidence of the other board members. One of the questions that is hanging in the air is what would happen in the situation where the chair does not have the confidence of the board. There does not seem to be any clear mechanism for dealing with that situation, which we hope would not be a regular occurrence.
We could have the absurd situation where all those who work with the chair on a daily basis simply did not think that the chair was leading the organisation as they should, but because the chair retained the confidence of the Secretary of State—someone who might meet the chair once a year, if they were lucky—they remain in post. I think we can all see that that would be a very unsatisfactory situation. What does the Minister say should happen in that scenario? What would happen if members of an ICB or ICP clearly object to the appointment of a chief executive? If the Minister does not have an answer to those questions, perhaps he could support our amendments, although I may be tempting fate in even suggesting that.
Will the Minister at least set out what role his Department will have in such situations? What does he define as failure for an ICS? In what circumstances would NHS England terminate the appointment of a chief executive? How will removing the chief executive lead to improvements if, for example, the reason for “failure” is systemic issues around workforce and funding, which we will be coming on to later on? Let us make sure that the system works properly from the outset and that the leaders in it have the confidence of all those who work within it.
Karin Smyth
I will speak mainly to amendments 31 and 50. The case for an elected chair of an ICB is very strong. As my hon. Friend said, if we accept the need for an elected police and fire commissioner, why not for health? The amounts of money we are talking about and the influence on people’s daily life dwarf those even of my local council. That is what people on the boards will be responsible for. Social care is still provided through a democratically accountable local authority, so why not healthcare?
We are moving towards the NHS budget overall accounting for up to 40% of general Government spend—that is what we are looking at for the next few years. It seems to go against the grain of everything else—elected Mayors, devolution and so on—for Conservative Members to allow that quantity of Government funding from the taxpayer to be out in communities without any kind of more local democratic control. There would also be a lot more confidence that the days of crony contracts favouring friends, families and donors had been well and truly left behind were there independent heads of the ICBs. I do not know if the Secretary of State has as many close friends as the last one, but letting him make the appointments is not something that Conservative Members will want to defend.
We should therefore be electing a local health commissioner. The amendment reasonably allows a two-year period for the organisations to get established—they have enough to do at the moment—but it would then start to take away some of the problems that the Government will get into with their proposals for the integrated care board chairs. On the make-up of the boards, too, the Bill is a good opportunity, should they wish to take it, for the Government to move away from the terrible scenarios of the past few years in particular. That argument was made cogently this morning by the Minister himself, in terms of NHS England having non-executive directors, people of independence and so on as part of its board, and it can well and truly be made about these new local bodies.
We do not need to go back to the 1990s, when trusts were first invented. Friends and families were put on to those bodies, which were stuffed with worthies, with business people favoured over local people with strong links to the community. Surely we can learn from the past 20-odd years and from the past couple of years in particular. Place is central to what the Government are trying to achieve and is the general policy direction of the Minister’s Department and many others, so it has to mean something and it has to be accountable.
We will come later to some of my amendments on a good governance commission, for which I hope to gain Government support; on having fit and proper tests for people to be scrutinised as suitable to come on to the boards; and, without wanting to throw back to the past, on bringing people in from the community to make the ICBs reflect their local community. In all seriousness, in our sad political situation, most ICBs will be headed up not by people are particularly sympathetic to Labour, so this is not a partisan point. It is, as the Minister started to say about NHS England itself this morning, about having people with the right qualifications—some clinical, some not. Let us have some clear criteria for how we want the boards to be governed and the sorts of people we want on them.
As I said earlier, the Government have got themselves into a real mess with accountability and with how much work the Secretary of State is doing, given how much is put on his desk—this sort of circular NHS accountability thing—so the amendments are trying to offer the Government a way through that follows their general policy direction. That was raised by NHS Providers in its written evidence
“to make crystal clear the relationship between trusts and ICBs, and how the statutory accountabilities of trusts, foundation trusts and ICBs align. There also needs to be clarity within the legislation on how the roles and responsibilities of the current NHS England and NHS Improvement…regions, ICBs, ICPs, trusts, foundation trusts, health and wellbeing boards…places, provider collaboratives, neighbourhoods and primary care networks…will all fit together.”
We would all like to understand how that works, even those of us who follow such things.
I am not suggesting that an all-powerful elected chair will get that, but at least that skilled person bringing together the multiplicity of organisations, groups and people for the local community would be a figurehead who needs to understand and grapple with the issues. The chairs would need to be trusted and highly skilled. In that way, there can be further accountability back up the national system, either through NHS England or the Minister. Let us take all that away from the Secretary of State’s desk—he is going to be a terribly busy man over the next few years. Let us help him out.
The Government should support this and similar amendments to try to bring local accountability much more to the fore. That, in turn, would allow local people, who are expected to spend huge quantities of their taxes on health—increasingly so over the next few years—to be very clear about what the money funds, what they get for their money and how they can hold people accountable.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, said that his amendments would give me two years to work through this, if necessary. I am grateful for his confidence in my longevity in this post—only time will tell.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address amendments 31, 50, 51 and 52, which were tabled by the shadow Minister. I fear that I may not surprise him on this set of amendments. Under the Bill as drafted, the chair of the integrated care board will be appointed by NHS England, as he and other Members have highlighted. It is therefore rather disingenuous to suggest that friends and cronies will be appointed. This is an NHS England appointment, with approval from the Secretary of State. I am not quite sure what is being suggested about those at NHS England, but I suspect it is rather unfair.
The chair will be appointed by NHS England, with approval from the Secretary of State. That reflects the fact that the ICB is accountable to NHS England and, through it, to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, this House. That goes to the heart of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bristol South on the balance to be struck between having local flexibility and accountability, and recognising that this is a national health service and the way in which it has evolved. The accountability mechanisms are also national to reflect that.
In answer to the hon. Lady’s questioning, the chief executive of the NHS, Amanda Pritchard, said very clearly of the ICBs:
“In the proposed future structure, they would be accountable to a combined NHS England and NHS Improvement structure. At the moment, we operate that through seven regions, and then through to the national NHSEI executive. We are, in turn, accountable to Parliament.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 20, Q21.]
Amanda Pritchard was very clear that it is the integrated care board that carries that national statutory responsibility on behalf of the NHS, hence why we have structured the accountability requirements as we have.
That chain of accountability has been at the heart of the NHS since its inception. There is a difference, which I know all Members recognise, between the DNA—for want of a better way of putting it—of social care provision, which has evolved through the link to local authorities, and the NHS, which has a more vertical, national structure. That goes to the heart of the different DNA of those two complementary—vitally complementary—parts of the system. We have to remember that history.
That is reflected in the clear belief, which is shared across both sides of the House, that in various ways the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable to this House and, through that, to the public for the performance of the NHS. It is therefore only right that once NHS England has made the appointment, the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable, should give final approval for the appointment of the chair. It is an important role in the ICB, as I am sure all Members would agree, and it is right and proper that the Secretary of State ensures that the appointment is appropriate. That is why, I fear, we cannot accept amendment 50, which would remove that mechanism.
At this point, it might be helpful to address the shadow Minister’s point about councillors. We need to draw a distinction between their role on ICPs and on ICBs. ICBs are the NHS accountable body for the spending of public money. As is already the case, the NHS is clear that it does not approve of dual accountability, so when someone is directly accountable for the spending of NHS money, they are required to have that as their role and to not have multiple roles. That applies to the chair and the chief exec, as is consistent with current practice. I discussed that at some length with the chief executive of the NHS when she was chief operating officer. Quite rightly, given my background and the shadow Minister’s, I sought her guidance and that is the conclusion we reached.
Amendment 31 suggests that the chair of the ICB should be appointed via local elections. That brings in a new element to the accountability relationship, which, again, could give rise to the perception of conflicting accountability routes, given that the genesis of how the NHS is currently structured has been as a national health service. The amendment risks introducing a degree of tension into that relationship. Given the importance, as the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly said, of having the right, highly skilled and able people in all these roles, it is appropriate that the mechanism we propose seeks to balance local knowledge and national accountability.
The shadow Minister or perhaps the hon. Member for Bristol South—forgive me if it was—asked what happens if there is discord within an ICB or challenges to the authority, capacity or capability of an individual chair. Essentially, we come down to the constitution of the ICB. Paragraph 8 of schedule 2 sets out how that would work, and NHS England will be producing guidance. Ultimately, NHS England will have the power to remove a chair should issues arise that necessitate that, but there will be further guidance on how that would work and what thresholds there might be.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised an important point: what is the mechanism in the hopefully unlikely event that that should occur? Chairs are subject to normal recruitment processes, and NHS England’s approach to appointments has been to work with the existing ICSs, including both NHS providers and local authorities, to ensure that the chairs appointed are high quality, credible and have the confidence of their local systems. Similarly, to ensure democratic involvement, ICBs have strong duties in relation to public and patient involvement, and local authorities must appoint, by right, a representative to the ICB.
Before I turn to amendments 51 and 52, the hon. Gentleman raised some challenge about the design document, its status and whether it appeared to prejudge the House’s deliberations. I want to reassure him: the key word in terms of that document is that it is in “draft” form—it is not formalised, and it is not the final document, because he is right. However, it does allows the non-statutory ICSs to be given a degree of guidance to continue their evolution, rather than all work stopping while we deliberate. Should the House pass the legislation that means ICSs become statutory, that document would have greater force. However, we are not seeking to pre-empt or pre-judge the will of the House. In fact, even with that caveat, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we did not publish the document in draft until after Second Reading. That recognised again that we wanted the House to have a say on the principles before we even published documents in draft form and that we are cognisant of the need to show respect to the House’s democratic processes.
Amendment 51 would mandate that NHS England consult with the board before appointing a chair, and amendment 52 would require the chair to consult with both the board and the integrated care partnership before appointing a chief executive. We fully accept the importance of both the chair and the chief executive having credibility among system leaders and the population they serve. That is why NHS England is working closely with local authorities, NHS bodies and others in the appointment process.
The Bill, at its heart—again, we will come to the question of balance—aims to strip out needless bureaucracy by removing processes that we believe add little in terms of ensuring high-quality or safe care and that could get in the way of collaborative, smooth decision making. The amendment to formally require consultation on the appointment of the chief executive would create an unnecessary formal requirement, as well as potentially duplicative work, given that we would anticipate this happening informally anyway, and having due regard to that.
We believe that the approach taken in the Bill ensures both patients and the public have a strong voice on ICBs while also ensuring that the accountability arrangements set out by the chief executive in her oral evidence are maintained upwards as well, to the House and the Secretary of State. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to consider not pressing all his amendments to a vote.
Justin Madders
We have had an interesting debate, and I think we have seen the stark differences in approach. Certainly, Labour colleagues see the proposal as an obvious thing to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, the NHS will account for about 40% of all Government expenditure, so it seems obvious to want some kind of accountability for how it is spent on a local basis. The Government have decided to split the NHS up into 42 areas, so this seems an obvious thing to do, but I appreciate that the Minister comes at this from a completely different perspective. It might say something about the culture of the NHS and perhaps the insularity in how it does things.
When the Minister talked about not being here in two years’ time, he was of course referring to the inevitable promotion that he is due. Perhaps he will be promoted to the Home Office, in which case he will be dealing with police and crime commissioners. Perhaps at that point he will be persuaded of the benefit of having locally elected individuals responsible for services. Of course, we did not have police and crime commissioners until the coalition Government decided to import them from America, and although there is certainly a degree of scepticism about them, if they are a good thing for policing, I see no reason why the NHS should not embark on a similar route.
I envisage some tension between those who sit on an ICB who have some democratic mandate, perhaps from the local authority, and those who do not. Would they be seen to have greater legitimacy? Would their vote carry more weight than other ICB members, because it could be argued that, in the eyes of the public, it would? I think that we are storing up problems for further down the line. If we are to see this levelling up—this renaissance of place—in towns and cities up and down the country, we will need a focal point in all our public services, and none is more important than health and social care.
The Minister suggested that those involved in NHS England might not be appointing people in the most straightforward manner. I was certainly not implying that in my comments, because, as he conceded—this makes me wonder why he is not prepared to support amendment 50—all these appointments still require the approval of the Secretary of State. That is the bottom line. If that is not necessary and the Minister has full confidence in NHS England to make the right appointments, we do not need the Secretary of State’s approval, so the Minister can support amendment 50.
Turning back to amendment 31, which I will press to a vote, we think that a focal point of local accountability is vital. When something goes wrong, when decisions are made that people are unhappy about, or when people just want answers, they need a figurehead that they can go to. They need someone they can hold to account at the ballot box, as is our democratic tradition in this country. I do not think that they will get that with ICBs. If the Minister does not support the amendment, I really think this will be a missed opportunity, and I hope that in future years he will think again on this point.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 32, page 120, line 26, in schedule 2, at end insert—
“(d) at least one member nominated by the mental health trust or trusts that provide mental health services within the integrated care board’s area;
(e) at least one member nominated by the Directors of Public Health that serve each local authority within the integrated care board’s area;
(f) at least one member nominated jointly by any NHS trust, NHS foundation trust and local authority that provides social care services within the integrated care board’s area;
(g) at least one member nominated by the trade unions representing the health and social care workforce that serves the integrated care board’s area;
(h) at least one member appointed to represent the voice of patients in the integrated care board’s area.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to have members nominated by Directors of Public Health, mental health trusts, social care providers and trade union representatives and a member representing patients.
The amendment seeks to enhance the prescribed members of the integrated care board. We have not been able to move the Minister on the chairing, but I hope we might be able to do a bit better on the board members.
These are exceptionally important roles. The decisions that these bodies make will shape communities and lives. As we have heard, the boards will be accountable for spending hundreds of billions of pounds of public money. We are banking on their leaders taking good care of that very profound responsibility, and taking integration from an academic concept, or something that is seen in some places, to a real-world idea across the country. That is a big ask, and we need the very best people on the boards and the best range of voices.
Prior to coming to this place, I was a system leader in my local health system. I chaired my health and wellbeing board for a number of years and led my council’s health and care functions. That dual responsibility is hard, because our every instinct is to think “system first”—certainly in local government, because we know that the best prize and the best step changes in the wellbeing of the community come when organisations work together. We know that, but we also butt up against the grinding realities of one-year budget cycles and diminishing financial resources, so we find ourselves in one meeting—a board meeting perhaps—where we are desperately trying to move forward the cause of integration, or the common cause of the shared vision in a community, but we know that when we get back we have to meet finance colleagues in local government, and there is a reality to that.
That duality is really hard. I always likened it—people rolled their eyes in my health and wellbeing boards, and they may roll their eyes in this Committee too—to playing for an international football team, because people come from their clubs, but they come together for a common purpose. They wear a different shirt. The reason that matters is that they do not forget who they were previously—none of that goes away—but in that moment, they are trying to work in a common cause and put aside any of the parochial or local differences they have. That worked best with a balanced and diverse set of voices and experiences around the table, and I do not think that the Bill supports the appointment and assembly of a balanced and diverse set of voices.
The more I have listened to the Minister, the more concerned I have become about that issue, because on two occasions he has characterised integrated care boards as essentially NHS fund-holding bodies that therefore sit within the NHS accountability structures. I absolutely agree that that is true, certainly in this schedule, but in that case, is this not just a bigger CCG with an integrated care partnership moored to it? What really is different here?
We have said throughout—and have been told that we are wrong, and perhaps overly cynical in saying so—that this is an NHS reorganisation Bill, not an integration Bill. I am afraid that the Prime Minister rather weakened Ministers’ arguments by saying that there needs to be an integration White Paper, which I thought was an extraordinary indictment of this legislation. If this is a Bill regarding integration, who is integrating with who? There do not seem to be multiple parties; there seems to be a single party, perhaps with different elements and slightly different email addresses, but still with broadly the same accountability structures. At this point, this does not feel like integration.
In the previous sitting, the Minister described the current composition of the boards as a de minimis one, and said that there could be more members. I hope there is an expectation—he might address this when he replies—that generally, there would be more than the five people currently set out. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of schedule 2 set out the minimum of five members who will form the integrated care boards: the chair and the chief executive—there must be two of them—and then one member to represent all the NHS trusts, one person to represent primary care, and one person to represent all the local authorities in the area. The first time I read about those three ordinary members, I thought, “Those poor people.” One person to represent all the trusts in an area? One to represent all the local authorities in an area? Goodness me, that is a challenge.
I understand that the Minister is not keen to be overly prescriptive beyond what is in the Bill, and that there is a desire to strike a balance between being permissive and being prescriptive—trust me, nobody gets more frustrated with people in London telling people in Nottingham what to do than I do. However, given what is in the rest of schedule 2, I think the Minister is in danger of undermining that argument.
As we have heard, paragraph 4 says that only NHS England can choose the chair; paragraph 5 says that only NHS England can remove the chair; paragraph 14(2)(a) says that NHS England can vary the constitution of a local integrated care board; and paragraph 14(2)(b) says that NHS England can stop any other amendments to that constitution. We should not give too much succour to the idea that this part of the Bill is going to be particularly permissive, and that there is not going to be prescription in there. Of course there is, because we want local communities to shape their planning and their approaches, but we also think that there are minimums—I think we could find a level of commonality relatively easily—and we want to establish them as a backstop. Obviously, we have five here, but I think we ought to go a bit further.
As such, my amendment suggests five other members, the first of whom would be a representative of a mental health trust or similar. Again, if the Minister thinks I am wrong or that I have misunderstood this, I would be keen to hear from him, but I think it is exceptionally unlikely that the ordinary member chosen to fill the role described in paragraph 7(2)(a) on behalf of NHS trusts in a particular integrated care board footprint would not be from the biggest acute trust in that patch, or at least from one of its acute trusts. Our big hospitals are the gravitational centres of a local health system. They are totemic to a local population, they are massive financially, and they are exceptionally powerful in terms of soft power in a community. That means that there is one place and that place is gone, so once again, there is nothing for mental health.
We talk so often in this place about the need for parity of esteem between mental and physical health, but this is an opportunity to demonstrate that in practice, and we are not taking it. Beyond the fact that we ought to be putting mental and physical health on an equal footing, so many of the knotty issues that we will want local health systems to tackle will be rooted in issues relating to mental ill health, so I think there needs to be a voice at that table that can give balance to the decision making.
Edward Timpson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I understand his desire to try to push the agenda of some very important parts of our healthcare system, including mental health. Is he cognisant of the evidence that we heard from Dame Gill Morgan, who has already set up an ICS and who has perhaps done some of the testing for us on what works best? She said:
“In our case, we will have mental health and social care around the table, not because we are told to but because we could not imagine how we could do our work at a local level without having those people feeling that they are full partners and sitting around the table.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 133, Q186.]
Does the hon. Gentleman think it is important that we listen and learn from the experience to date in order to ensure that—to use the hon. Gentleman’s football analogy—we do not have too many people on the pitch? The analogy falls down, because it is possible to have only 11 on a football pitch. The danger is that we end up with too many people, which is unworkable and unmanageable.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention—I am going to stop at 10. That evidence actually supports the point the I am making. When we heard that evidence, the witness said that it was automatic to them, but of course we would want someone from a mental health background and someone from a social care background. I completely agree. What I am saying is that if that is so clear and obvious, which I believe it is, why on earth would we not put it in the Bill? It was clear and obvious enough that we wanted to have someone on behalf of local authorities, and that we wanted someone on behalf of primary care. If it is clear and obvious in those cases, it is clear and obvious in these, too. That was my reasoning, and it was obviously echoed in the evidence submitted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Mental Health Foundation. That is the first thing I want to say about the amendment.
The second relates to a director of public health drawn from that patch. Goodness me—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said this morning, if anyone has proven themselves under fire over the last 18 months, it is our incredible DPHs. With a unique combination of knowledge, training, local insight and cross-system relationships, they have done an extraordinary job for us in pulling together our approach to the pandemic. We should be using that to pull together our approach to all sorts of big issues that we face in our local communities.
The DPHs are the human embodiment of our communities’ joint strategic needs assessment. They bring that to life, and they could bring that to the table. If we want our system leaders to go beyond their organisational concerns when they go into their integrated care board meeting, who better than the person who develops the insight into system need? The DPH is exactly the right person. They also provide an invaluable director-level connection to all the departments of the local authority that have such a profound impact on the wider determinants of health—housing, leisure and planning. What a wealth of knowledge, and what connections, they would bring to the table.
Thirdly, the amendment provides for a designated social care representative. The stated aim of the Bill is to drive integration and to foster collaboration between health and care partners. I really want that to be the case, rather than this being just a reorganisation Bill. It is a 135-clause Bill, and two of the clauses are about social care, so it is not unreasonable to say that perhaps there is an imbalance. Rather like the much-hyped social care reform and funding plan that the Government are discussing downstairs at the moment, the clauses in the Bill neither reform nor, in the main part, fund social care. Again, social care is left trailing behind. It has been battered for 11 years and, as a result, we see rationed care, dreadful terms and conditions for staff, and services that are just not fit for what they were supposed do. If the Bill really is about fostering collaboration, social care ought to be explicitly represented.
I am conscious that there is a nominated local authority representative under paragraph 7(2)(c) of schedule 2, but that person will already have quite a lot on their plate. They will have to represent the broader views of the entire local government family. Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is probably one of the simpler planning footprints in the country, but it is still 11 counties, and representing all those views at once is very difficult. It is too much—and not credible—to represent not only 11 council chief executives, but 11 directors of adult social care and children’s social care, as well as all the other functions of the local authority. A social care lead, who convenes the social care leads in the given geography, would give the ICBs the specialist knowledge and insight to create and foster the environment for a true partnership between health and care.
Fourthly and penultimately, amendment 32 would replace the staff voice through recognised trade unions. As has already been mentioned, our health and social care services are well served with amazing staff. They are our experts. They are the people who feel things on the frontline and who know, when they go, “Here we go—here’s a new initiative”, whether it is practical and rooted in real-world experience. They have that very direct experience of population health and how it is changing over time.
The staff are the ones telling us about the fractures in the health and care system that make their jobs harder—the fractures we are supposed to be dealing with. They were the ones—boy, should we have listened to them then!—who told the Government very clearly what the impact of the 2012 reforms would be on the system and about the greater fracturing of the system. They were not listened to then, but they should have been and they should be now.
Prior to coming here, I was a union organiser. I know one thing for sure: senior management always think they can speak for the staff, but I am afraid they generally cannot. That is not a criticism; their lives at work are very different. The health and care family is better served when all aspects are covered, rather than some speaking for others. If we are going to develop really significant plans at these boards, the discussion would be incredibly enriched if the voice of the frontline was there, to sense-check things, to highlight things that are working already and the workarounds that staff develop as time goes on, and to assist on planning as well. There is an awful lot they could contribute.
Finally, and crucially, let us have a representative of the patient voice. The whole reason why any of us come to this place is that we want to give communities a voice. We think that is important. The key way we do that is to listen to people. If we do not, we do not do very well for very long.
We want our communities to have brilliant health and care services, but sometimes we make it harder for them to tell us what they want. We have tremendous mechanisms for finding out. The evidence of Sir Robert Francis from Healthwatch was particularly pertinent on not just using numbers, but the wealth of qualitative information. Let us have someone who is an expert by experience and who can draw on and bring that with them, and speak for thousands of other experts by experience. We must believe that they have as much to contribute as senior leaders. Not only would they bring insight, but it would give legitimacy to decision making, which is something that we have real concerns about, as we have said on discussion on multiple groups of amendments.
Those are the extra five members we are suggesting. If anyone listening at home is keeping score, that means five members—the chair, the chief executive, the acute lead, the primary care lead and the mental health lead—who owe their employment fundamentally to the NHS, and five—the local authority lead, the DPH, the social care representative, the staff representative and the patient representative—who do not.
If the Bill is about integrating and not about a restructure and reorganisation that involves the big acutes taking on the rest of the system, that might be quite an elegant balance. Of course, local systems could seek to augment that, which would be a matter for them, but this would be a very solid foundation, which I think enriches the board. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Dr Whitford
I, too, rise to support the amendment. This is probably one of the most important amendments so far. In the witness discussion, we came back time and again to which voices would be on the ICB and would be able to influence. I agree that, with all the talk of parity of esteem, it seems incredible that there would not be a voice representing the importance of mental health on the board. Similarly, with the talk of moving to population health and wellbeing, there is a need for directors of public health to agree policy and to feed in information about the underlying health inequalities, life expectancy and so on in the local population. Not to have a social care voice when what the Government say is that they are trying to integrate the NHS with social care seems quite bizarre.
The NHS and social care are both services delivered by people for people and having both the workforce and staff voice, and the patient voice, is therefore important. On the staff voice, the “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” report from the Nuffield Trust highlights that the success of both the Scottish patient safety programme and the Scottish quality improvement standards was driven by the fact that frontline staff were involved as drivers, champions and developers from the word go. These programmes have been able to run over years, building on experience that is then shared with other sectors and specialities. It is important to get this part of the Bill right, or else priority will not be given to integration, population health or wellbeing. Of all the things that have been discussed so far in Committee, and through the witness statements, this amendment is one of the most important.
Edward Argar
This is an important amendment because it goes to the heart of the debate we have been having about permissive versus prescriptive, and where the appropriate balance is. I suspect we slightly disagree on that—perhaps a little less than one might suppose—but I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, for bringing this amendment forward. It gives us the opportunity to start getting into that permissive versus prescriptive debate. At the outset he raised the recent announcement by the Prime Minister about integration; it will not surprise him when I say that I believe this creates the foundations of that integration, on which we can continue to build in the coming years.
In respect of the specifics of the amendment, schedule 2 sets out minimum membership of the integrated care board. That is the key element here. It will need to include members nominated by trusts, foundation trusts, persons who provide primary medical services in the ICB area and local authorities. As we heard in the witness sessions, this is very much de minimis—it is not what will happen; it is the baseline, above which each system can go if it wishes to reflect local needs and priorities. We have heard the quote from Dame Gill Morgan about how she is approaching it, but we have also heard from Richard Murray of the King’s Fund, who said:
“You could easily criticise the degree of permissiveness; you could criticise the degree of direction in there. The question should be, ‘Can anyone come up with a better one?’ We have not been able to do so, so I think it is a balance well drawn.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 09 September 2021; c. 127, Q173.]
I appreciate that shadow Ministers may take a different view because they feel they have come up with a better balance. However, I highlight that evidence before I go into my answer.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, Dame Gill Morgan is quoted as saying that no one could evenly remotely think of setting up an ICS without primary care voices—and these other voices. Are all interim ICSs that have developed so far following the same model as she is? Is this totally intuitive, and therefore to be relied on, or should it actually be laid down? The voices listed in this amendment are central.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady and I have spoken about “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” before; as she will know, we are not dogmatic and are always happy to learn from Scotland’s NHS—as, I am sure, it is happy to learn from England’s NHS. That is to the benefit of everyone, and I am very grateful to her for inviting me on Second Reading to come and visit Scotland and see it on the ground, which I hope to do.
The reality is that the ICSs at the moment, on a non-statutory footing, are at different stages of development, different stages of evolution and reflect different approaches. One of the things we are seeking to do here is to put a non-restrictive degree of prescription around this—if that is possible—to get a degree of consistency, but not to be too prescriptive.
Dame Gill Morgan leads one of the more developed ICSs. I do not think what she is saying would be unrepresentative of the attitudes and approaches adopted by ICSs more broadly. I should say ICBs, as the hon. Member for Bristol South rightly highlighted the importance of reflecting careful use of the terminology in the evidence sessions—she caught my eye, and I have corrected myself now. I think we strike the appropriate balance here, and I suspect we will see ICBs going further in their membership, but that flexibility is able to reflect local circumstances.
Edward Timpson
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister could assist the Committee with a question on the evidence given by Louise Patten from the ICS Network, who said that, on top of the five mandated board positions in the Bill,
“a further five will be in the mandated guidance from NHS England.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 134, Q186.]
Is that something that the Minister has been sighted on? If so, do we know what those positions are? I fear that the hon. Member for Nottingham North might have to start to move to a substitutes bench to get enough people around the table, based on his amendment.
Edward Argar
I am pleased that I do not see any signs of the hon. Member for Nottingham North moving to the substitutes bench any time soon. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to pre-empt the detail of the guidance, but, as Louise Patten said, the whole purpose of this is to provide the ability to further supplement what is on the face of the legislation with guidance that the ICBs will have regard to.
Justin Madders
Perhaps the Minister can help me. When I read the guidance, I understood that it meant that there would be at least 10 individuals on any ICB. Does the Minister think that is the correct number?
Edward Argar
The key focus for this amendment is what the legislation sets out in this clause, and that is the five positions—that is what we want to specify on the face of the legislation. I will come to the detailed guidance, but first I will go through a few of the remarks from the hon. Member for Nottingham North in support of his amendment.
At the heart of the issue is our desire for the provisions of the Bill not to be too prescriptive regarding the membership requirement, beyond that proposed statutory minimum. The guidance is a different matter from what is in the actual legislation; we want the statute to specify that de minimis. We believe that it gives the right approach and balance, having key voices and local flexibility to add voices—including those the hon. Member has proposed, but others as well—and that it reflects the evidence given by Martin Marshall, who said that the boards have to be kept to a workable size to be able to make decisions effectively. Again, that is permissive.
I come back to the point that local ICBs can appoint more members, should they wish to do so. They can go significantly beyond the legislative minimum requirements if they so choose. Therefore, we do not believe that prescribing further membership is necessary. Of course, schedule 2 states that ICBs will need to publish details of their membership in their constitutions. Under clause 13, proposed new section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, NHS England will need to approve the constitution proposed by each ICB. Again, we come back to that approval process.
Justin Madders
Of course, the evidence from the Gloucestershire ICS was that of course those individuals—some of whom are included in our amendment—would be on the ICB. From our perspective, it is clear that all the individuals we have named are critical players in any local health system. Could the Minister set out which of those included in our list, if any, he does not think would be appropriate to sit on an ICB?
Edward Argar
I think that all add value, but equally, in some circumstances, we see different local arrangements; in some localities, some people fulfil more than one role or sit in different places.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to cover his specific point about the guidance before I conclude: the guidance will not prescribe additional roles in the same way that legislation prescribes or mandates, but it does seek to set out best practice, highlighting what would be deemed to be best practice—drawing on experiences such as Dame Gill’s, I suspect. We would expect that ICBs would pay due heed to that guidance, alongside their de minimis legal and statutory obligations.
If in time, when those ICBs are up and running, it becomes clear that that approach needs strengthening and that we need to add further requirements, regulation-making powers in schedule 2 will allow the Secretary of State to do so at a later point. We believe that it is right to start at this de minimis point in the Bill. It reflects our view, which I have articulated throughout, that we must not attempt to over-legislate at this stage on the composition of ICBs, letting them evolve as effective local entities, to reflect local needs. It may not fully reassure the hon. Gentleman, but there is a mechanism whereby further changes could be made in future, although we do not believe that will be necessary.
The amendment takes a different approach, which is essentially more prescriptive and less permissive. I do not dispute the sincerity of that approach, but it comes down to a matter of where we feel the appropriate balance should be struck. I fear that, although the shadow Minister and I are quite close to one another in our region of the east midlands, we are slightly more distant in respect of the amendment, but I am grateful to him for affording the Committee the ability to debate a key point of principle in the approach to the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for her contribution and for sponsoring our amendment. She spoke about the way staff have not only improved patient safety and the quality improvement programmes, but made them stand the test of time. We are sometimes in danger—the Bill is a good example—of building things that do not stand the test of time and keep being changed, and she went through all the various situations. If we pass any test, it should be that one. The amendment is certainly one way of improving our chances on that.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, too. I understand the de minimis point, but I still cannot envisage a scenario in which we would not want a mental health rep on the board. I live in undoubtedly the best place in England—in Nottingham—but we still have mental health problems and need mental health leaders. If we need mental health reps, and we certainly do, I think that everybody probably does.
The Minister’s response did not quite address the point about balance. The balance of the five members is four NHS and one non-NHS. The whole business maxim is no mergers, only takeovers. If the provision is really about integration and partners coming together on an equal footing to improve the population’s health, everything that we have heard so far does not fit with that. What we have heard so far is about organising this round with the terms of reference that NHS England wants, and if local communities and local authorities wish to be part of that and know their role within it, that is absolutely fine. I think we should aspire to do better, so I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26 at end insert—
“(2A) The constitution must prohibit representatives of GP practices with active Alternative Provider Medical Services contracts from becoming members.”
This amendment would mean that the only GPs able to participate in integrated care boards would be those whose practices are on the standard General Medical Services (GMS) contract.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 33, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26, at end insert—
“(2B) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to integrated care boards.”
This amendment prevents private providers of healthcare services from becoming members of integrated care boards.
Amendment 27, in clause 20, page 29, line 9, at end insert—
“(4) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to integrated care partnerships.”
This amendment prevents private providers of healthcare services from becoming members of Integrated Care Partnerships.
Alex Norris
We have not had success with chairs, and we have not had success with who should be on the board, so we move on to who should not be on the board. Let us see whether this alternative tack might prize the Minister away from not giving us his support.
The amendment would mean that representatives of GP practices with alternative provider medical services, or APMS, contracts were prohibited from participating in integrated care boards. That would mean that, under schedule 2, they could not provide that primary care representative.
Let me briefly explain the context. The vast majority of practices—nearly 70%—operate under the general medical services, or GMS, model. That is the standard contract and the most usual model of partnership whereby a CCG or NHS England contracts with a local general practice. Another quarter or so operate on personal medical services, or PMS, models. There is a little more flexibility for commissioners to tailor to local need—this is not agreed as a standard contract like the GMS at national level—and again the arrangement is with a local practice. However, these are not particularly en vogue; they are being phased out, I understand.
That leaves the remaining portion, which is on APMS. That is a much more flexible contracting model and very much a child of the previous decade. Here, commissioners can contract with organisations other than GPs or GP partnerships, and can contract, for example, with private companies.
APMS contracts—without that GP requirement and with shorter durations—offer the easiest way for large private companies to take over practices. Those are companies motivated by profits, rather than their patients, and their having a voice on the board would run contrary to what I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee seek to achieve. I would say it was contrary to the triple aim of the Bill.
However, this is a model on the march and one that could change general practice beyond recognition. My colleagues and I do not think it should exist, but we will make our case on that when we deal with clause 16 and amendments 28 and 29, so I shall have to keep the Committee in suspense. The amendment would mean that a representative from such an APMS partnership could not be part of the ICB and could not fill that place.
As my colleagues and I have made clear previously, we think it paramount that the Bill put patients front and centre. For many patients, using the health service begins and ends with their GP for big parts of their life. The GP is someone they have known for years, someone they can trust and someone who plays an active role in and knows their community.
The pandemic has created some access issues, but the care that people have received is still exceptional. The latest GP survey found that 89% of patients said that the healthcare professional they last saw was good at listening to them and giving them enough time, 88% said that that healthcare professional was good at treating them with concern, and 93% said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. Our local GPs are really good and do the job really well. It is not much of a stretch to think that those are the sort of people that the public want speaking for them in these ICB structures. That would be very welcome.
We also know that, whether my supposition that the ICBs are going to be really big CCGs is right or not, CCGs had significant involvement from primary care clinicians and the ICBs will have less. That is definitely a point beyond contention, but there is still a reserved place on the board. However, this is a perfect opportunity for local GP leaders to fill that space, and with regard to APMS contracts, I do not think that those representatives will provide that same involvement.
I appreciate that the numbers will be relatively small—indeed, this might be quite unlikely to happen—but we should bear it in mind that APMS contracts do not require a GP to be a contract holder. They do not offer the same benefits to an ICB as a general or personal medical services contract holder, who is contractually required to be a GP. That is a significant difference. This position on the board should bring important perspective; it should not be wasted.
This is about two things: first, showing the best possible voice and secondly, putting a stop on creeping privatisation. Ministers have been at great pains earlier in the process, and certainly on Second Reading, to say that this is not about privatisation. Well, this is a very good chance to prove that.
Justin Madders
I would like to speak to amendment 33, which is grouped with amendment 30. I will try to address the real concerns that were so eloquently described by the British Medical Association. It said that there are huge risks and absolutely no benefits from having out and out private companies sitting on integrated care boards. Nothing in the Bill remedies that conflict to allow those companies to sit on integrated care boards at the same as allowing them to comply with their statutory duty to their shareholders in manner that anyone could feel comfortable about.
We know that spending in the private sector before the pandemic in 2019-20 was £9.7 billion. I accept that those figures before the pandemic are probably the fairest to cite, but that sum is still double what it was a decade earlier under the last Labour Government. We have seen the creep from the private sector in recent years and we need to put an end to that.
Amendment 33 is not about the amount spent on private providers but about who runs the NHS, not just who profits from it. For us, there is a complete and utter incompatibility between the aim of a private company and what we say should be the aims of the NHS and ICBs. I can do no better than refer to the evidence of Dr Chaand Nagpaul, who last week said:
“We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do.
We only have to look back at the last year. Compare the vaccination programme run by the NHS and delivered by NHS staff to Test and Trace. Even with Test and Trace, compare the £400 million that Public Health England had to the billions that went to the private sector, and local public health teams reached 97% of contacts compared to 60% for the others. I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away.” ––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 90, Q113.]
Those final words sum up our concerns perfectly. Put a company on the board and their interests last as long as their contract. Of course, their interests may not be the same as the NHS’s during that period anyway. With that clear and, we believe, unanswerable concern about conflicts of interest there must be a solution in the Bill. As it stands, there is not, and that is what amendment 33 seeks to remedy. We hope that the Minister recognises the opportunity that this presents and goes one step beyond his colleague, Lord Bethell, who said in response to a written question:
“We do not expect independent providers to have seats on the ICB.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 August 2021; Vol. 814, c. 56.]
What he expects and what is actually in the legislation is not the same.
We have already seen in the south-west private providers lining themselves up to have a big say in how local NHS systems are run. If it is the Government’s position that they do not expect private companies to sit on the board, do they say that because they do not believe it will happen, or because they do not want it to happen? If they do not want that to happen, they should support the amendment. If they do not support it, and if they refuse to join us in trying to legislate to stop private companies getting involved in the running of the NHS, all the people who believed that the Government were determined to increase private sector involvement in the NHS will be entitled to say, “We must be right.”
When presented with the opportunity to put a halt to further private involvement, not only did the Government not support the proposals from Labour, but they actively voted against them. All the words about what the Government expect will count for nothing because when it comes to the crunch, the Government will have sided with the private companies, some of which, let us not forget, have actually sued the NHS when they have not got their own way. Is that the kind of collaboration and integration that we want to see in ICBs? Remember when Circle walked away from Hinchingbrooke because the contract was too tough. Was that in the spirit of joint working? No, it was not. We should be absolutely clear in this Committee and support the amendment that says that private companies should not be running or having a say in the running of ICBs.
Dr Whitford
Although this was described as an evolutionary piece of legislation that would not involve a lot of upheaval for the NHS, it actually does. It is a significant piece of legislation, but it represents a missed opportunity to go back to a unified public NHS with integrated care bodies as the main structure. They are responsible for spending billions of pounds of public money, but the system will still be a transactional one based on a purchaser-provider split and tariffs. We will talk further about how can inhibit development.
If we are to have a purchaser-provider split, we have to have a split. We cannot get away from the conflict of interest inherent in having private providers who seek contracts to deliver care sitting on the very board that makes those decisions, or on the partnership board that will develop the strategy. That is a conflict of interest. It should be resolved, and the amendment should be supported.
Edward Argar
With your indulgence, Ms Elliott, I will turn to amendment 33 first. Integrated care boards will be NHS bodies, whose membership consists, at a minimum, of individuals appointed by NHS providers, providers of GP services and local authorities that coincide with the ICB. Any perceived risk of privatisation through the ICB membership provisions is, I believe, entirely unfounded—and, I feel bound to add, potentially unfair to the many public servants in the NHS who work for ICBs. Although service provision—I emphasise the word “provision”—by the independent and voluntary sectors has been, and continues to be, an important and valuable feature of this country’s healthcare system under successive Governments of all political complexions, it was never the intention for independent providers, as corporate entities, to sit on integrated care boards, nor for an individual to be appointed there to be a representative of such an interest in any capacity.
People must therefore be assured that the work of integrated care boards is driven by health outcomes, not by profits, and I am sure that there will be a consensus on that principle across this Committee. That is why there are already safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of the public and the NHS are always put first. The ICB chair has the power to veto members of the board if they are unsuitable, and NHSE has the power to issue guidance to ICBs in relation to appointments as part of its general guidance-making power. That sits alongside the robust requirements on ICBs to manage conflicts of interests, and NHSE’s wider duty to issue guidance to ICBs.
I turn to amendment 30, which seeks to exclude individuals whose GP practice holds an alternative provider medical services contract from being made a member of an ICB. APMS contractors include some private and third-sector organisations, but also some GP partnerships. These contractors include, for example, social enterprises and partnerships that provide services to homeless people and asylum seekers. This amendment would potentially prevent some individuals from being on ICBs, on the basis of the type of NHS GP contract that their practice holds.
I do appreciate the intent behind the amendments, namely the desire to avoid the appearance, and potentially even the risk, of privatisation and conflicts of interest. However, the effect would be to limit the ability of primary medical service providers to appoint an ICB member who might best meet the requirements of the local population, by reducing the diversity of GPs who could be appointed. While I can understand the intent behind them, I fear that these amendments do not do what they seek to do, and they would have unintended consequences. I will turn to those shortly.
We recognise that the involvement of the private sector, in all its forms, in ICBs is a matter of significant concern to Members in the House, and we are keen to put the point beyond doubt. However, having taken appropriate advice, I am afraid that that these amendments would not cover a number of scenarios—for example, lobbyists for private providers, or those with a strong ideological commitment to the private sector—and they would therefore not be watertight
As it stands, these amendments may well not offer the robust assurance that perhaps hon. Members intended. Therefore—this is where I may surprise the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston—to put this matter beyond doubt, we propose to bring forward a Government amendment on Report to protect the independence of ICBs by preventing individuals with significant interests in private healthcare from sitting on them.
As hon. Members will know from their attempts to draft these amendments, avoiding unintended consequences is not a simple matter. If appropriate, I would be happy to engage with either the hon. Member for Nottingham North or the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston in advance of Report. We may not reach a consensus, but, as they both know, I am always happy to have a conversation with them.
The Government are firmly committed to the founding principles of the NHS. We recognise the importance of its values, and the public service ethos that animates it. It is by no means our intention to allow private sector providers to influence, or to make, decisions on spending on the commissioning board—the ICB—and the spending of public money. The Bill does not allow that, but we will look to see whether we can find a way to put that unfounded fear to bed once and for all with an appropriately worded amendment that does not have unintended consequences.
Although I appreciate that much the same motive underpins amendment 27, it is worth considering why the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership are different bodies. The decision to create integrated care partnerships came from discussions with a number of stakeholders who revealed a strong case for the creation of a committee to consider strategically not only the health needs but the broader social care and public health needs of a population. It is not a body like the ICP, as we have heard, which will be directly accountable for the spending of NHS monies.
We therefore do not intend to specify membership for the ICP in the Bill, as we want local areas to be able to appoint members as they think appropriate. To support that, we have recently been working with NHS England and the Local Government Association to publish an ICP engagement document setting out the role of integrated care partnerships and supporting local authorities, integrated care boards and other key stakeholders to consider what arrangements might work best in their areas.
We would expect members of the ICP to be drawn from a very wide variety of sources and backgrounds, including the health and wellbeing boards within the system; partner organisations with an interest in health and care, such as Healthwatch; and potentially voluntary and independent sector partners and social care providers at that level, as well as organisations with wider interests in local priorities, such as housing providers.
To exclude independent providers from both the ICB and the ICP would, I fear, risk severely reducing the extent to which all parts of the broader health and care ecosystem could be drawn upon in the ICP context. It would exclude valuable expertise and would, for example, prevent social care providers who provide a small amount of domiciliary care to the NHS from sitting on the ICP. Furthermore, the ICP will not make commissioning decisions or enter into contractual arrangements that are binding, or make decisions about who gets funding allocations. Those are functions conferred on the ICB, hence the distinction that I make.
I therefore believe that membership of individuals from independent providers on the ICP does not present a conflict of interest in the way that hon. Members have asserted, certainly in the context of the ICB. I suspect that we may debate that further in the coming weeks, but taken with the ICB and the comments that I have made, we believe that this provides the right balance between recognising the distinctive accountabilities and responsibilities of the NHS, local authorities and other partners, and strongly encouraging areas to go further in developing joint working.
I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance to Opposition Members, and that they will be willing—I see them nodding—to engage with me to see whether we might find a greater degree of consensus. I should also say that I will obviously speak to the Scottish National party spokesperson on this as well, as I have done throughout. I addressed my remarks to the shadow Minister, but of course I extend that offer to her. I hope that on that basis, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Alex Norris
If the Bill is about collaboration, we ought to model that here. Given that very gracious offer, I am very happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 33 to schedule 2, which has just been debated. Justin Madders, do you wish to move the amendment formally?
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s concessions, we wait with interest to see what we can work together on to achieve the aim that appears to be shared across the Committee, so we will not move amendment 33.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are going to continue with schedule 2. I call Alex Norris to move amendment 34.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 34, in schedule 2, page 120, line 26, at end insert—
“(2C) The constitution must require integrated care boards, and any committee or sub-committee of the board, to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
This amendment mandates integrated care boards, and their sub-committees including “place based committees” to meet in public and publish all papers and agendas at least five working days before each meeting is held.
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. This is a resumption of our discussion on schedule 2, which lays out the rules under which integrated care boards must meet. For all the talk of local flexibility, the reality is that the regulations are quite tight in schedule 2; the amendment seeks to tighten them a little more, but not disproportionately so.
The amendment asks for two things: first, that the boards meet in public, and, secondly, that they publish their papers five days in advance. To start with meeting in public, it has been mentioned on a number of occasions that the 42 different integrated care boards are in different states of development. There will be systems that are well advanced and model good behaviours of transparency and accountability, but we have to set regulations to ensure a minimum floor standard, and this is what the amendment does.
For a struggling system, the worst-case scenario, as we have said before, is that it can become a closed shop of leadership appointed centrally by NHS England and the leaders of the big acute trusts, because it is they who have the power and the resources. We cannot legislate to improve the culture of those systems—that is not what legislation does—but we can ensure proper oversight to try to minimise the risk, and meeting in public is a good way to do that. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as they say, and this will mean that the public have a good sense of what decisions are being taken in their interests.
A key part of that citizen oversight is to know what decisions are being taken and when. Including a provision in the constitution to publish papers with five working days’ notice seems a good way to do that. I would argue that that represents rather basic good governance, so it is a very low bar to clear. We have spoken before about wanting to allow integrated care boards to be able to vary to fit their local circumstances, but I cannot see under what circumstances it would be desirable or relevant to vary the publication of that information. I do not think there are any local circumstances that would call for that. The requirement would mean that members of the public, elected representatives and those who represent staff or anyone with a general interest would understand what is going to be decided and when, and would give them the opportunity to make representations so that the board members are making decisions in the full knowledge of the facts and the views of the broader system.
In the amendment, that requirement also applies to all committees or sub-committees. This matters, because we heard in the evidence sessions that it is almost inevitable that every system will want to establish sub-committees, both thematic—we heard from the system in Gloucestershire about its primary-care themed one, which I thought was a very desirable way to use a sub-committee—or, inevitably, given what we have said about the size of the footprints of some of the integrated care boards, place-based. It is important that the provision applies to those bodies too.
The question matters even more to the integrated care partnership and its status, and I hope the Minister will be able to address it. My reading of clause 20 and proposed new section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 states that this is a committee of the integrated care board and the local authority. I would argue that that remains an oddity, because the process was pitched to us on the idea that we have an integrated care board that will be the official NHS fund-holding body, but then we have the integrated care partnership that will provide the broader involvement on an equivalent basis, not as a sub-committee. I hope that point can be addressed, but nevertheless it will be important for that body that the public know what is being discussed and when. We will come back to clause 20, but the commitment from the Government that the meetings and papers should be public is a good thing.
Conceptually, the amendment lands the ICB and any sub-committees at about the level of an executive board of a council. That to me feels about right. The Minister may have reflections about circumstances where, by exception, the boards may need to meet in private for certain decisions, as local authorities would do. There are ways to do that for councils, so I do not think it is beyond our wit to do the same for these bodies, too. As a default, the basic principle of public meetings, with papers published five working days in advance, seems sound.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I offer my support to my hon. Friend and agree with everything he said. There may be a response from the Minister, although I do not know what he will say, but there is some discussion that perhaps the amendment is not necessary, as this already happens and the Bill refers to publishing—but that is not true. There are exemplar trusts and bodies across the country that have a culture of openness, but NHS boards are secretive and protected.
We have numerous examples of whistleblowing and good journalism uncovering the depths of NHS bureaucracy. Boards with which I have dealings, not just locally in Bristol, do a lot out of the public eye, and a culture of not liking scrutiny has evolved over a couple of decades, even though they should be really proud that people are taking an interest. We need to change that culture, and having a reference in the Bill would help.
Trade union colleagues have often come to me to complain about how they are blocked from getting key information about plans for changes. Changes are announced, and management often want to start TUPE discussions without really understanding what is behind the change. The use of freedom of information requests results in variations across the country in who responds and how they respond. That needs to stop.
The default should be to make things public unless there are reasons not to. I was a non-executive director back in the noughties, and was led by a chair who had come from local authorities—a Labour chair, but I do not think that matters. People who were used to chairing in local authorities found it quite peculiar that the NHS wanted to discuss matters in secret. As a board, we made it the case and culture that managers had to say if there was a really clear reason, and on several occasions we challenged why things were not done properly.
The new NHS is not commercial. The Government tell us that we are not quite getting rid of the purchaser-provider split, but we are moving away from competition as the driver of the health service. The confidentiality argument should be disappearing. I hope that the Minister accepts that the very highest standards now need to be set around openness and transparency and need actually to be enforced. All levels of the NHS and all these committees and sub-committees, however we end up organising them, have to be cognisant of the Nolan principles, which should drive all their work.
If a trust is finally forced by a tribunal to disclose information, it should have been provided earlier. There should be consequences. Where there is a bad culture, we need to change it. To reference my hobby-horse, there should be a business case to support every major decision. Later we will discuss my new clause 7, which comes from the pain I have experienced trying to unearth business cases, particularly in wholly owned companies and subsidiaries, to deliver facilities management. I have asked for business cases only to be told, “No, it is confidential.” There should be no need for it to be confidential at all. I do not understand how a business case can be confidential—at best, a few lines might be sensitive, but not a full business case.
That shows that NHS bodies who fear a change think they have something to hide. It is wholly wrong. If a change is proposed, the case for change should be published. We need to know why it is necessary. I would go further; I would publish all details of the tender process and the contract management. If anyone wants to do business with the NHS, which we welcome, they need to be open and transparent. It really is a test of the intention to change course and move to an integrated, collaborative model, because as we exit the market, we need to be make sure that the wellbeing of the public and the patient really comes first in commissioning. As I say, that culture needs to be changed.
To come back to my theme, ICBs need to be the bodies that the public recognise and understand as being where some sort of accountability resides. That means that nothing should be secret. Let us go further: the public has the right to question. That is what we come back to. There has to be a figurehead—ideally an elected figurehead —or non-executive directors who can be truly independent and challenge that secretive culture. I hope the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, and to the hon. Member for Bristol South for their amendment, and for their comments on it. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs and their subcommittees to meet in public, including place-based committees. To address one of his specific points, if I understood what he was saying, I think he does interpret it correctly: the ICP is a committee of the ICB, albeit a joint committee with a whole range of other organisations. I would expect the same principles to apply to it as to the ICB, and I will go through those in a second. The amendment would also require all papers and agendas relevant to those meetings to be published
“at least 5 working days before each meeting is held.”
We agree with the shadow Minister that it is right that ICBs involve the public in their decisions, and do so in a transparent and clear way. I hope that I can offer him some reassurances that the Bill already provides much of what he is asking for. Like a number of hon. Members, I served on a primary care trust board as a non-executive director, back in the days when I had more hair and it was not grey—although that might have been just a day ago, before reshuffle speculation—and I take the point that the hon. Member for Bristol South has made. We sought to be as transparent as possible, but there were occasions on which total openness to the public about consideration of certain items would not have been appropriate. I will come to those in a second.
In terms of what is already provided for, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 already places on such bodies a set of requirements to involve the public in meetings that is very similar to those in the amendment, and I suspect that Act was part of the genesis of the shadow Minister’s thinking. The Act requires meetings to be held in public, for the public to be made aware of the time and place of the meeting, and for the agenda to be published, alongside any reports or documents relevant to the agenda items. ICBs have already been included in the Act by the consequential amendments in schedule 4 to this Bill, and we may want to connect that loop up when we reach schedule 4, hopefully later today—I believe that is the intention. By using that legislation, we keep ICBs in line with the requirements placed on other public bodies, meaning that there is consistency across public bodies and they are held to the same standards.
I hope I can give some further reassurances that there are broad duties on integrated care boards to involve the public in the decision-making process, over and above those contained in the Act. Clause 19, which inserts proposed new section 14Z44 into the National Health Service Act 2006, places a duty on integrated care boards to involve and consult the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, including in respect of any planned changes to those commissioning arrangements. This will ensure that the voices of residents —those who access care and support, as well as their carers—are properly embedded in ICB decision making.
Schedule 2 to this Bill, which concerns the constitutions of integrated care boards and which we will reach shortly, states that ICB constitutions must specify how the ICB plans to discharge its duty to involve and consult the public. Moreover, those constitutions must specify the arrangements that the ICB will make to ensure that there is transparency in its decision making, and NHS England will ensure that all proposed constitutions are appropriate and include the relevant provisions to meet those obligations. Under clause 13, which inserts proposed new section 14Z25 into the 2006 Act, NHS England will need to approve the constitution when making an establishment order, and proposed new section 14Z26 makes it clear that NHS England has the power to reject a proposed constitution if it does not meet the appropriate bar.
Turning to a few specific points made by the hon. Member for Bristol South, we are still clear that competition has a role to play in this space: it is about proportionality, and seeking to achieve a better and more proportionate balance in that respect. She rightly asked about the examples of circumstances whereby it might not be appropriate to be fully transparent. I was on a primary care trust board some years ago, and there were occasions when the board would discuss specific incidents or situations that could lead to the identification of an individual or a group of individuals. Clearly, such matters would be confidential. Similarly, matters that were due to be, or were, before the courts were discussed on occasions—again, we would expect that to be confidential.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. I completely agree that where we will see the worst practices across footprints, each and every one will be secretive and not invite scrutiny, so it is very important that we set arrangements to ensure that that cannot happen.
I am grateful for the clarification that the 1960 Act will apply, which assuages my first concern. On the second, relating to the notice of board papers, the Minister has essentially said that local footprints will have to set that element of the constitution themselves, but that the safeguards and schedules will mean that NHS England has to sign them off. In that sense, there cannot be wide divergence, because the centre would not permit it. I reiterate that there should be commonality. I cannot see why it would be seven days in one place and five days in another. I do not know how we could explain that, so I hope that in those conversations the Minister stresses the need for uniformity. Perhaps the guidance might include strong encouragement on that. On the basis of the agreement that we have in principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in schedule 2, page 123, line 2, at end insert—
“(5) An integrated care board must apply all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions.
(6) An integrated care board must ensure that all relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions are applied throughout the area for which it is responsible.
(7) Any integrated care board which wishes to employ anyone directly on an annual salary greater than £161,401 must receive approval from their integrated care partnership before confirming the appointment.”
This amendment puts into primary legislation the current practice that NHS bodies honour collective agreements over staff pay and conditions and gives the integrated care board a role in ensuring this remains the case.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I would like to say that it is a pleasure to see the Minister, although when I saw the headline that two Ministers from the Department had been promoted to the Cabinet, I had expected that he would be among them—alas, not on this occasion. I am sure it is only a matter of time. Of course, if the Minister and other Members on the Government side want to keep their phones on in case a call comes through, we will not be offended if they have to pop out for a couple of minutes. I hope the Minister’s rush of blood and damascene conversion to the perils of privatisation at the end of the sitting on Tuesday have not blotted his copybook too much.
I turn to amendment 43, which plays into several points that have come up in the evidence sessions, particularly the anxiety that was mentioned by Sarah Gorton of Unison in her evidence to the Committee last week. She said that she wanted to see in the legislation confirmation of assurances that have been given verbally and in guidance. She referred to conversations that she had had—I am not sure with whom, but I assume with officials in the Department. Those conversations were to the effect that there was
“no intention for any new parts of the system to undermine the collective arrangements”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 96, Q129.]
and that the “Agenda for Change” agreement would continue to apply across the board and, indeed, to ICB staff. That is an important matter to seek assurance on. Anyone who has been involved in “Agenda for Change” will know that years of hard, torturous work were involved in getting that agreed. Certainly, on this side, we know the value of the staff and their trade union representatives, and the importance that collective agreements have in bringing issues to the fore and ensuring a universality in treatment and a common understanding of the basis on which the employer and employee move forward.
Of course, whatever the collective agreements say, the staff would like to be offered increases that actually keep pace with the cost of living, rather than the real-terms cuts that we have seen in the last decade. However, as an overall framework for ensuring staff are treated fairly and consistently, it is certainly not something that we want to be chipped away at.
I will not try to persuade the Minister of the benefits of collective agreements across other sectors—it would be well outside the scope of the Bill—but it is worth pointing out that there is plenty of evidence from across the world showing that where workforces have negotiated terms and conditions within sectors and across whole industries, they tend to enjoy better terms and conditions and, crucially, better rates of workplace satisfaction and staff retention. As highlighted in the report recently published by the Health and Social Care Committee, the NHS faces an enormous challenge in retaining its workforce.
We do not want anything to undermine “Agenda for Change”. Sadly, though, we have seen attempts to do that in recent years, with the creation of wholly-owned subsidiary companies. I will not return to the argument about whether those are a good thing, because we have said that they are not, but let us examine for a moment why trusts sometimes seem eager to set these companies up.
There are, of course, huge financial pressures on trusts. I will not rehearse the arguments on that, but they are always looking at ways to reduce their costs, and potentially with these subcos to boost their income. The VAT advantages have been a big part of that, but one of the big concerns—cash-pressed trusts may see this as a big opportunity—is that the subcos potentially have the ability to move away from “Agenda for Change”. That is the heart of it; it is not that the trusts have a major objection to “Agenda for Change”, but moving away from it allows them to set their own terms and conditions, which is really a euphemism for saving money and cutting pay. We think that that kind of approach is a false economy and, ultimately, self-defeating.
There are other examples of where the private sector will step in. We saw the news this week that King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust will transfer staff at its urgent treatment centre in Denmark Hill to Greenbrook Healthcare under a three-year contract, starting in October. Of course, staff will expect TUPE to apply, but, as we know, it is not a panacea. It does not protect terms and conditions for ever more, so it is little wonder that the news of that change has led the workforce to raise concerns.
Unison’s written evidence sought clarification from the Minister that
“it’s not the intention that ICBs depart from Agenda for Change”,
which the Minister gave on Second Reading. The written evidence also states that
“UNISON would support amendments to ensure that ICBs will apply the relevant collective agreements for staff pay, conditions and pensions, and be responsible for ensuring that these are applied within the wider system. In addition, further reassurances should be sought that nothing in the Bill will compromise the assurances already given in the Employment Commitment, the terms of which should endure beyond the point of staff transfer.”
The evidence continues:
“Recently published guidance lists 10 ‘outcome-based people functions’”—
perhaps that phrase could be translated into plain English at some point—
“that ICSs will be expected to deliver from April 2022… In addition, the guidance suggests that the responsibility for engaging with trade unions will rest with the regional teams of NHS England / Improvement rather than with ICBs”.
That runs the risk of depriving unions of access to those who might be making strategic decisions in their area—or perhaps it just speaks to a larger truth about where power will lie in all this. We have covered those concerns in our amendment to some extent, but we would like reassurance from the Minister on some of the points we have raised about how this will all work in practice.
In particular, we need reassurance that the system will not undermine existing provider responsibilities on engaging with trade unions. As hon. Members will know, the vast majority of NHS staff will not be employed in commissioning bodies such as ICBs. The strong relationships with individual provider organisations should be a supplement to existing national and regional partnership forums. The concern is that the new kids on the block, the ICBs, will in some way disrupt those arrangements.
If, as we are told, the new ICSs—to use the correct terminology—will be system leaders themselves, it is not impossible that some of those leaders will want to set their own path in tweaking employment matters. We might see circumstances in which some agreement about staff mobility within ICSs comes to the fore, particularly for those whose duties cross organisational boundaries. In principle, that is no problem, as long as no ICB thinks that, as a result, it can move outside existing collective agreements. Our amendment would rule that out.
It is essential that ICBs have a positive role in all this and that they follow existing practice by referring to collective agreements. We would not want a re-emergence of what we saw some five years ago, with certain trusts trying to undermine collective terms and conditions. Those attempts failed, but we never know when that might re-emerge. We also believe that the ICB should honour national agreements for the staff it employs.
That should not need to be said—as we have heard, assurances have been given—but it needs to be made explicit in the Bill to give us the cast-iron lock that both we and Unison would like. We would certainly like some further assurances about whether the ICBs have the potential to circumvent or destabilise existing arrangements, should they seek to forge their own path at some point. We see this amendment as bolstering the commitment to “Agenda for Change”—I hope that the Minister will confirm that commitment when he responds —so that ICBs’ broad powers are not seen as an attempt to undermine or conflict with the hard-won terms and conditions that have been collectively agreed.
Turning to sub-paragraph (7) in the amendment, which relates to pay limits, hon. Members will have seen headlines in the paper, on Tuesday, I think, about the highest-paid NHS managers being “cleared out”; I think that was the term that was used. I am not quite sure what that means, other than redundancy. The story refers to a Government-inspired audit, which was—at least on Tuesday—going to be led by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who has since moved on to other matters. That is a shame, because he used to hold the same role as the Minister does now, and he would know exactly where to look if there were indeed examples of unnecessary management and bureaucracy in the NHS.
That news follows the headlines we saw last week about some ICB executives potentially receiving salaries of £270,000. Let us be clear what we are talking about here: that is the pay of 10 nurses. It seems that someone somewhere in Government is exercised about the number of managers in the NHS, but according to the King’s Fund, the actual figure is somewhere below 5%, and many of those managers hold dual clinical roles. If the Government think there is a problem here, I am not entirely clear what they think the scale of it is, or what the consequences would be if thousands of managers in the NHS were made redundant. I am sure that was not covered in the impact assessment, but we have the benefit of that now.
To be clear, the amendment is not about bashing managers at all. Every organisation needs managers if it is to be effective, and they play an important role in enabling clinicians to get on and do their jobs on the frontline. I am sure the Minister would not want to leave managers in the NHS with the impression that has unfortunately been left by some of the headlines this week, namely that there is no role for managers in the NHS. One could be forgiven for concluding that from Tuesday’s headlines. If the Government think layers of management, bureaucracy or management costs have got out of control, we can do something about it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his remarks on the amendment. I echo some of his comments, which we covered on Tuesday in Committee in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bristol South. Members on both sides of the Committee made clear our recognition of the value we place on those who work in the NHS, irrespective of whether they are managers, in clinical roles or in any other role. In our exchanges, we recognised the centrality of having good, high-calibre managers for what we all know is a huge system.
Amendment 43 would have two effects. First, it would require ICBs to apply to their staff all relevant collectively agreed terms on pay, conditions and pensions. Secondly, it introduces new rules for oversight of pay for the most senior ICB staff. The Government and the NHS remain committed to the principle of “Agenda for Change”. If it gives the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston further reassurance, I am happy to write to him, because this is a detailed point and I suspect he may wish to have something in black and white that sets out exactly our position on this. We recognise—he alluded to this—that there is a need for a degree of flexibility in some circumstances. He talked about people moving between roles, secondments and so on. I will turn to that in a moment before turning to the point about pay.
There is already a commitment in the ICS HR framework technical guidance that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions, in line with the “NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook” requirements. The commitment states that NHS pension rights will be preserved, as the individual will continue to be employed within the NHS, ensuring that staff transferring into ICBs will benefit from that protection and will not see any change to their existing conditions. Furthermore, we would expect ICBs to use the nationally agreed pay and conditions framework for the overwhelming majority of the time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to some flexibility, and he was right to do so. There may be circumstances in which an ICB needs flexibility to recruit staff, to attract staff with very unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances and the availability of certain staff. Therefore, an ICB may need to vary the terms and conditions in order to make a post attractive if the marketplace is very competitive. Equally, the Bill provides valuable flexibility—for example, in order to allow ICBs to employ on secondment staff who have previously been employed by a foundation trust or local authority. Given the emphasis that the Bill places on systems working collectively and sharing staff, that is a useful flexibility. I would argue that such flexibilities are not unique, because NHS foundation trusts also have a degree of discretion in adopting such conditions, although they overwhelmingly choose to honour and keep the existing terms and conditions.
If I recall correctly, the hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the view on the involvement of unions and staff where there was divergence or flexibility. I would hope that where there was any divergence or a need for flexibility, that would be addressed collaboratively. Ideally, there should be consent from those working in the organisation as well.
I turn to the proposals for very senior managers. I believe that procedures are already in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries, and proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 a year must follow benchmarks or be subject to ministerial oversight. Ministerial oversight of salaries higher than £150,000 a year has been effective in managing the risk of salary escalations, and it provides for a national outlook across the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I do not think there is any inconsistency in what my right hon. Friend envisaged with the review. That should not be interpreted as a criticism or an attack on hard-working staff, but given the amount of money that is spent in our NHS on salaries at all levels, it is right that from time to time the Government look at that, review it and reassure themselves that the appropriate balance is being struck between fair remuneration for the work that is being done and value for taxpayers. I do not think I would read any more than that into it; it is simply the Government and Treasury being responsible with public money.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will be aware that the Government are in the process of finalising the system for pay oversight that will apply to ICBs. Although the specifics may differ, the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs a degree of agency and flexibility, so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while also ensuring that we put adequate checks and balances in place to ensure that public money is well spent. Therefore, I would argue that the amendment is unnecessary. Once again, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the amendment to a Division.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but I fear that I will disappoint him on this occasion. He mentioned the flexibilities that already exist, which we do not seek to change. I do not see anything in the amendment that would alter those. We have had a very clear commitment, and he has mentioned the guidance. Indeed, he may write to me—
Justin Madders
As he does regularly. I write to him regularly, too. He mentioned the importance of having this in black and white, and that is where we agree. We do need this in black and white, and the place for that to be is in the Bill, so we will press the amendment to a Division. I understand what he has said about ministerial oversight of ICB salaries, but if these bodies are to be locally run and accountable, we think the amendment would be entirely consistent with that aim.
Question proposed, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 124, line 14, at end insert—
“(7) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility and receive the income related to that agreement.
(8) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any proposed Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility.”
This amendment would enable integrated care boards to participate in existing and future LIFT schemes and to receive the income that would come to the local area from the local investment in such schemes.
I assure the Minister that this as a probing amendment, and I will not seek to divide the Committee, but it is an important issue. The local infrastructure finance trust transformed the primary and community based services in large parts of the country, and certainly in Bristol, over the noughties. In my constituency, there is a very large general practice community base, as well as South Bristol Community Hospital with the long-campaigned for urgent care centre and several rehabilitation and prevention beds used by the community trust out-patients. However, they have all hit problems in the last decade and have not really fulfilled their potential within the system, largely because many of them came on stream at the time of the Lansley Act and the abolition of primary care trusts.
The management of estates generally is something I have spent a lot of time unravelling. There is nobody locally spearheading them, really understanding the different, sometimes complicated, relationships within them and making them fulfil their potential, in terms of both delivering services locally and the financial model. There has been a lot of buck-passing locally about who is responsible for developing those things, and that is particularly true of my local community hospital.
My concern is that the wording in the Bill around “externally financed development agreements” is the same as was applied to clinical commissioning groups after the Lansley Act. The Bill also does not deal with NHS Property Services or community health partnerships, which are outwith the Bill. I wonder how these local ICBs are going to manage capital and estates development with the inherited part of that architecture. We will come later to the management of capital to develop the estate.
My concern is around how we get capital investment into primary and community care. In our evidence session, we asked the new chief executive how she saw this happening. I appreciate that we talked about large hospitals, even though we do not seem to know what a hospital is these days, but my point was really about community services. Ms Pritchard said that development would happen through
“the existing capital allocation processes… Rather than just going to each individual organisation to then make their own decisions about how they spend it, it would now go through the ICB, so there is a process that allows consideration in the round of how the system spends that money most effectively on behalf of its entire population.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 21, Q25.]
We will have some discussions around further clauses about the treatment of capital, but they do not really allow for the principles around the Local Improvement Finance Trust and primary care to develop. How do we get this investment into primary and community care? What is the Government’s view on the LIFT model?
Justin Madders
Particularly in light of the changes that have been made with covid, one thing that has cropped up locally is that a lot of GP practices—they are basically converted houses—simply are not designed with the ventilation or space to ensure there is a safe distance between people. That points to the importance of this issue and the need for clarity on how we get these estates into a state that is fit to deal with covid.
Karin Smyth
I agree, and we will probably all have examples through the primary care networks of practices that were not in old houses but that had perhaps had a LIFT scheme or another new development. In my constituency, the Bridge View Medical practice was able to have a flow through the building and move patients downstairs because it had a large, fairly new building. The pandemic has shown that in an emergency we need to make sure that the community-based estate is brought together in some way. Actually, that applies not just to the health service, but to ex-local authority or even Ministry of Defence or other Government Department estates. The place-based aspect of the Bill should be encouraging people to do that locally. Because estates are not part of it, they will struggle to deliver on the service intent of the Bill.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on amendment 17 and the insight that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South brings from her long period of working in the NHS. What is at the crux of this point is quite important. We have spoken quite a lot about integrated care and revenue, but the capital component is as important, so I am glad we have the opportunity to discuss it.
I have great affection for the Bulwell Riverside facility in my community, which co-locates two GP surgeries, community services and pharmacy services with local authority neighbourhood services, the local library and youth services. Pre-covid, I and the local councillors would be there every week for an event. Every year, my annual jobs fair is there—it is today, but we are not inside because of covid, so it is out in the marketplace. If any of my constituents are watching, we are there until 2.30 pm.
That joint service centre has driven a culture of integration and collaboration, exactly in the spirit of everything we have been discussing on the Bill. It is a very practical example of integration in practice. It was funded on the LIFT model because, at that point, more than a decade ago, that was the way to get money into the system. The logical consequences on the ground of the legislative direction that we are told is intended here will be more need for this sort of joint service centre model. We need to give that proper consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, this element is one of the few bits of the 2012 Act that is not being removed to take us back to pre-2012 status. Then, primary care trusts could enter into these arrangements locally, whereas their successors, clinical commissioning groups, could not and, at the moment, the successor ICBs cannot either. The amendment would remedy that.
Why is that provision not being added back in? It looks a bit like a wheeze. Originally, PCTs would have had a 40% stake in the arrangements and would have benefited exactly as my hon. Friend said. Now, that stake is owned by community health partnerships. Who owns 100% of community health partnerships? That is the Department of Health and Social Care. It is not that nobody benefits from these arrangements—it is that the Department does, rather than local communities. We are told this Bill is about localisation and devolving resources and powers to local communities, so why on earth is this bit not going back in? It is definitely a point of interest, particularly with existing LIFT models.
On LIFT models, it may be that the Government do not think that they are in vogue now or that they are the right model. I would be interested to hear what other methods the Minister might prefer.
How to get capital back into the system is a significant point. The NHS backlog is now £17 billion, as the bill for austerity becomes due, so we will have to address it by one means or another. If that is not to be done through this system, I am keen to hear from the Minister how it is to be addressed.
Edward Argar
It is right that we discuss this point today, because while the focus of the media is often on the 40 new hospitals being built—a very clear and understandable definition; I am sure any reasonable person could recognise a new hospital—we do not talk as often as we should in this place about primary care. It is often neglected in discussions, debates and headlines. It is right that we are talking about it today.
On the shadow Minister’s point about CHPs and similar, the Department exists to further the health of the population and to support local communities. There is a wonderful synergy in those objectives and outcomes.
I will turn to the substance of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South who, on this as on many things, knows of what she speaks, with her depth of experience in this space—I always tread slightly warily when responding to her challenges. As she alluded to, the amendment would allow an integrated care board to enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility, and to receive the income from that agreement.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, as the ability to enter into an externally funded development agreement is already covered by provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2. The provisions allow an ICB, which would take the local view of estates and other health matters,
“to enter into externally financed development agreements”
if the agreements are
“certified as such in writing by the Secretary of State.”
Such certification will be considered if
“the purpose or main purpose of the agreement is the provision of services or facilities in connection with the exercise by an ICB of any of its functions, and…a person proposes to make a loan to, or provide any other form of finance for, another party in connection with the agreement.”
We are clear that the wording of the provision would encompass a development agreement entered into with a LIFT company. If included separately in the Bill, as the amendment proposes, there is a risk that the interpretation of paragraph 20 of schedule 2 is that the Bill’s intention is to restrict the use of externally financed development agreements to those that involve taking a shareholding in LIFT companies, which is just one type of project company model that could be used to access private finance. That is why we believe that the amendment introduces a degree of ambiguity that is not currently there.
On the broader points raised by the hon. Lady about who has responsibility for the primary care estate and for investing in and upgrading it, she will be aware that it is a complex picture because of the nature of some GP surgeries—some own their own buildings, others will be in a health hub. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds—we remain ministerial colleagues in the same Department for the moment, but who knows what the future may bring—has done a huge amount of work with primary care to look at those challenges.
The hon. Member for Bristol South talked about hubs, or integration. One of the models being looked at—all the credit must go to my hon. Friend for this work—is the so-called Cavell centres that hon. Members will have read about, which are about looking at how we could have health hubs in town centres, bringing together a whole range of services. They are at an early stage of development, but it would be remiss of me to pass over that point without paying tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in that space.
On LIFTS more broadly, we are not envisaging any changes to existing LIFT company arrangements. They can still be used for the purposes for which they were originally set up. The hon. Lady has kindly indicated that she does not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that I have given her some clarity, particularly on why we think the provisions in paragraph 20 of schedule 2 will cover and continue to allow the arrangements to which she alluded.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, which I will read and understand carefully. We would still like our dividend back; it is an important principle of localism and, dare I say, accountability. We promised people that that is what they were getting. I will continue to pursue the matter in this place, but I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and, as I said, I will not seek to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
The schedule details essential information about how we expect statutory ICBs to function and about the essential criteria that ICB constitutions must fulfil. It sets out that ICB membership must, at a minimum, include a chair, a chief executive, representatives from local NHS trusts and foundation trusts, primary medical service providers and local authorities, known as “ordinary members”.
The chair must be appointed by NHS England and approved by the Secretary of State. The constitution must not provide for anyone other than NHS England to remove the chair from office. The power for NHS England to remove the chair from office must be subject to the Secretary of State’s approval. The chief executive must be appointed by the chair and approved by NHS England.
The ordinary members of the ICB must, at a minimum, include one member jointly nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts that, as I have alluded to, require services in the area; one member jointly nominated by persons who provide primary medical services within that area; and one member jointly nominated by the local authorities within the ICB area.
Justin Madders
We will not divide the Committee on the schedule but as we have batted quite a lot of this about for a couple of days, it is worth reiterating some of our concerns in relation to how ICBs will actually work in practice.
Taking the Committee through the schedule, in paragraph 4 we have concerns about the chair having to be approved by the Secretary of State and, indeed, under paragraph 5 the chair can be removed by the Secretary of State, which could create tensions and speaks to the reality of how much autonomy these bodies will have. Paragraph 6(2) states:
“constitution must provide that a person is eligible to become or remain the chief executive only if the person is an employee of the integrated care board.”
That stands to reason, but the interim guidance on ICBs for the position of chief executive says that they must be employed or seconded to the ICB. Indeed, the chief finance officer, the director of nursing and the medical director can all be employed or seconded to the ICB, according to that guidance. We think that potentially represents a conflict of interest. It needs clarification, because what is in the Bill does not necessarily sit well with what is in the interim guidance. I wonder whether the Minister can clarify that.
Paragraph 7(1)(a) of the schedule talks about the constitution specifying who should be appointed as ordinary members. Again, the interim guidance helps in providing a list of suggestions regarding ordinary members. It is worth pointing out that, when we totted up all the people the guidance says are the minimum requirement for a board, it comes to 10 people. Although the Bill may say three, the reality is that the guidance says many more. Again, that speaks to the amendment that we tabled on Tuesday about the numbers on the board. The idea that the Bill is permissive is slightly betrayed by the detailed guidance. It depends on what is meant by “permissive”.
One particular mystery is in paragraph 7(3), which says:
“The constitution must set out the process for nominating the ordinary members”.
We know that ICBs will be able to set their own constitutions, approved by NHS England, but how the particular individuals on the boards will emerge still feels rather opaque. Of course, we hope that such things can be done by consensus and agreement. No doubt in the majority of cases they will be, but given the size of some of the areas it will be very difficult sometimes to get a geographical spread that represents the whole area and the various interest groups that constitute an ICB. Of course, diversity may also struggle to be accommodated within that. Such things are all fine and good in the Bill and in the guidance, but I think delivery on the ground will be slightly more difficult to achieve.
Paragraph 8 talks about qualification and tenure for membership of the board. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether there is an optimal period of membership of a board. I think I saw two years somewhere in the guidance. I may be mistaken on that, but that seems a little short to me. I wonder whether he has a particular view on that. Paragraph 9 talks about constitutions being required to comply with any regulations that may come forward. Of course, the Bill has a lot of such clauses, where regulations will be produced in due course. I know this is slightly out of his control, but the Bill may not come back to us until much later in the year, if at all this year, depending on how the other place views it. That may mean that we are really down to the wire in terms of any enabling regulations that are needed under the Bill.
Paragraph 10 deals with the terms and conditions—a point that we discussed this morning. Paragraph 14 is quite interesting, because it talks about variation of the constitution, and how that should be done in consultation with NHS England. Indeed, NHS England will retain its own power to vary the constitution. It is important to put on the record that if such steps are taken to change the constitution, it is really important to involve stakeholders, the public, patients and workforce representatives. I hope that the Minister can fill me in on some of the details.
Edward Argar
I will try to address each of the shadow Minister’s points one by one, perhaps not in an entirely fluent way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what he perceived to be an inconsistency between interim guidance and what is proposed in terms of secondees in similar employment. Actually, under paragraph 18(4) of schedule 2, the legislation allows for secondments to continue for those employed as chief executives. It specifies particular organisations, such as secondments from trusts, other parts of the NHS, such as NHS England, or indeed from the civil service. Given that specification, I do not believe that there is an inconsistency.
The hon. Gentleman touched on interim guidance and how that fits with what the Bill will look like once it is, as I hope, enacted. I would gently remind him that it is interim guidance—the key word being “interim”—to allow the continued evolution of ICSs at the moment, without pre-judging what the House may or may not do in terms of making them statutory. That guidance is there to allow them to continue on their path without having to sit and wait for the deliberations of the House on something that they are empowered to do and are already doing. I do not necessarily see the opacity to which the hon. Gentleman alludes but he may disagree.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about geography and the number of local authorities and other organisations involved. I suspect that he has got in mind his own particular geography of Cheshire and Merseyside and the size of the ICS there. That goes to the heart of why we are being permissive: we are setting out a minimum level, and therefore there is nothing to stop an ICS of that size, if it so chose, at ICB level to have a broader range of people sitting on it and a larger number. Each organisation will be able to judge what it thinks is the appropriate number of people to sit on its board to reflect the need for effective decision-making and effective local and organisational representation to reflect the broad geography of its remit.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the optimal length of service on a board. I have to say in my experience, and I suspect in his from his days in local government, one sees a multitude of approaches in different public bodies. Some tenures are for two years or three years, or two years with a renewal presumed for another two years. I am not sure that there is a clear one size fits all, but there should be principles underpinning it, namely that one does not have someone who joins and never leaves the board, and one has to have the ability to refresh the board to bring in new skills. From my experience of sitting on various boards, including charity boards as a trustee or as a non-executive director, effective organisations need to conduct regular skills audits of their boards, to ask what has changed and what the organisation is lacking in the modern world. As time goes by, one needs different skills and different mixes of people. I would expect ICBs and ICPs to continue to look at what is needed to be at their most effective.
I hope that I have broadly addressed the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s points. The other points were those that he has quite rightly come back to, and which we debated at length when we considered his other amendments and those tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South. On that basis, I encourage members of the Committee to support the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 14
People for whom integrated care boards have responsibility
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause requires NHS England to publish rules setting out which people each ICB is responsible for. We intend to recreate as closely as possible the arrangements that currently exist for clinical commissioning groups. However, CCG responsibility is based on a model of GP membership that will no longer exist under the new ICB arrangements.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to publish rules determining the responsibility of each ICB, subject to certain exceptions that may be created by secondary legislation. This is intended to replicate the ability to make exceptions to the responsibilities of CCGs by regulations in section 3(1D) of the National Health Service Act 2006. As with the existing regulations, the new regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House, which I hope offers some reassurance to the Opposition Front Bench in respect of the regulation-making powers. Therefore, there would continue to be strong parliamentary oversight of regulations under the clause.
Proposed new section 14Z31 ensures that no one slips through any gaps. The rules set by NHS England must ensure that everyone who accesses primary medical services, as well as anyone who is not registered with a GP but is resident in England, is allocated to a group of people for which an ICB is responsible. In practice, we expect NHS England’s rules to be framed in such a way that ICBs will be associated with certain GP practices, and responsible for patients registered with those specified GP practices. They will also be responsible for people who are not registered but are resident in the ICB geographical footprint.
Taking that approach is intended to ensure universality of coverage and to minimise the disruption of transitioning from CCGs to ICBs. The clause also provides a power to replace the duty on NHS England to publish rules dealing with ICB responsibility, with an alternative approach based simply on residency. If it is considered appropriate in the future, those new arrangements would mean that ICBs were responsible for those who usually reside within their specified geographical footprint. Regulations would be required in order to change that approach.
The clause provides the necessary certainty about which ICB is responsible for which people. Without it, there could be significant confusion about ICB responsibilities, difficulty in calculating financial allocations to ICBs based on those they are responsible for and uncertainty for providers about which people they are contracted to provide services to. The clause seeks to provide fluent continuity with the arrangements under CCGs, and explicitly does not allow people to fall through gaps. Ultimately, everyone will be the responsibility of an ICB and will be able to access care when they need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will make some comments on clause 14. I think the Minister has anticipated to some extent what I might say. I may well drift into clause 15 as well, but I promise the Committee that I will not repeat those comments in the discussion on clause 15. There is clearly an overlap here. It really is about the issue that the Minister referred to: who is entitled to what within the comprehensive NHS? For some, this is a formality, repeating the language used before and the principles on which the NHS was founded. For others, every word change and new clause that appears in the legislation is an attempt to restrict access and allow an opening for cuts to services to be made in a time of immense financial pressure. We want, and I think the Minister has opened the door to this, to ensure that that is not what the Bill is about.
To be fair, there is a history of commissioners trying on occasions to restrict access. There was the Croydon list of some 20 years ago. Primary care trusts set out lists of services and said that the treatments had little or no value and should not be provided on the NHS. Of course, that led to huge debates between trusts and medical practitioners. It could be argued that people were defending their own particular practices and specialties, or they could be said to be champions of the NHS. Patients looked at it from both perspectives, but for the patients who relied on those services it was a very real debate and a very real source of anxiety.
A more recent argument on this came from the various attempts to apply NHS charges to certain people who it was argued were not eligible for free treatment. There is a very sinister echo of the phrase “no access to benefits”. The long-held consensus appeared to be under threat—the principle that emergency NHS care is open to all. When American tourists come over here and have to seek emergency treatment they are pleasantly surprised, and somewhat bemused, that they do not have to produce a credit card at the point of use. This is where the arguments begin to arise.
If a patient is moved from an emergency bed for elective care, they can be charged if they are ineligible for free NHS care. The usual test is whether they are ordinarily resident in the country. On principle, if someone qualifies for NHS treatment, they can get it anywhere in the country, while on holiday. Most of us have taken our breaks this year somewhere in this country. We do not have to go back to our own local A&E to get treatment. We could, in theory, get our elective operations anywhere in the country, should we wish. Pre-Lansley this did not matter as much, because it was always payment by results. Ambulances crossing borders may occasionally result in a cross-organisational internal charge. Maybe we will see an end to that kind of bureaucracy.
The other argument that emerged during the Lansley period was around who the responsible commissioner within a particular area or population was. That market approach required tying people to a GP practice. The GP register has been a central base from which decisions were made. Did that really affect things on the ground? It certainly caused a lot of debate. It would be helpful if the Minister provided clarity.
The issue of access is important, and clause 14 sets it out in subsections (1), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of proposed new section 14Z31 of the National Health Service Act 2006. According to the NHS, access is universal, but depending on their immigration status within the UK, a person may be charged for accessing certain services. However, certain services are free to everyone: treatment given in an A&E department, though this does not include further treatment following admission to hospital; treatment for certain infectious diseases, but for HIV/AIDS only the first diagnosis and counselling that follow are free; compulsory psychiatric treatment; and family planning services, but this does not include termination of pregnancy or infertility treatments. People ordinarily resident in the UK or who have an exemption from charging will not be charged for NHS treatment. I could go into what ordinarily resident means, but I will not detain the Committee by going through all of that. However, it is fairly clear that it can be a British citizen or someone naturalised or settled in the UK, usually known as having indefinite leave to remain.
The Bill does not cover any of this, but there is a point about it not necessarily being the same person paying for and receiving the treatment. There are questions about those seeking asylum and those who might be denied care because there are questions about where they live. There was the image of a paramedic stepping out of an ambulance and asking someone suffering a cardiac arrest whether they had some kind of identification to prove that they were ordinarily resident. The images are not common ones, but they raise concerns. When the 2012 Act was debated, these issues were discussed at great length. I do not think the fears that were expressed at the time have manifested themselves. Does the Minister believe that using “usually resident” is better than “ordinarily resident”? I also wonder whether under proposed new section 14Z31, the NHS will publish rules as referred to. Could we have clarification on that?
Edward Argar
I will respond very briefly. The shadow Minister raises two key bundles of points. I hope that I can reassure him that the approach adopted here is far from restricting access. It is designed to ensure that everyone has an ICB covering them, ensuring universality of coverage. Similarly, the clause does not alter in any way the ability of anyone to access emergency care when they need it, nor those ordinarily resident in the UK to use the NHS as they do.
The second bundle of points he made related to charging regulations and those who are eligible to be charged under current regulations. While he highlighted a number of points, I genuinely believe that the charging regulations in place are appropriately and reasonably framed and strike the right balance in ensuring that people can access NHS care, while rightly making a contribution to the services they are accessing—obviously with certain things exempt from charging for public health and other reasons. I do believe they strike the appropriate balance. There is nothing in what we are proposing today that fundamentally changes people’s ability to access healthcare, nor indeed changes those charging regulations. On that basis, I commend clause 14 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Maggie Throup.)
Health and Care Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 September 2021 - (16 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 15, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) medical services other than primary medical services (for primary medical services, see Part 4),”.
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary medical services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary medical services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Government amendments 12 and 13 are both technical amendments that clarify the commissioning responsibilities of integrated care boards. Clause 15 introduces proposed new section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which places a duty on integrated care boards to commission a range of non-primary health services. The duty to arrange for the provision of primary care is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
In the Bill as introduced, there was no specific reference to medical services. Instead, non-primary medical services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary medical services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Similarly, there was no specific reference to ophthalmic services. Instead, non-primary ophthalmic services were considered to be covered by the broad provisions of new section 3(1)(f) and (g), and primary ophthalmic services were dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
However, the equivalent duties for clinical commissioning groups specifically reference these medical services and ophthalmic services, so the removal of an express reference to non-primary medical services and ophthalmic services generated some concern, which I hope to reassure the Committee is misplaced. There is no change of policy in this area, but to avoid any potential confusion these amendments put beyond doubt the fact that integrated care boards are responsible for these services, and replicate the current language.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We will not oppose the amendments or, indeed, clause 15. I think it is important, as the Minister said, to make it very clear that the relevant provision in clause 15, proposed new section 3(1), on ICBs providing services that they consider necessary, does not mean that they can unilaterally withdraw services. That is the concern that has been raised, and I think it is important that it is on the record that that is not what is intended.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I seek some clarification. With demand for palliative care set to soar because of our ageing population, I would be very grateful for any assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister can give that the reference in clause 15, in line 30 on page 13, to “after-care” includes palliative care and end-of-life care services.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, I also ask our hon. Friend the Minister to clarify this matter. As we all know, the voluntary sector is hugely important for palliative care. So many people at the end of life want to go home. We also know, in relation to discharge from hospital, that we need to get people into the right place, with the right care, so it is hugely important that we do everything we can to support that sector and to relate it to end-of-life care and palliative care.
From a personal and local perspective, I will also say, on the care that is provided, that my constituency has an excellent hospice—St Ann’s hospice. It is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, and lots of events are taking place. The hospice relies on funding from donations from local people and the wider public. It does an enormous amount of work.
If we are to provide the personalised care that we want to achieve, and if we are to enable people to be at home and to be cared for in different settings at the end of their life, it is really important that we consider this matter in relation to the Bill, so I welcome this change to clause 15.
Edward Argar
A number of the points raised by hon. Members, while touching on the amendments, will be addressed substantively in the clause stand part debate that is just about to take place. I do not think that there is anything further to add on the amendments.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Amendment made: 13, in clause 15, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(ca) ophthalmic services other than primary ophthalmic services (for primary ophthalmic services, see Part 6),”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment makes it clear that integrated boards have a duty to commission secondary ophthalmic services (replicating the current position for clinical commissioning groups). Although secondary ophthalmic services would appear to fall within new section 3(1)(f) and (g), in the existing legislation they are mentioned specifically so the amendment would continue that approach.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
In opening the debate on this clause, I highlight the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Cheadle. I suspect that, in my winding-up speech, I may be responding to further questions on this. They are absolutely right to highlight the amazing work that is done by hospices and various charities and organisations in providing end-of-life and palliative care. When I come to my conclusions, I hope to be able to offer further reassurances to my hon. Friends, who I know take a very close interest in this area, and, quite rightly, have championed it in the Committee today.
Clause 15 substitutes a new section 3 into the National Health Service Act 2006, which replaces the clinical commissioning group equivalent with one that requires integrated care boards to commission hospital and other health services for those persons for whom the ICB is responsible. The clause lists those things that the ICB must arrange for the provision of, which includes, but is not limited to, hospital accommodation, nursing and ambulance services, dental services, diagnosis, care, treatment and aftercare of people suffering illness, injury or disability. In proposed new section 3A, the clause also provides a power for ICBs to arrange for other services or facilities that they consider appropriate to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of people for whom they are responsible.
The clause makes it clear that the duty on an ICB to arrange services does not apply if NHS England has a duty to arrange for their provision. The clause gives ICBs a clear purpose, without which it would not be obvious which bodies in the system are responsible for commissioning which parts of the comprehensive health service that we all want to see.
I should note that ICBs will not be the sole commissioner in the system. As I have just alluded to, NHS England will remain a commissioner for some services best commissioned nationally, such as specialised services. The clause also allows us to very clearly divide responsibilities between NHS England and ICBs. Between NHS England and the ICBs, the NHS will continue to commission a comprehensive health service free at the point of delivery for all who need it. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to support the comments that were made earlier. I had indicated to the Minister that I would raise the issue about stating very clearly that the terms “care” and “after-care” in proposed new section 3(1)(f) include palliative care and services at the end of life. We have had a 36% rise in the number of people dying at home during the pandemic. That may be a result of choice, but, as someone who has supported someone at the end of their life at home, it is only possible through end-of-life services, including GP services and the Marie Curie overnight nurse. I do worry desperately about the percentage of people who are dying at home. It will be a huge issue for these organisations in the future to manage that positively. The Minister’s assurance that palliative care and end-of-life services are very much the responsibility of these boards would be most welcome.
Edward Argar
I will respond only briefly, because the only outstanding point that the hon. Lady rightly made was about paragraph (f). My understanding is that palliative care services and similar, as she has alluded to, would be captured under that paragraph. She is right, as are other Members, to highlight just how important those services are as continuing care or aftercare for patients. I give her the reassurance that my understanding of paragraph (f) is that it would encompass the services to which she has alluded.
Karin Smyth
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Commissioning primary care services etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Amendment 29, page 126, line 32, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent NHS England from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clause 17 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your permission, Ms Elliott, I will first turn to clause 16 and schedule 3, and then discuss amendments 28 and 29, before concluding with clause 17.
Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 3, which makes provision for integrated care boards to take on responsibility for primary care services. The schedule allows for the conferral of functions relating to the commissioning of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services on ICBs and contains related amendments. NHS England is currently responsible for arranging these services, but in future, once ICBs are fully established and ready to take on these functions, we intend for ICBs to hold the majority of them. This approach will ensure that decisions about services are made closer to the patient and in line with local population needs.
The schedule introduces a number of provisions to enable the transfer of these functions. The schedule includes equivalent provisions relating to primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. That is to ensure flexibility, as it allows the different services to be conferred on ICBs over a period of time if that is deemed the most effective and efficient approach. The Bill is designed for the future, and we want to work with the system to support it to move at the right pace and offer patients the best care at all times.
The schedule provides for regulations to define which services should be regarded as primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for the purposes of the Bill. The services that are classed as primary care services may vary over time and so these powers allow the Secretary of State to react to any such changes. The powers restate similar powers that are currently found in the National Health Service Act 2006. This provision places a duty on ICBs to provide primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services for those people for whom the ICB is responsible and allows ICBs to enter into the necessary arrangements in order to do so. To date, NHS England has always been responsible for dental and ophthalmic services, but the commissioning of primary medical services has been successfully delegated to clinical commissioning groups for some time. These provisions will ensure that primary care continues to be at the centre of delivering joined-up care to local communities—many members of the Committee have highlighted that—in partnership with wider health and care services in the area.
The schedule requires each ICB and NHS England to publish any information that may be prescribed in regulations concerning the provision of primary medical, dental and ophthalmic services. To ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place once these responsibilities are transferred, NHS England will have powers to direct ICBs as to how they should exercise their primary medical, dental and ophthalmic care functions.
In addition to primary care services, the Secretary of State will have powers to require NHS England to exercise pharmaceutical services, which can, in turn, be delegated to the integrated care boards. NHS pharmaceutical services are generally not directly commissioned, and the schedule continues to allow for that consistent approach to be followed.
The schedule makes provision for the necessary technical and consequential amendments to reflect the new provisions within it relating to primary care services. It is crucial for establishing ICBs as the key commissioners for the NHS in England in the future.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate amendments 28 and 29. I will address what I read into them at this stage and if I have misrepresented them, I will of course seek at the end, as appropriate, to address any misapprehensions I may have set out. I fear that the amendments would prevent an ICB from entering or renewing a contract with some private and third-sector organisations for the provision of primary medical services. Although the explanatory note for the amendment says this will
“prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract”,
I have been advised that it would actually go much further than that limited objective, as limited companies can currently also hold general medical services and personal medical services contracts. The amendment would bar some of those companies from doing so, which would have a potentially devastating effect on primary care at a moment when the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, is working flat out to build capacity in primary care.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I wish to speak to amendments 28 and 29, and will also briefly address a couple of brief points relating to the clause.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response—it is handy to know in advance the likely arguments against the amendments. I referred to the amendments late on Tuesday afternoon, with regard to private company involvement in integrated care boards. We are heartened to hear what the Minister said about that and look forward to having those conversations. My original notes said that the amendments go a little further and might be a little rich for the Committee’s blood, and that may well be the case, but they are nevertheless important.
As I said the other day, the vast majority—around 70% —of GP services are provided on the general medical services contracting model, between local and national commissioners and a GP or GPs and their practice. A little more than a quarter of services are on the personal medical services terms, which allow greater local flexibility, although I understand that the intention is to phase them out. There is a small but growing number of APMSs, which we are debating. APMSs allow bespoke contracting with private companies, with no obligation for a GP behind them. The Minister mentioned their being time-limited as an asset; I am not sure that that is necessarily true. Of course, there has to be flexibility for commissioners to meet need, but my argument is that this is being misused and is operating as a loophole for private companies to enter the market and cream off profits in a way that I do not think is generally the direction that service users in the NHS want. Colleagues should not think that, because the model currently provides just over 2.5% of contracts, this is in some way small beer. The largest provider of GP services in this country is wholly owned by a US megacorporation and has 500,000 patients on its books. I do not think that is what our constituents want from their national health service in England, and I do not think that is what they expect it to look like either.
Therefore, it is reasonable to use the Bill to try to do something about it, because this will be the model. It will grow at pace unless it is checked, and there are many reasons to tackle the issue. It is not just because I find the model distasteful, which I do. First, such contracts are poor value for money. For a registered patient, the mean payment to an APMS provider is 11% greater than that to a GMS provider. Of course, the Minister made the argument on Tuesday that such practices often serve the hardest cohorts, so perhaps that could account for the difference, but that is not the case either. When patients are weighted according to need, the mean payment is actually 16% greater on APMS contracts—it gets worse. If we read that across the entire patient list across the country, it would be the equivalent of £1.5 billion. That is the risk, if this grows to be the dominant model. Such contracts also provide less satisfactory care, with a 2017 survey of nearly 1 million patients finding that APMS services generated lower levels of satisfaction.
Finally, the contracts are easier to walk away from. Within the NHS, we already know that when it stops working for private providers corporately, they are willing to just walk away from contracts and hand them straight back. I strongly say to the Minister that such arrangements are a distortion of the health service’s founding principles. They are costly, they are of lesser quality and they are less reliable.
Amendment 28 is designed to stop integrated care boards entering or renewing such contacts, and amendment 29 would do the same for NHS England. I fear that the Minister may have slightly catastrophised the impact of that, because if this was accepted today, there would be GP services that could no longer operate tomorrow. For a start, the Bill has an awful long way to go, and I gently say that if there is anxiety about health organisations working in advance and presupposing that this will become law at some point and will be operational in April, I am afraid that the Government started that a very long time ago and have already started to fill places in shadow. I do not think there should be any anxiety about getting prepared in this way, so that there would not be a cliff edge.
I am willing to take the argument that perhaps there is a better and more elegant way of drafting this, and I would happily accept an amendment in lieu, but what I cannot accept is nothing at all. Again, the Minister’s point on Tuesday was very good, because sometimes there will need to be a way to provide flexibility for very bespoke services. I think the example he used was services for street homeless people. Of course, that might be a very different model from that of the GPs on my estate. I would accept that as a principle, but the corporation that has the biggest patient list, at 500,000, is a bricks-and-mortar primary care service in my community. That is not a use of flexibility; it is using that as a loophole.
I do not think that can be right, and I do not think the answer can be that the provision needs to exist and therefore we must open this space for that sort of distortion. We are either saying, “There needs to be flexibility, and here is the best way of having a flexible system. Don’t worry—we’ll make sure it is not misused,” or we are saying that we are happy with such organisations entering the market. The Government need to say which one is their preference.
I will make a point about primary care networks before I move on to clause stand part. Obviously, primary care networks are not in the Bill, but I put quite a lot of stock in them. I think that, locally, they will be a very important unit of organisation of care services in our community. I want them to work, and I am playing an active role in the primary care network in my constituency. I think they have real potential. However, who will lead them if we lose our GP practices to those who do not have an interest in our community? The model will become much more distant and uninterested, based on finances rather than the local population. I believe that would be a very, very bad thing indeed. As I say, the amendments may not offer the best way to close that loophole, but I have not heard a better one, or indeed a desire to close it, so I wish to press the amendments to a Division.
Finally, a couple of quick points on schedule 3, which we do not intend to press to a Division. We have had quite a lot of discussion—the Minister touched on this in the previous stand part debate—about the arrangement of integrated care systems, such as they exist. At the moment, we know that NHS England holds certain responsibilities, the regional teams hold certain responsibilities and CCGs hold certain responsibilities at a local level. It is possible, after these reforms, that CCGs will be replaced by ICBs and the previous arrangements and responsibilities will remain unchanged, with NHS England nationally doing the same things, the regional teams doing the same things and ICBs picking up the responsibilities of their predecessors. I suspect, however, that that is not the intention, so I want to press the Minister a little bit on that.
The explanatory notes, on page 59, paragraph 286, state that the functions relating to medical, dental and ophthalmic primary care sit with NHS England, but that
“The intention is that Integrated Care Boards will hold the majority of these functions…in the future.”
Will the Minister expand on that? Does a “majority” mean two out of the three in a different area? Does he intend—again, we touched on this the other day—that this should all be devolved to the 42 ICBs at the same time, or will there be a sense of when each system is ready to pick up those important services? If so, what criteria will that be based on?
Finally, in case we do not come back to this topic—I do not expect the Minister to have an exhaustive list to hand—what is the thinking on other NHS England national and regional functions? Are they likely to be devolved to ICBs? Can he give an example of what sorts of things might be retained? He mentioned that we would want to retain specialist commissioning at a national level. The final question is this: is it ICB by default unless there is a very good reason why it cannot and therefore it has to be done at a national level, or is it at a national level unless it is proven that ICBs are competent to take it on? The answer may be a bit of a mixed economy, but if that is the case, I am keen to know what criteria he will use, or the Secretary of State will use, to make those decisions.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, who made an excellent case for amendments 28 and 29. While on a primary care trust board, I commissioned APMS contracts under a previous magnificent Government—I am not saying this one’s not magnificent, but—because they offered flexibility. Then, as now, they were a sign of a failure of the system and the model of primary care contracting to deliver, particularly in areas of high deprivation. To provide flexibility in Bristol, for example, we had an 8 am to 8 pm service in the city centre to allow better access for people in the city centre, partly to drive down demand on emergency care services, which is a circle that we just keep on going round. Whether they worked or not is a bit of moot point, but it is a model and it is clear that something is needed—I would certainly concede that—so I understand the Government’s difficulty here with having something that is flexible.
I was slightly concerned when the Minister said that the APMS model would be developed further. I wonder if he wants to come back on that. We have to accept that they are problematic at the moment and we would like to see them go because of that. They are now being used as a back door, a very unfortunate one, for large private companies to start hoovering up general practices, which is, yet again, a sign of failure as to why they cannot survive in their environment. If they are going to be developed further, that is something we would like to hear more about. If not now, perhaps the Minister responsible could come back to us on that. Patients are always surprised when they find out that their GP is a private contractor. I accept that this is a difficult area to be completely black and white on. We are certainly in favour of flexibility in developing services in areas of high demand where, for reasons around capital or the type of contract, a GP might enter into partnerships. We know that the workforce is changing rapidly and the model of partnerships is not as attractive and is not recruiting people into the service. It is—not to overuse the word—a crisis.
I am sure we have all been contacted by various bodies representing GPs in our own constituencies. They are fearful not just about the current pressures, but the future attractiveness of primary care. We are not going to get into the future model of the contract today, but I always pity the poor Minister who has to negotiate the contract.
Karin Smyth
It is not a negotiation that anyone looks forward to with relish, but we need to take a good, strong look at the model now. This policy is not the route, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has described perfectly why it is not. It is of deep concern. These large organisations are not part of the local community. It is completely against the thrust of this Bill, which is about place-based, locally accountable systems. The Government would be wise to take his advice and perhaps come back with something else. We seek assurance that this policy is not being developed further, because that would be of even greater concern.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Member for Bristol South. I fear she misheard me when I was saying that we were encouraging primary care commissioners to go further in developing primary care provision—that was not necessarily this model. Forgive me if I was unclear on that, and I hope that gives her a little reassurance on that point.
To address a number of the other points that the shadow Minister primarily made, I suspect his fears are not borne out in reality. I suspect he will none the less, as we cannot accept his amendment, press it to a vote to highlight the issue, and that is his prerogative. I come back to the point that flexibility in this space is hugely important. The examples given by the hon. Member for Bristol South about the challenges in primary care provision are a good argument for why we need this flexibility. We know that some practices, which are GPs’ private businesses contracted to the NHS, on occasion will collapse or a partner will retire and a surgery will cease to operate, especially if no one wishes to take it over. Therefore it is important that these flexibilities are available to commissioners to ensure GP practice coverage.
Karin Smyth
Just to be clear—my apologies for mishearing the Minister previously—such closures are a sign of failure. The answer is to negotiate the contract better and to modernise a clear contract, not to use this vehicle. That was my very clear point.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it would be a sign of failure not to build flexibility for all eventualities into the arrangements we have at the disposal of commissioners and into what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds is trying to do to build resilience into the system. I very much hope that she will continue to do so, or will ascend in the next few hours to something else. That is why flexibility is at the heart of this measure and why we cannot support the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
I will try to address a couple of points that the hon. Gentleman made. We envisage PCNs continuing to play a hugely important role locally in the provision of primary care services. My GP is actively involved in the local PCN in Leicestershire. I know, whenever I speak to him, just how much it has done, particularly in the past 18 months, to build resilience into the system and make sure it works. I know the value of those PCNs more broadly in, for want of a better way of putting it, more normal times.
The final thing the hon. Gentleman asked about was the delegation of currently nationally commissioned functions down to ICBs. The short answer is that he was right in his supposition that this is not a binary, one-size-fits-all measure. The reality is that NHS England will be looking at which ICBs and ICS areas are sufficiently developed that they can take on additional commissioning responsibilities. If he and I sat down, we would probably have a fair sense of which ones were already well advanced. It may be some where there is a mayoralty and there is already a significant amount of devolution in one or two areas. It may be others. We heard from Dame Gill Morgan in Gloucestershire, who clearly has a highly developed ICS in that area. I would be reticent about setting a black-and-white thing on meeting some criteria. There is a degree of subjectivity, which is why we will be reliant on the expert advice of our colleagues in NHS England, and they will make these decisions in the appropriate way.
I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance on the broader clauses and schedule stand part. I fear I have not persuaded him in respect of his amendments, but it was worth a try.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Conferral of primary care functions on integrated care boards etc
Amendment proposed: 28, in schedule 3, page 126, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Edward Argar
Clause 18 amends section 12ZA of the NHS Act 2006, which currently relates to commissioning arrangements by the board and the CCG. Elsewhere in the Bill, this has been updated to refer to newly merged NHS England and ICBs instead. The purpose of the clause is to allow those arrangements to be efficient and work smoothly so that ultimately patients are provided with the best service.
In essence, the clause would allow NHS England and integrated care boards to choose to enter more flexible arrangements with providers of NHS services, allowing flexibility for providers to tailor services to best meet the health needs of the population. For example, the management of long-term conditions such as diabetes can have complex care pathways. An integrated care board, through its commissioning arrangements, could allow a local trust to determine the range of services that will meet these needs in the local area. This includes the trust subcontracting services to other providers where they are best placed to provide some of those services.
The flexibilities provided by this clause will add to the ability of commissioners and providers to work together, using each other’s expertise to get the best outcomes for the entire system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to clause 19, to which 15 amendments have been tabled. Although amendments 77 to 79, 4, 56, and 80 to 82 have not been selected for debate as no member of the Committee has signed them, if any Member wants to move those amendments, would they please indicate?
Clause 19
General Functions
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 19, page 16, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) make arrangements to ensure that patients can access services within maximum waiting times in accordance with their rights in the NHS Constitution.”
This amendment places a duty on each integrated care board, in the exercise of its functions, to meet maximum waiting time standards.
The amendment would insert in clause 19 a new requirement on integrated care boards, in addition to the many requirements set out in the clause, to ensure that patients could access services within the maximum waiting times as set out in the NHS constitution. I expect the Minister will tell us that those requirements are already set out in the constitution and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, but if the answer is that that is an effective tool for ensuring compliance, by any account it has failed.
In every aspect of performance, the NHS has gone backwards in recent years and there can be no doubting the strength of connection between that going backwards and the decade of austerity that the NHS has endured. It is more than five years since the 18-week standard has been met, and that has led to the record waiting lists we see now. In case there is any doubt about this, let me put it on the record that waiting lists were already at record levels before the pandemic, and despite all the fanfare from the Prime Minister following the national insurance rise, we still do not have a guarantee that they will go down during this Parliament.
Let us not forget why the last Labour Government introduced the standards. Years of underfunding under the 1979 to 1997 Conservative Government led us to a dark place. People were waiting months—sometimes years—to access treatment, and that was rightly identified as a priority to fix by the last Labour Government, who wanted to let record investment into the NHS, but also wanted to ensure that that investment was targeted and effective so that the NHS could be judged on its performance. As a result, the targets were introduced.
Targets and funding combined proved to be effective, which is why, by the time the Labour party left office, the NHS had record satisfaction levels and waiting times that today’s Secretary of State can only dream of. Little wonder the rhetoric in recent months has increasingly been that of scepticism about the benefit of such targets, culminating in the Secretary of State’s words at the weekend that the targets are, in fact, “nonsense”. Well, I think we can see what is going on. Targets have got hopelessly out of reach and there is no real plan for to how to change that, so the Government seek to undermine and ultimately change—or remove altogether—the targets, so that poor performance is disguised or played down.
That does a disservice to the patients who are waiting months—in some cases, sadly, years—for the treatment that they are entitled to. Most of those people will be in significant pain. All will be unable to live their lives to the extent that they would like. Some may be unable to work or undertake other physical activities. We do not need to go through the full list; we can all understand the impact that waiting for treatment can have on individuals. In many cases, their lives are effectively put on hold. They deserve better. The amendment would make it clear that their rights as patients under the constitution meant something and that the ICBs should be expected to focus on delivering those standards.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment and giving us the opportunity to debate it. Of course we understand the importance of reducing waiting times. The Government are committed to increasing activity, tackling backlogs and ensuring that patients can access timely healthcare, backed up by the record investment announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—indeed, some might agree, to a degree copying what the Labour Government did in putting up national insurance.
For instance, to tackle backlogs and drive up activity, the Government are providing £2 billion of elective recovery funding, which is double our previous commitment, and we are working to encourage innovation to help patients to get the care they need. In his remarks, the shadow Minister highlighted funding. I would point out to him the fact that, despite inheriting a note saying “Sorry, there is no more money,” we have continued to increase spending on the NHS.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s vain attempt to persuade me to withdraw the amendment, although he rather missed the central thrust of its purpose, which is, of course, to point out that this is not just about funding; it is about focusing that funding. That is why the targets were introduced in the first place.
We believe it is important that ICBs are also given that focus; we could call it an incentive or a prioritisation. They should be keen to be seen to be delivering that. This is such an important part of the NHS—how are we to judge each ICB’s performance if we do not know how they are performing on waiting lists? This is an important area. We think the general tone and the rhetoric from the Government are that waiting targets are not of significance, so this is an opportunity for them to put right some of the stories that go around in respect of that by supporting the amendment. We will press the amendment to a vote in any case because we believe that this is an important matter, and it should be put on the record.
Karin Smyth
I will not repeat my comments of the other day with respect to an amendment that suddenly disappeared from the amendment paper without my noticing. The point I was making was that targets do drive behaviour, and we learnt something in that magnificent drive down from the Conservative Government’s target of 18 months to wait on a list, which seemed acceptable to them at the time. The wait is beyond that now for many services, which seems acceptable to the Government now, although it is completely unacceptable to everyone in my constituency.
We must consider the managerial and clinical effort involved in focusing on those waiting lists, which, as I have said previously, is about making contact with all those patients, assessing their condition and seeing how it has ordinarily deteriorated once on the waiting list. Sadly, many people have died while on those waiting lists. That effort is huge, and it will require focus.
The Government are asking us all to pay a bit more towards the health service, and most of us are conscious of the fact that that is needed. We can debate how it is being done, but we should know what it will get us. We should absolutely be clear to our constituents—given that they have suffered so much, particularly during the pandemic—that the previous standards were not acceptable, and were not being met, and that it is completely unacceptable to ask people to pay more without their having any idea of what that will bring, or indeed of the Government’s intent with regard to how long they think it is acceptable for people to be on a waiting list.
It is also hugely onerous on the clinical managerial staff to manage these waiting lists in the way that they are, which is hugely inefficient. This is a really bad sign of the flow through the system; we have bottlenecks throughout. It will come back to haunt the Government and whoever is speaking on their behalf at this time—I have no doubt about that. I say that with sorrow because it is miserable all round. The Government would be wise to make some kind of assessment of what they think is an acceptable time to wait for various treatments, so that would be clear to people. Supporting our amendment would give some indication of good faith, at the very least.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend has described the amendment very well, and it would be good to know the Government’s intentions in respect of waiting lists, because we consider the rhetoric a distraction and a nuisance. It is politically convenient for them to have such headlines. We want to put the amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On a point of order, Ms Elliott. I apologise for interrupting the flow of the sitting, but it will not have escaped your notice that my amendments 55 and 54 to clause 20 are coming up soon. As luck would have it, the debate will coincide precisely with the time at which I am due in Westminster Hall to discuss the progress of the Government’s implementation of the recommendations of the Timpson review. It is very difficult for me to avoid being present in Westminster Hall. As luck would further have it, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd is happy to move the amendments on my behalf, as well as speak to them. I hope that is acceptable, and I apologise for having to absent myself for a short period in order to fulfil my duties in another part of the House.
The Chair
That is absolutely fine. I thank the hon. Member for advising the Committee of that.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 58, in clause 19, page 17, line 4, at end insert
“through working with innovation and life sciences ecosystems, facilitated by Academic Health Science Networks, to ensure patients and the public have timely access to transformative innovation.”
This amendment would mandate Trusts to work with AHSNs to promote innovation in health services.
Innovation has allowed us to conquer certain diseases and come up with better and more effective treatments for others. It is integral to societal progress and is a major source of inspiration, new opportunities and, indeed, new financial burdens for the NHS. Most importantly, it means improved outcomes for patients. Innovation needs to reach patients if we are to get the full benefit of the many incredibly talented people who make up our academic and research community.
Academic health science networks have an informal role in the NHS, and there is no obligation on any CCG to work with them to ensure that new, innovative medicines are available. There are 15 academic health science networks across England, which were established by NHS England in 2013 to spread innovation at pace and scale, improving health and generating economic growth. Each network has a distinct geography, covering a specific population in each region—it almost sounds like an integrated care system, but there are not quite as many. They are the only bodies that connect to the NHS and the academic organisations, and are catalysts that create the right conditions to facilitate change across health and social care communities with a clear focus, as we believe should be the case, on improving outcomes for patients. We think they are uniquely placed to underline and spread innovation at pace and scale, driving the adoption and spread of innovative ideas and technologies across large populations, but their effectiveness rests on their ability to bring people, resources and organisations together quickly, delivering benefits that could not be achieved if they operated in isolation.
Everything those bodies do is driven by two imperatives: improving health and generating economic growth in our regions. They are the only partnership bodies that bring together all partners across a regional hub economy to improve the health of local communities. They have a remit from NHS England to occupy what is effectively a unique space outside the usual NHS service contracts and performance management structures, enabling them to collaborate to foster important solutions.
Those bodies use local knowledge to harness the influence of partners to drive change and integrate research within health improvements. They are interested in seeing healthcare businesses thrive and grow, creating jobs, bringing investment and seeing the system improve. They have a different focus, but they share the following priorities: promoting economic growth; fostering opportunities for industry to work effectively with the NHS; diffusing innovation; creating the right environment; and supporting collaboration across boundaries to adopt and spread innovation at pace and scale. They improve patient safety by using knowledge, expertise and networks to bring together patients, healthcare staff and partners to determine priorities and to develop and implement solutions. They optimise medicine use—[Interruption.] Perhaps I have predicted what the Minister was about to say?
Edward Argar
I am envying the shadow Minister’s breath control as he runs through his list.
Justin Madders
I am merely trying to ensure we make good progress today.
Those bodies ensure medication is used to maximum benefit, including safety and making efficient use of NHS resources. They improve quality and reduce variation by spreading best practice—we often talk about the variation among outcomes across different parts of the country. They put research into practice, collaborate on national programmes, and have a unified focus on various initiatives, including the NHS innovation accelerator and patient safety collaborative programme.
The amendment would bake in that good work, some of which I have outlined, by including those bodies within the scope of proposed new section 14Z39 of the National Health Service Act 2006 regarding innovation.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support my hon. Friend. We have rightly criticised much of what has happened in the last few years, but we should also remember that some amazing partnerships and networks have developed, including in my area—Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire—with the universities and others in both primary and secondary care, bringing together clinicians, researchers and so on. They stumbled initially as things were difficult at the beginning, but they have come together very well. They are well regarded—variable but well regarded—and are a useful source of innovation coming together, so I fully echo my hon. Friend’s comments.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for facilitating the debate on this matter, and, as I said, I admire his ability at pace and fluently to rattle through a long list of examples.
As the shadow minister said, the amendment relates to the role of ICBs and ICPs in relation to innovation. First, I want to reassure the Committee that I share his view on the vital importance of research to the NHS and the UK more widely. We are committed to being a research superpower and fully support research and innovation in the NHS and the public being given timely access to transformative medicines and treatments resulting from that innovation.
The example we would all use at the moment is vaccine development. That is a phenomenal example, and it is at the forefront of many of our minds. That is why we have replicated the research duty on CCGs for ICBs to continue a system that has been working well. We are fully supportive of research and ensuring that effective health, public health and social care services are delivered, but we cannot support the amendment.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. The Opposition would not want to be accused of being over-prescriptive—that is certainly not what we intend. I appreciate what the Minister said about not wanting to limit the role of ICBs and he made a good point about the vaccine roll-out being a pertinent example of how innovation can be of huge benefit. That may be at the forefront of his mind because there is now a vacancy in the Department in the role of Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment; the Minister may be looking to add to his already extensive portfolio.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 19, page 17, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
“(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.”
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities to support research in their local health and care systems.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 8, in clause 19, page 17, line 13, after “1F(1)”, insert “and work with universities and colleges”.
This amendment would require Integrated Care Boards to work with universities and other education providers to promote education and training in their local health and care systems.
Chris Skidmore
The amendments would place a legal duty on integrated care boards to support and promote the use and development of research in their local health and care systems. The existing legislation talks about the health system; this is the Health and Care Bill, so it makes sense that the duty to promote research should also promote research in care settings.
Importantly, amendment 7 would promote and support the conduct of research alongside universities, which drive research outputs and innovation in healthcare. We would all agree that that has been highlighted throughout the pandemic: if it was not for our universities, we would not have all received a vaccine, in respect of which the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of research and innovation.
In the specific context of the Bill, it is important to require ICBs to engage with universities and other research settings on the development of the healthcare research workforce. ICBs will have a vital role in ensuring that we have sufficient numbers in not only the health workforce but the healthcare academic workforce, which is key to overall healthcare workforce sustainability. That is particularly important for the development of the clinical academic workforce. Clinical academics work in higher education institutions, conducting cutting-edge research and educating the future workforce while also providing clinical expertise to health and social care services. Because they remain clinically active, their research is grounded in clinical practice and questions that matter to services and patients.
Data from the Medical Schools Council staffing survey shows that although the total number of NHS medical consultants and GPs has risen by 40% over the past 15 years, the numbers of clinical academic have simply not kept up to pace—in fact, they have decreased, from 7.5% to 4.2% of the workforce. The proportion of clinical academic GPs has remained stable, but at just 0.4% of the GP workforce. Furthermore, less than 0.1% of the workforce in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions are clinical academics. Increasing clinical academic capacity is essential to advancing evidence-informed practice and innovation in healthcare in the future. The point here is that expansion of the healthcare programme of student numbers on the UK Government’s intended scale also requires an expansion of the number of healthcare academic staff.
The 2019 academic staffing centres of the Council of Deans of Health identify challenges for universities in recruiting staff and an ageing academic workforce in healthcare subjects. In England, 36% of academic staff are over the age of 50, and 9% are over the age of 60. That suggests that the academic workforce is significantly older than the healthcare workforce as a whole. It suggests that, within the next 15 years, almost half of the academic staff will be at or near retiring age, with many already likely to have retired. Without significant renewal of the academic healthcare workforce, not enough staff will be left to keep up with the number of students.
It is key that senior leaders in both the higher education and the healthcare sectors cultivate a culture of support for clinical academics. ICBs, health and social care providers and universities need to work in partnership to support clinical academics and clinical staff interested in secondments or joint appointments to universities. There should be opportunities for clinical staff to obtain experience and skills in teaching and also in research.
Amendment 7 ensures that ICBs remember their responsibilities to research, to local research priorities and to developing a local clinical academic research workforce, and universities are vitally involved in that important work. I think I am the only Member of this House who has been both a Health Minister and a Universities Minister twice. When I went into the Department of Health and Social Care, we were talking about integration between healthcare settings and social care settings. We have a similar problem with integration when it comes to looking at the medical workforce and ensuring that the education settings and the healthcare settings also integrate better together.
Amendment 8 returns to this point. It would require integrated health and care boards to work with universities to promote education and training in their local health and care systems. Universities are committed to co-creating healthcare services through working with practice partners, further education colleges and other stakeholders to plan and deliver the future workforce. I know that, when we come to clause 33, we will be talking about workforce planning at length, but this amendment would help to enable us to plan in advance to mitigate some of the problems that come with workforce planning for the future.
Universities are rooted in their local and regional communities and focus on improving healthcare outcomes and driving up economic and social wellbeing through providing programmes to meet skills gaps in those local areas. This is highlighted through the work of the universities during the pandemic, including the University of the West of England in my own locality hosting a Nightingale hospital, and the deployment of thousands of healthcare and medical students and some academic staff within clinical practice to expand the NHS workforce at the height of the pandemic. We all want to pay tribute to those medical students who, with no extra salary, gave up their time to volunteer to help staff on some of those covid wards at the time.
In England, universities currently sit on local workforce action boards and on sustainability and transformation partnerships to ensure that education is central to local healthcare planning. The amendment ensures that universities and colleges continue to be actively engaged by ICBs to plan and deliver on local workforce needs and priorities to ensure a sustainable workforce. This should take place alongside continued work with Health Education England.
Healthcare programmes are holistic and necessarily constituted of theory and practice components. For example, a registered nursing programme consists of 4,600 hours of education across three years—2,300 hours of academic learning and 2,300 hours of theory learning. Universities and their practice placement partners need to be involved in national and local workforce planning to ensure that there is adequate placement capacity in the system. As I saw when I was a Health Minister, placement capacity has long been recognised as a constraint to sector growth. Even if the hospitals wanted to expand, they did not have the placements to be able to deliver on the demand that was there.
ICBs must be involved in developing placement capacity and innovation and work with partners to increase placement opportunities outside the NHS, including in private healthcare, the third sector, social care, research and teaching, and international exchange. ICBs also need to work with education providers to think about developing education placements to support digital innovation and online and blended delivery, particularly considering the learning we have from the pandemic. That will help to support higher education institutions to manage the continued challenges posed by placement capacity problems, considering health service pressures.
Requiring ICBs to work with universities and colleges is also key to ensuring the success of healthcare apprenticeships and new technical qualifications such as T-levels. Universities work in close collaboration with local employers to develop and deliver healthcare apprenticeships. They are also committed to ensuring smooth articulation between further education and higher education, and universities are working with colleges to ensure that the healthcare T-levels and the new higher technical qualifications are rolled out successfully.
The amendment would ensure that the planning of future workforce numbers and sufficient placement capacity for all learner routes must be developed in partnership with education providers. That is crucial.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his amendments and the case he made for them. I hope that he remembers with fondness his visit to the University of Nottingham and Nottingham Trent University when he was Universities Minister. He will have seen then the significant role that they play in our community, and I think they provide a good model for some of the things that we are talking about. I hope the Minister will address the points about clinical academics in particular. They were very well made, and I thought the right hon. Member for Kingswood also provided the basis for what will be a really interesting discussion on clause 33.
What attracts me to amendment 7 is that it is really important to send a signal to the leaders of integrated care boards that we want research to be central to their mission, as NHS Providers said in its evidence, and that we do not see them solely as administrators of health and care spending on a day-to-day basis, who every winter have to engage in collective crisis management to keep the lights on. We have much broader horizons in mind for them. If this is about new and enhanced models of more integrated care, we have to harness the expertise of academia. Hopefully, if this was effective and worked as a two-way process, with academics learning from inside the system and the systems learning from best practice from around the different footprints, that would be really powerful.
That relates neatly to the point about inequalities, from the beginning of our line-by-line consideration. The argument in favour of making that a priority was not about some sort of quixotic search for solutions or saying that something must be done, so let us just do something; rather, it is about taking evidence-based, high-quality interventions that work and putting them to work elsewhere. The sort of insights that amendment 7 proposes would certainly do that.
When I read amendment 8, my first instinct was, “I wish I had tabled it,” because I think it is great. We want to foster a culture where we invest in and develop our people. That is true whatever someone’s role is in the health and care service. Of course, that is really important in the NHS, and we all have a clear picture of what that looks like, but it is even more important in social care. We undervalue the role of social care in so many aspects, obviously and most tangibly in pay and conditions, but we also do not invest in people. Imagine how much more attractive a career in care would become if someone’s training prospects went beyond the limited ones offered by whoever their employer happens to be and instead a wealth of other opportunities and courses backed by top higher education providers in their community was opened up.
My family’s life was transformed by the impact that night school had on my mum’s skills. She progressed from being an unqualified person working in childcare and turned that from a job into a career. That was completely transformative, not just for her life but for mine and my sister’s. How terrific would that sort of picture be for people entering the care profession. It would be a wonderful thing. So there is a lot to go at here, and I am very interested in hearing the Minister’s views on how we can try to foster that culture, if not through amendments 7 and 8.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the agenda raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood in his amendments 7 and 8 and the need for integrated care systems to ensure that NHS organisations for which they are responsible conduct and resource clinical research.
I think all would agree that the UK life sciences sector is world-leading. That was evidenced during the pandemic by the way in which early PCR testing was brought forward for covid, by the recovery trial and by vaccine development and so on. In this country, however, the location of existing activity is all too often limited. We have world-renowned centres of excellence, often associated with teaching hospitals. I would do nothing to weaken that. The Government’s levelling-up agenda needs to extend involvement in such activity across the country. But at the same time, it can strengthen what Britain has to offer to patients and the world as a whole, bringing economic benefit to the country as well as to the NHS through increased income.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for tabling his amendments and allowing us to have this debate. As has been mentioned, he was both my distinguished predecessor in this role and a very distinguished Minister for universities and research.
Amendments 7 and 8 relate to requiring ICBs to work together with higher education institutions and to their research duty. With the consent of the Committee, and with yours, Ms Elliott, I will start with amendment 8 and revert to amendment 7. Amendment 8 would alter the statutory duty placed on ICBs to promote education and training when exercising their functions to assist the Secretary of State and Health Education England in the discharge of their statutory duties. The Government believe that integrated care boards should promote education and training for people who are employed or considering becoming employed in the provision of NHS services, and that is what proposed new section 14Z41 of the National Health Service Act 2006, in clause 19, achieves that. This provision mirrors the duty currently imposed on clinical commissioning groups. In discharging the duty, ICBs will invariably work with higher education institutions as well as other educational providers as they consider appropriate.
At this point, the Department does not think that it necessary to mandate specific details of how ICBs should discharge that duty under proposed new section 14Z41, particularly as NHS England will have a power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which should serve to clarify the system. The draft guidance published by NHS England and NHS Improvement in August 2021 states that the delivery of ICBs’ responsibilities will include working with educational institutions to develop the local future workforce across the health and care system. We believe that that guidance sends a strong signal to the system of the importance of the issue, reinforcing the statutory duty that ICBs will be under to promote education and training. Furthermore, it is worth noting in that context that ICBs will not be the only place in the system where engagement with higher education institutions will be taken forward.
HEE works extremely closely with higher education institutions and other education providers both nationally and through non-statutory regional people boards, jointly with NHS England, to ensure that the education and health systems are producing the right number of people with the right skills for our NHS. For example, Health Education England has already offered to support ICBs through the provision of workforce development support.
I will now turn to amendment 7, before wrapping both amendments together. I start by reassuring my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate that the Government remain fully committed to supporting research as part of our NHS. Currently, clinical commissioning groups are under a duty to promote research; the Bill places the same duty on integrated care boards. That duty is discharged in a variety of ways—for example, with some CCGs having research strategies or research offices, providing details on how people can participate in research locally, or being partners in research organisations. Rather than being direct funders or directly conducting research themselves, the role of integrated care boards is to facilitate and enable research.
A duty to promote research gives greater flexibility for integrated care boards to determine how best and most effectively to engage with and encourage research in their local system. For example, NHS Liverpool CCG is the host organisation for the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast, while NHS Norfolk and Waveney CCG has a dedicated primary and community care research office, which works with a range of stakeholders, including academics, to develop and support the delivery of healthcare research across the area.
The amendment would modify the research duty on integrated care boards by replacing a requirement to promote research on relevant health service matters with one to “support the conduct” of that research. It also contains an additional requirement for ICBs to work with universities and other research settings to support the development of the health research workforce and careers.
We believe that there would be relatively little practical impact from changing the duty to one of supporting the conduct of research, and that there would be the potential to cause some confusion to staff moving from CCGs to ICBs as to what was expected of them. On the question of developing the health research workforce and careers by working with universities and other research settings, there is a risk in highlighting universities in particular, as that might imply an exclusion of other education facilities, although I know that that is not the intent. Furthermore, I have already highlighted the effectiveness of the proposed education and training duty, which includes the research workforce. Finally, the duty in relation to promoting the use of evidence and research is already part of the existing ICB duties.
I hope that, given those reassurances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will not feel that he has to press his amendments to a vote. I look forward to continuing to speak with him as proceedings on the Bill continue, to ensure that when it becomes law, we end up with something that accurately reflects what we need in order to carry on being a powerhouse of innovation and research.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for his considered comments on these amendments. They are probing amendments, and I do not intend to press them to a vote. I hope, however, that the Department will consider not only the discussion that we have had in Committee today, but a letter that was sent to the Minister’s office on 14 September from Universities UK, the Medical Schools Council and the Council of Deans of Health, which have all signalled their support for a form of words in an amendment that recognises the potential difficulties about placement planning and the opportunities represented by putting measures in the Bill about ICBs demonstrating integrated working.
I have been in Bill Committees before—I am now legislating to take out a lot of what I legislated for 10 years ago, when I was dealing with what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. These Bills do not come around very often, so we have a fantastic opportunity, as the oral evidence sessions demonstrated, and I fully appreciate it. I have removed and re-tabled one of my amendments, to clause 33, as a result of the feedback from the oral evidence sessions.
There is a tension about how prescriptive we should be when the very culture of the Bill is about locally led practice and delivery and ensuring that we give health service managers and clinicians the opportunity to decide what is best for their local areas, so I do appreciate that prescription here may be unnecessary, but I felt it was important that I raised this as an opportunity to make a change in the Bill.
When it comes to clause stand part, I would like to speak more generally on clause 19 about the value of research, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has spoken about. I think we have an opportunity—it is one that I do not want to miss—when it comes to embedding research within the future of the NHS. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 19, page 25, line 37, at end insert—
“14Z58A Power of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to obtain information
(1) The Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require an integrated care board to provide the Domestic Abuse Commissioner with information.
(2) The information must be provided in such form, and at such time or within such period, as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner may require.”
This amendment places a requirement on Integrated Care Boards to share information with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner at their request.
This is the first of a couple of amendments relating to domestic abuse. I hope it is not necessary, but it is my best avenue for establishing a point. I am really hoping for a one-word answer from the Minister—in my experience, a one-word answer is better than a two-word answer—and I hope that we can make quick progress with the amendment.
In England and Wales, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created the post of Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is in the vanguard of holding to account authorities and agencies to ensure that their process and plans promote our national attempts to tackle domestic abuse. Currently, the post is filled by the excellent Nicole Jacobs. She has the power to obtain information from public bodies such as the local police, the local council and the Care Quality Commission, so that she can express her views as to whether those organisations are acting in line with well-evidenced best practice in the decisions that they take. That is an important way in which we can be assured that public policy decisions on the ground from day to day reflect the national consensus on what we are trying to achieve.
Currently, NHS bodies are in scope of the commissioner’s powers, and I want to clarify that ICBs and any relevant sub-committee would also be in scope. The composition of the boards will not matter, and there will be no shielding behind commercial confidentiality. The body will sit consistently with other, similar bodies, and the commissioner will be able to get the information she needs to do the job that we have asked of her.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I share his view that it is crucial that integrated care boards co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I think I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we agree that the health and social care system has a crucial role in preventing and tackling domestic abuse, and in supporting victims who experience this horrendous crime. Indeed, before the last reshuffle, when I moved from Justice to Health, I was one of the Ministers working with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on the genesis of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act. Therefore, we wholeheartedly welcome the introduction of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s role in the Act.
The commissioner has a vital role to play in monitoring the response to domestic abuse, sharing best practice and challenging bodies, including in health and social care, to go further and to do more. The commissioner will require information, support and co-operation from integrated care boards as well as a range of other public bodies. That is why the Domestic Abuse Act contains a duty to co-operate with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and we have made it clear that that will apply to integrated care boards and their component parts. It will also apply to requests for information from the commissioner. That is a little more than one word, but I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Nottingham North that there is already such provision, as there should be. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
More broadly, the Department for Health and Social Care will be taking steps to ensure that integrated care boards also have the right guidance and support to ensure that they fulfil their duties in relation to domestic abuse, as well as violence against women and girls, and sexual violence more broadly. We will be following the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy by engaging with current ICSs, the wider sector and the commissioner, so that we identify best practice and share that guidance across the system to ensure that all parts of the system play their part.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer and clarification. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
This clause inserts 31 new sections into the NHS Act 2006. It is the cornerstone of the integrated care board provisions, as it sets out the functions and duties that ICBs are required by legislation to fulfil. Clause 19 contains a number of provisions and duties in respect of ICBs. Given the importance of these provisions in the Bill, I will take Members through them, if they will forgive me, in a little detail.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for that herculean effort in listing all the powers and responsibilities of ICBs. For a permissive Bill, the fact that it sets out 12 duties suggests that the pendulum has swung a little bit further than the Minister was perhaps prepared to admit on Tuesday. Of course, the number would have been even higher had our amendment been accepted, but there we go; a dozen is still an impressive amount. However, it is really about what that means in practice.
The Minister referred to the duty whereby ICBs are required to promote awareness of the NHS constitution. In the context of the debate that we have just had on NHS waiting lists, it strikes me as similar to the scene—it might be familiar to many Members—at the end of each “Bullseye” episode, when the speedboat that the unlucky contestant had not succeeded in getting was brought out, so as to say, “Look what you could have won!” In this case, it is, “Look what the NHS constitution says about waiting times. By the way, we are not delivering on that for you.” That is the nub of some of the duties—how will they be enforced in practice? The Minister referred to mechanisms for NHS England intervention, although we would have liked that to be further strengthened with specific reference to waiting lists.
I note that in proposed new section 14Z59(4), NHS England has retained the ability to terminate the appointment of an ICB chief executive, but also to direct the chair of the board as to which individual to appoint as their replacement and on what terms. That is quite a strong power. The way I read that, if NHS England decides to get rid of someone, it, and it alone, will decide who will replace them. That really goes against the spirit of what we have been discussing for the last couple of days. Would the Minister be able to allay my fears in that respect, or at least put into context the circumstances in which that clause might operate?
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about proposed new section 14Z47 and ICBs’ ability to offer grants and loans on whatever terms they see fit. It now seems that the “B” in ICB stands for bank, or possibly building society. Obviously, at the moment these bodies do not exist in law and so have no capital resources to draw on to create such grants or loans, but of course that will change in due course. Again, will the Minister advise the Committee in what kind of situations that might be a possibility?
Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the powers and responsibilities in proposed new section 14Z52, on health and wellbeing boards’ comments about forward plans. Like much of this, it is a process-driven, tick-box exercise where people have to “take regard” and explain why they are not doing something that everyone else has asked them to do. A whole lot of this raises the question: in a disagreement, what are the levers to get proper accountability and change that the whole of the system, apart from the ICB, wants to see?
Chris Skidmore
Although I entirely support clause 19 as an essential ingredient of the Bill that will provide certainty and legal confidence to ICBs, I wish to draw the Minister’s attention again to the duty to promote research. The past year has demonstrated the increased engagement, across all healthcare settings, in research and those activities relating to the pandemic.
Research demonstrates the enormous benefits not only to patients, but to organisations that see improved outcomes, lower mortality rates and increased confidence in care as a result of being research-led organisations. It also shows the staggering gross value added that is produced within the NHS—£2.7 billion in 2018-19, through the National Institute for Health Research clinical research network that supports clinical research activities. For every patient recruited on to a commercial trial between 2016 and 2018, the NHS in England received more than £9,000. When a drug is replaced by a new one—a trial drug—there is another saving of nearly £6,000.
Research not only improves lives; we know it saves lives. I am a passionate advocate for expanding our research and development capacity across society if we are to succeed as global Britain. That is one reason we have that cross-Government target of raising the amount spent on R&D, both public and private, to 2.4% of GDP by 2027.
I want to come back to this idea of the duty to promote research. I recall serving on the Bill Committee for what became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, when the duty to promote research was first written into legislation, with the duty on CCGs. That has now been transferred across in the text for ICBs, in proposed new sections 14Z39 and 14Z40 to the National Health Service Act 2006.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, the duty to promote may not be strong enough. I do not have an amendment to hand, but I wanted to raise this point more generally so that the Minister and his Bill team might give it some consideration. Given that ICSs are established as the strategic system leaders for the NHS and partner organisations to deliver integrated care and take that whole-systems approach, research will have to be a core element of ICSs’ regional plans if we are to maximise the strengths of the NHS, our world-leading science capability and the opportunities I have spoken about.
I therefore urge the Government to consider whether there might be an opportunity to change the duty to promote into a duty to conduct and resource clinical research during the passage of the Bill. It is important to stress that a duty to promote has to be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure: staffing levels, research capability, digital resources, access to services, efficient trial approval processes, the ability to reliably recruit patients, guidance and dedicated staff time for research. The whole idea of “promotion” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. There might be an opportunity for us to be more detailed in creating a duty to conduct and resource clinical research.
Such a duty—this has been raised with me—would present the opportunity that research brings to highlight clinical inequalities within the NHS. We need to be able to measure research activity; we cannot manage or even promote research activity unless we are able to measure it effectively. With that comes the whole question of clinical auditing—making sure that there is an effective auditing process in place to ensure that research-led activities are able to be effectively measured and therefore effectively managed. I am sure that that will be raised in the other place during the passage of the Bill. I act as a canary in the coalmine to provide the Minister with due warning that I am sure these debates will come up during the passage of the Bill in the other place.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.
I have some questions for the Minister about the cross-border joint committees. I would, of course, be happy if he could answer them this afternoon, but he if wishes to have a period of further consideration I would be content for him to write to the Committee with the answers.
Clause 19 sets down the prescribed functions of an integrated care board that can be exercised jointly with the local health board in Wales. This is to be the responsibility of joint committees. The clause replaces the regulations in the National Health Service Act 2006, which provide that any prescribed functions of a clinical commissioning group can be exercised jointly with local health boards. The immediate questions for me are quite obvious—the who, what, why and how sort of questions—and I have not seen any details on this matter as yet, although I might have missed something.
As to my questions to the Minister, first, the why is quite clear: people from Wales access specialist services in England, as I am sure the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd would point out if I did not. People from border areas, but also from the far north-west of Wales where I live, access services in Manchester and are very glad to do so. Indeed, people from England access services in Wales as well, although that is less remarked on. Cross-border traffic is usually couched in terms of dependency from Wales, but it might interest the Committee to know that in 2019, 13,500 people from Wales accessed GP services in England, while at the same time, 21,000 people from England accessed GP services in Wales. That might, of course, be something to do with the free prescriptions provided by the Labour Government in Wales—I could not possibly comment.
To be clear, as a Plaid Cymru Member and a nationalist, I think co-operation is not just desirable but essential to ensure that fair and effective cross-border arrangements are in place. There will, no doubt, be opportunities to compare and contrast and to learn from each other. As I said, however, I would like the Minister to address some of my questions. This is not an exhaustive list.
First, to what degree have the Welsh Government played a part in drawing up the arrangements for joint committees? I am sure there have been discussions. For example, how will the membership of joint committees be decided? There has been a good deal of concern in debates in this Committee about private providers having seats on ICBs, as we have already heard. Pertinently to this matter, the private sector has a lesser role in the provision of health and social care in Wales. We are not talking about identical services here. The private sector might have a greater prominence on the other side of the border. Has it been agreed with the Welsh Government that private providers are to have seats on joint committees or not? If so, what safeguards will be in place to prevent the conflicts of interest that were referred to on Tuesday?
What structures will be in place to ensure that there is national Welsh consistency in decision making between the joint committees along the border? Will there be a national framework, although perhaps that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster, for coming to agreements on the delivery of services, or will it be up to the local joint committees, with the danger of a postcode lottery? As I said, I think this might be a matter for the Welsh Government rather than the Government here in Westminster. It has been agreed, I hope, so I would like to know what was agreed.
Lastly, in respect of the detailed points, to whom will the joint committees be accountable: to their respective ICBs or health boards, to the Government, or to the ICB on one side and the Welsh Government on the other? How will that be done? Indeed, when consultation—wide consultation, I hope—is undertaken, will it happen across the border as well? Will Welsh patients be able to have their say? There are more questions that I will pursue, and more will surely arise as the joint committees begin their work. I hope the Minister appreciates that these matters need further explanation.
Finally, I have three broader points. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there have been discussions on these points and what has been decided about the services provided over the border. First, I am worried about divergence in health policy between Wales and England. There is a wellbeing approach to health in Wales, as I said in the debates on Tuesday. Might any difficulties arise from that? There might be some difference between what is available in Wales and what is available over the border.
Secondly—this is a particularly important matter where I live—has there been any discussion on whether services provided from England into Wales are consistent with the Welsh language requirements of the Welsh health service? I think there is a problem here, and some services provided into Wales from England are really aware of this. I think of the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Gobowen, which has Welsh-language services for people coming in from Wales. The hospital is just outside Oswestry, not far from the border. That is an issue to be examined, and perhaps to be answered by the Minister today or in a letter.
Lastly—this is more of a point in law, or possibly a philosophical point—can ICBs, which are ultimately the responsibility of the Government here in Westminster, be accountable to the Welsh Government, who have their power devolved from London? To put it more directly, can the Welsh Government peck up the pecking order towards bodies over in England? That has been a real question for services provided from outside Wales by Government bodies or agencies. Over many years, there has been quite a debate about bilingualism in the services provided into Wales by the Department for Work and Pensions. Again, that might not be a problem, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on this issue and on the other questions that I have raised.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for his comments. I hope I can reassure him that the issues he raised, and the issues that he has aired in the Committee today, will continue to be reflected on carefully by officials and Ministers during the passage of the Bill.
I will try to address the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Arfon. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on the appointment of chief executives and the termination of appointments. That power is broadly akin to the current power that CCGs have, and we are simply moving across the power that NHS England has over CCGs to reflect the new environment of integrated care boards.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister, but does that not expose our fear that, really, ICBs are just bigger CCGs?
Edward Argar
No, because at the heart of ICBs is an enhanced integration and partnership-working model, which will be a significant step forward to facilitate improved patient care in our constituencies and localities.
The power to make loans is analogous to the power that exists for CCGs.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston touched on forward plans and health and wellbeing boards. The ICB will have an obligation to consult the health and wellbeing board, including in respect of whether it takes into account the latest joint health and wellbeing strategy and provides the HWB with a copy of its plan.
On Wales, I fear that I may have to write to the hon. Member for Arfon with some of the answers, but I shall try to give some now so that he has at least something today. We are seeking not to make a policy change or anything like that but to carry the existing situation for CCGs across into the new arrangement. We have been consulting and working closely with the Welsh Government. I suspect that, as we heard from the witnesses, some in the Welsh Government may suggest that we should consult more closely, while others will say the consultation is adequate. I believe I have a good relationship with the Health Minister in the Welsh Government—I spoke to her only yesterday about a number of aspects of the Bill—and at official level conversations are constantly ongoing.
The hon. Member for Arfon touched on joint committees, which will involve ICBs and their Welsh equivalents. We would not expect private providers to serve on them because they will in effect exercise an ICB function. On Tuesday, I made it clear to the Committee that it is not our intention that private providers should serve on ICBs, so they should not serve on joint committees either. We will have further discussions with the Opposition Front-Bench team and others as to whether we can find a way to make that clearer in the legislation.
Finally, accountability remains essentially unchanged. The NHS in Wales is accountable to the Welsh Government and ICBs will be accountable to NHS England and, therefore, to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Arfon touched on the challenge of divergence or disparity of provision. I suspect that, in a sense, it comes baked into a devolution settlement that when power is devolved down there is sometimes a divergence of approach or there are different services. That is in the nature of any devolution settlement where specific services or functions are devolved. For example, as we have seen in our exiting from coronavirus regulations, the devolved Administrations have the right, under the settlement, to pursue the approach that they deem to be most effective.
I hope that I have addressed a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Arfon. I see my officials frantically scribbling down his other questions; we will endeavour to check Hansard and write to him with anything we have missed.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Integrated care partnerships and strategies
Dr James Davies
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 20, page 29, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) When appointing members to the integrated care partnership, the integrated care partnership must pay particular attention to the range of services used by children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require integrated care partnerships to consider representation from the full spectrum of services used by babies, children and young people, including education settings.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 54, in clause 20, page 29, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) include specific consideration of how it will meet the needs of children and young people aged 0-25.”
This amendment would require an integrated care partnership to specifically consider the needs of babies, children and young people when developing its strategy.
Dr Davies
I move the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury.
These probing amendments would require integrated care partnerships to involve in their joint committee the key partners—including schools and colleges—responsible for meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. The intention is to understand how we can best ensure that children’s needs are given equal priority at ICS level. The Bill provides a genuine opportunity to reduce child health inequalities and improve children’s health outcomes, which is all the more pressing following many children’s severe adverse experiences over the past 18 months.
The Government’s drive towards integrated services and greater collaboration, both within and beyond the health and care system, is very much to be welcomed, but if ICSs are to achieve their aims of improving population health and reducing inequalities, they must give equal weight to the needs of children when they plan and commission services. Why? Because children are a distinct population with their own workforce, infrastructure, developmental needs and legislation. Children’s health is affected by a complex ecosystem of factors, with many interrelated systems encircling the child. Their health is determined not only by primary and secondary health services, but by their nursery or school, children’s social care teams, the local authority SEND workforce, school nursing, health visitors and many other partners.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury for tabling the amendments and to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for stepping in to give the Committee a chance to discuss them. I agree completely with what he said about the Bill being a real opportunity on child health in this country and I hope that we can take it.
We should be saddened by what Barnardo’s said in its written evidence:
“Children growing up in England…face some of the worst health outcomes in Europe”—
particularly those growing up in poverty. That is really saddening, not least because even prior to the pandemic, according to Action for Children, over 4 million children were living in poverty, including a staggering, breathtakingly sad 46% of children in black and minority ethnic groups. We must seek to do better. These things should stop us in our tracks, given the wealth that we as a country have, the technologies we have, the schooling we have and the assets we have, yet we cannot give our young people, particularly the poorest children, the best start in life. That is really sad.
The only enhancement that I would make to the amendments is that, rather than making them about ages nought to 25, I would extend the range to include the six months prior to birth, because we know how important those services are. I hope, in that spirit, that we may hear some enthusiasm from the Minister and his Government about implementing all the recommendations of the Leadsom review. I know that it will be hard, because it will involve acknowledging some dreadful decisions over the past decade, such as the reduction in Sure Start but, nevertheless, that report has real potential to be the bedrock for a return to something much closer to proper early intervention in this country. We might not have the saddening and completely avoidable outcomes that we have, so I hope that we hear some good news from the Minister on that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member—I cannot pronounce that—and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, on whose behalf my hon. Friend for Vale of Clwyd spoke. I also wish to put on the record my gratitude to Lord Farmer and his team for the work that they have been doing in this space. I have had the pleasure of meeting them, and—to reassure the shadow Minister—I have already met once, or possibly twice, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) to discuss her review. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds has also worked with her on it, and we continue to work together to try to find ways to move that forward.
I hope that all Members agree that the creation of integrated care boards and ICPs represents a significant opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to make sure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of infants, children and young people. We acknowledge that these amendments understandably intend to ensure that the needs of children and young people aged 0 to 25 are represented on the ICP and are considered by the ICP when developing its strategy. While we entirely agree with the intentions behind the amendments, we come back to the point that we wish to provide local areas with the flexibility to determine what will work best for their systems, their priorities and how they develop their plans and membership. Overly prescriptive approaches in the Bill would risk making it harder for systems to design the approaches that will work best in their area.
Turning to amendment 54, we would not want ICPs to create plans for children disconnected from the wider healthcare system. We know that the very best systems consider how their health systems are meeting everyone’s need, including where there are transitions between different stages of life. However, I do hope that I can provide some further comfort for my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. We are working on bespoke guidance for babies, children and young people, which will set out clearly how ICBs and ICPs are obliged to deliver for them. This will cover the importance of the ICB forward plan and the ICP strategy and how they can set clear objectives for babies, children and young people. The Department is working closely on the drafting of this guidance with NHS England, the Department for Education and, indeed the relevant Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—I presume that she is still the relevant Minister as we speak. We will also be working with all stakeholders, including the National Children’s Bureau, in the coming months. I suspect that this is a theme and an issue that we will return to at various points both in Committee and indeed in the further passage of this legislation.
I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd on this matter. I entirely understand where he is coming from, but ask that, on this occasion, he does not press his amendment—or the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury—to a vote.
Dr Davies
I thank the Minister for that response. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is particularly keen that these matters are covered within statutory guidance, but, with the leave of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations which set out the procedure to be followed should an integrated care partnership believe that an integrated care board has failed in its duty under this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure for the resolution of any dispute between an integrated care partnership and an integrated care board concerning the implementation of a strategy produced by the integrated care partnership.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 83, in clause 20, page 31, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) Where—
(a) in exercising its functions a responsible local authority or integrated care board diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) in exercising any functions in arranging for the provision of health services in relation to the area of a responsible local authority NHS England diverges from an assessment or strategy mentioned in subsection (2),
that local authority, that integrated care board or (as the case may be) NHS England must—
(a) (i) within 30 days, make a public statement of its divergence from the assessment or strategy, and
(ii) within 60 days, publish its reasons for the divergence, together with any supporting evidence.”
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about amendment 83 which has been grouped with amendment 47.
Amendment 47 focuses on the whole discussion that we have had, and that we will continue to have, around integrated partnerships and what they will be able to do to deliver for their communities. I do not know if “Marmotisation” is a word; if it is, this could be seen as the first step towards that, but we will see how it works in practice. We must be clear, however, that this is a first step. The names of the partners being bandied about shows that this Bill is about the integration of not just health and social care but the whole wider public sector and other partners, and shows, too, that health issues permeate almost every walk of life. This certainly does not, as evidenced by the Prime Minister’s comments last week, constitute a solution to the integration of health and social care.
Putting that aside, there is an opportunity here to do something different. However, for all the froth and grand statements about partnership working we fear we may be looking at giant CCGs with less GP involvement—we have made this point a number of times so I will not labour it. What we are presented with is a reorganisation of the NHS, not a panacea for integration. We have tried a couple of times already to elicit from the Minister what is missing from the Bill in terms of the integration that the Prime Minister believes necessitates a White Paper. I think the Minister might struggle sometimes to understand what exactly is going on in the Prime Minister’s head in relation to this—or indeed anything else that is going on in his head—but we await his response on that with interest.
I would like to make some general points on the relationship between the NHS and local authorities, because that is important. The Bill acknowledges that greater interaction is needed, but the big question is whether it actually delivers that solution. If there is to be a genuine generational shift from thinking of the NHS as dealing with sickness to contributing to overall wellbeing, that will be welcome, although if our amendment on patient outcomes had been accepted that would have been a better start. There have been some discussions around SDPs and ICSs in the Bill, and that gives us hope that there might be something here we can work with.
The need to bring services together and integrate is blindingly obvious, but it is also very hard to do as the following example demonstrates. A patient with a long-term condition such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and with both healthcare and social care needs, has an acute episode and is admitted to hospital and is then discharged back into their home, which unfortunately suffers from a chronic damp problem—something many Members will know about from their constituency casework. The housing provider—a local authority, perhaps, or an arm’s length management organisation or registered social landlord—is doing its best, but it does not have enough resources to get to the root of the problem, so there is a liaison meeting where this case is discussed between the NHS and local councillors. The councillor for the area where the individual is located asks the chief executive of the trust whether it would be a good idea for some of the health budget to be invested in social housing so that people such as this individual would not be readmitted for a problem that is essentially caused by the property they are living in. The chief executive responds by asking why they would throw money away on something like that, even though a more holistic view shows that would be of benefit for everyone in the long run.
That illustrates why we need to work harder on integration, and it is not an isolated incident. As any councillor who has been in post for any number of years will know—if the Minister and I totted up between us how many years we have served, it would probably be quite a lot—sometimes it is difficult to have the level of interaction with the NHS that we would like. As an aside, I might add that children in care meetings or care around the child meetings are incredibly important, but often the GP does not attend because they have many other priorities.
We have talked about this many times, but the vaccine roll-out has been an exemplar of how local government and the NHS can work together. That was a specific task at the time of the national crisis. It is clearly more difficult to repeat that kind of synergy on a day-to-day basis, but it does show what can be done.
In Wales, the Government have a far-reaching strategy around the wellbeing of future generations. They have made a big leap, moving the NHS away from market thinking and focusing on the way it delivers its service to the public. Both Scotland and Wales have accepted the need for that approach, and their integrated joint boards, joint integration boards, health boards and local authorities have all been talking about integration for some time. Of course, they have the sense to make their health boards coterminous with local authority areas. That would have been a very wise move. We have already had some chat about devolved involvement and I am sure that we will return to that.
Alex Norris
Amendment 83 builds on my hon. Friend’s argument about creating some balance between the integrated care partnership and the integrated care board, so I will not repeat it. I simply underscore the fact that the ICPs have the money, power and accountability at the moment, but there is a risk that they become a closed shop and not bodies about integration at all.
We are told that integrated care partnerships will be the way in which the broader health and care family and the community will come together as they lead and play a pivotal role. We need a safeguard in the Bill to ensure what we would do if the relationship breaks down. The amendment is a version of what Sir Robert Francis from Healthwatch said about one possible way in an evidence session. I am not prescriptive about this, but I am keen to hear what the Minister might suggest to give us comfort on this. If the ICPs are to function as promised, their plans ought to have some sort of status, so that if the integrated care board chooses to diverge, it must make a public statement that it is going to within 30 days and then publish its reasons with evidence within 60 days.
There is an equivalent provision in NHS England for responsibilities held at a national level. If nothing else, this is basic accountability. It does not restrict any activity, so there is no risk in it. Even if a partnership does not like the decision made or value the reasons given, it cannot remove the chair of the board. Although the constitution has already prevented that, at least we will know what has happened, so the safeguard is quite modest. There is a blizzard of different ways to do it, but I hope that we can have some comfort on ensuring a balance between the partnership and the board, if not at this stage, then by the time we come back on Report.
Karin Smyth
Will the Minister share with us what he thinks the difference is between ICPs and health and wellbeing boards?
Edward Argar
I will confine my comments to amendments 47 and 83, because we will address the wider themes when we have the clause stand part debate.
Amendments 47 and 83 stand in the names of Opposition Members. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, has asked a number of questions, which I will try to address before turning to the substance of those amendments. I am not personally aware of any analytical piece about the impact and effectiveness of health and wellbeing boards, but anecdotally from my background in local Government before I came to this place—and, indeed, as a Member—I certainly see the value that they bring to their communities through their work. The shadow Minister is perhaps being a little inadvertently unfair to the legal profession in suggesting that the phrase “have regard to” is weasel words, because my understanding is that “have regard to” is a well-known, much-used legal phrase in drafting, and it carries with it an obligation to do exactly what it says: to have regard, and to show that.
Finally, the hon. Member has pressed me again, and I fear I will give him the same answer—he and I have done this before—as I have given the other shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, in various delegated legislation Committees over the past year relating to our exit from the EU. I think the Prime Minister has been entirely clear in what he has set out: this legislation lays important foundations for the closer integration of local authority and NHS-provided care, on which we will of course build, because we are an ambitious Government with a clear agenda to further improve our health and care systems.
With those points made, I will turn to the detail of the amendments, which address the relationship between ICPs and ICBs—as certain Opposition Members have touched on—and address divergence from health and wellbeing board and ICB assessments and strategies. Amendment 47 would require the Secretary of State to establish a procedure to resolve any disputes between the ICP and the ICB, while amendment 83 would add an additional requirement on NHS England, integrated care boards, and local authorities to make a public statement and publish their reasons when they deviate from the integrated care strategy prepared by the proposed integrated care partnership, and the joint strategic needs assessment and joint local health and wellbeing strategies prepared by health and wellbeing boards.
I do appreciate the concern—the genuine concern, I think—from Opposition Members about the need to ensure that ICPs and local authorities are genuinely closely aligned to both the ICP and the health and wellbeing board plans. We do intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision making of these bodies: that is why, as I say, we are introducing a duty for those bodies to have regard to them. However, we do not think the additional conditions suggested by these amendments are necessary, as we believe there are already means in place to avoid such disputes. First, the ICB will be a required part of the ICP. It will be intimately involved in pulling together the integrated care strategy, so it should be fully signed up to the elements of the plan that fall within its area of responsibility, as it will be partly drafting that plan. As a result, we consider the likelihood of disputes in that context to be low.
Secondly, there are already duties on both ICBs and local authorities to have regard to the strategy in discharging their functions. The duty to have regard means that to diverge from the plan, they must be able to reasonably explain and justify why they have done so. If they cannot, they would be open to challenge, and in the case of an ICB, they could be open to direct intervention from NHS England for having failed to discharge their functions to have due regard properly. Thirdly, we would also expect that both health and wellbeing boards and ICPs would consider how their strategies and assessments are applied in the system, and would want to keep progress under regular review. Those committees themselves provide an appropriate framework for regularly assessing and considering how to address any divergence.
We are also concerned that it would be difficult to rigidly determine if and when NHS England, an integrated care board, or a local authority had diverged from these strategies and assessments in the exercise of their functions, especially if plans were high-level and strategic. By creating this specific requirement and setting a specified timeframe, I fear we would risk creating a great deal of bureaucracy as these bodies attempt to determine if, when, and to what extent they may have diverged. Instead, we believe it is more appropriate to leave it to ICPs working with the ICB and local authorities to develop and design mechanisms to review progress locally.
As a further safeguard, NHS England has the general power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, which could be used to set out how an ICB should consider the integrated care strategy, joint strategic needs assessment and joint health and wellbeing strategy in exercising its functions. Guidance may also suggest ways of resolving any issues that arise in the ICB in the exercise of these functions. We would expect NHS England to consider doing so, if that was necessary.
Justin Madders
The Minister has made some interesting points. I will have to come back on the reference to “weasel words”. I was a lawyer for a number of years, and when it comes to their use, I think that lawyers are probably second only to Members of Parliament in being able to use them.
There were many occasions when we were negotiating and drafting documents. Once, I wanted something to happen and another person said, “Well, we don’t want to actually make that an absolute commitment, but we intend to do it.” We always ended up with the compromise of reasonable endeavours. Best endeavours was another one. Often that led to one side being slightly disappointed, but that was usually the point of compromise. But that, I would suggest, is actually going further than what is in the current legislation, which is to “have regard”. That really is the nub of this, because we do not think that is enough to give the ICPs the teeth that they need and the strength and leverage that they might need if they are to be truly effective.
The Minister said that if there was a divergence, he would expect an ICB to put forward reasonable explanations as to why it was not going to follow a particular strategy. But that would then lead to the conclusion that if it was not able to do that, it was acting unreasonably, which of course could give rise to judicial review. That, I am sure, is a road that the Minister does not want ICBs and ICPs to go down. I do not think that would be in anyone’s interest, so we are actually, once again, trying to help the Minister out by coming up with a solution that avoids litigation and dispute and gives us confidence that we will not see a repeat of the lack of genuine engagement that we have seen in some areas in the past, but will see a real force, in legislation, to encourage the wider public sector to have real influence on the modelling of health policies and strategies in the future. Therefore we will—with your permission, Ms Elliott —press amendment 47 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
The clause introduces the integrated care partnership known as an ICP, as a joint committee of the integrated care board and local authorities in its geography. It gives the partnership its core function of preparing the integrated care strategy. The ICP was developed with the Local Government Association and NHS partners in recognition of the fact that the system has been calling for two different and important types of integration: integration within and across the NHS to deliver healthcare services within a defined locality, and integration between the NHS and local government and wider partners.
The ICP is intended to bring together health, social care and public health to develop a strategy to address the needs of the area also covered by the integrated care board. If the ICP wants to go further, it can also involve representatives from the wider system where appropriate, such as voluntary and community groups, and social care or housing providers. That will be up to the ICP, and we will welcome locally driven innovation to reflect local circumstances.
When preparing the strategy, the integrated care partnership must take into account the NHS mandate, any guidance from the Secretary of State and any relevant local joint strategic needs assessment. The ICP must also involve the local Healthwatch, as well people who live and work in the area. The strategy will need to look at how local authorities and NHS bodies can work together using arrangements under section 75 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Local authorities, integrated care boards and NHS England, when providing services in the area, must have regard to the relevant integrated care strategy when exercising their functions, as well as, more locally, any joint strategic needs assessment or joint local health and wellbeing strategies. This will enable more joined-up planning and provision, both within the NHS and in local authorities. As a result, we would expect to see more integration of the services people receive, more efficient and effective commissioning, and closer working between local authorities and the local NHS.
The clause makes it a legal requirement for all ICBs and local authorities to establish an ICP for their area. These partnerships will promote and facilitate integration across health and care throughout England, thereby contributing to delivering on the ambitious aims put forward in the Bill to further integrate health and care systems.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee as I have already said most of what I wanted to say. The Minister just talked about the ambitious aims to achieve integration. Obviously, they were not that ambitious; if they had been, we would not need another White Paper.
Justin Madders
We can never be too ambitious, can we? I will be interested to see those working practices. As hon. Members can probably gather, we are somewhat sceptical that the ICPs will really be the transformative and influential bodies that we want them to be. I will keep a close eye on what kind of partners end up on them. If we started involving every potential body in the Cheshire and Merseyside one, we would probably need to hire out Anfield to fit everyone in. It might be more entertaining than the football fare on there—we could have a Division on that. We will probably revisit this in future days, weeks and months. We will not oppose the clause but we wish to put on the record where we think its shortcomings are.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
NHS England’s financial responsibilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause provides for a number of financial responsibilities of NHS England and provides powers for the Secretary of State to direct NHS England in relation to those responsibilities. Clause 22 provides the ability to amend the provision in clause 21 that imposes a duty on NHS England to ensure that its expenditure, together with that of integrated care boards, does not exceed the sums received in a year.
On clause 21, proposed new section 223C of the National Health Service Act 2006 places a duty on NHS England to ensure that in each financial year, the expenditure of NHS England and integrated care boards does not exceed the aggregate amount received by them. It should be noted that that is in the context of the historic settlement for the NHS reached in 2018, which will see its budget rise by £33.9 billion by 2023-24. Proposed new section 223CA simply replicates a provision in the 2006 Act, which enables the Secretary of State to specify the banking facilities that NHS England may use.
Proposed new section 233D of the 2006 Act enables the Secretary of State to give directions to NHS England concerning resource use. Any directions given by the Secretary of State under that proposed new section must be published and laid before Parliament. Proposed new section 223E empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the capital and revenue resource used by NHS England and ICBs for specified matters does not exceed a limit set.
Clause 22 could be commenced at a later date than clause 21. It would expand the duty on NHS England to ensure its own expenditure, as well as that of ICBs and English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, did not exceed the sums received by those bodies in a year. The clause is essential to ensure that achieving financial balance is inclusive of the finance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It recognises that NHS England must be mindful of the need to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible and in the best interests of the public we serve. However, we recognise that the NHS is moving out of an unprecedented period, so we will not commence the clause until it is ready. The provisions will help to ensure that there is clear accountability for public spending and that the NHS lives within its means.
Justin Madders
I will talk briefly about clauses 21 and 22, although with your indulgence, Ms Elliott, I will step over into clauses 23 and 24, because we cannot really look at these points without having some regard to those clauses. I promise I will not repeat the same points when we get to them.
We know that ICBs and NHS trusts will have spending limits, and that in theory they cannot go into deficit in any year, but the combined deficits of trusts before the pandemic was several billion pounds. Foundation trusts are in a slightly different position. Monitor is going—clause 26, which I suspect we will not get to today, goes into that, and it reads quite brutally in isolation—so it needs to be clear in the Bill how performance management and financial oversight will work in its absence. We still have questions about that, particularly how accountability will work with those new systems.
We see in these clauses a basic tension that NHS England will apply totals to systems, but individuals within the systems all have their own duties and responsibilities. We might think it is the ICB plus all the providers that deliver the services required, which are paid for by the ICB, but I am not sure that is how it will work in practice.
If I am correct, an integrated system is not defined in the Bill, so how do we control something that does not exist in law? Where accountability lies is very vague. The terminology used in proposed new section 233M, which is where the Bill tries to constrain aggregate financial spending each year, is:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That suggests some kind of joint responsibility, but where community health services are provided by Virgin Care, that does not appear within that wording. GPs and their spend are considered outside, even though they are commissioned by the ICBs, so how do their costs fit into this system? There have to be some answers on that.
Karin Smyth
I echo my hon. Friend’s words. The Minister is going to have to go back to the drawing board on this, although I can see what the clauses are trying to do. Financial directors I have spoken to commend the idea of working together under some sort of shared control. We have had controls before, but clauses 21 to 24 —I may be straying beyond my knowledge of the writing of Bills and financial movements—come under the heading, “Integrated care system: financial controls”, and the entire section is about controlling ICBs and NHS trusts.
We have not had a system defined. We know that control totals are difficult and that autonomous trusts have regulatory rules. We would be here all weekend if we started to talk about foundation trust controls, and what those trusts can and cannot do with their budget. Clauses 21 to 24 test out the definitions of roles and responsibilities, and the tensions throughout the Bill over trying to apply a systems view to disparate organisations with different duties and responsibilities. The Minister has been trying valiantly to say that there is clear accountability through NHS England, but all of us here as Members of Parliament, and as I keep repeating, understand what local accountability is in a system and this is not it.
We do not know what an ICS is, and we have all agreed that that might be okay—we are kind of in favour of permissiveness—but what divides the Committee and, I suspect, people farther afield is that the Government view is that permissiveness is okay, and it is up to the NHS England regions and the Secretary of State. We would like to impose some greater local accountability earlier.
The terminology in proposed new section 223M, on page 34 of the Bill, is clear, and refers to:
“Each integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts”.
That part of the Bill deals with aggregated spending on revenue and capital. I do not want to overload people’s brains at this time of the evening, but the Bill really is a mess in respect of capital. Our buildings are crumbling and the backlog is huge. We have talked about NHS properties in community health partnerships. The architecture still exists, but it is not clear how that system works. I think poor old Sir Robert Naylor’s edicts and pieces of wisdom are just propping open doors in offices in the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are certainly not being developed and they are not being developed in the Bill.
Will a trust finance director have to seek permission from the ICB to spend their capital, or even to know what it is? If that is the case, it makes a nonsense of the good financial management of some very large institutions. We would all like a bit of financial rigour in the system, but I am not sure the Bill allows us to have any. It is as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said: for community services, we have the Virgin Cares, but even a community interest company would sit outwith the NHS trust definition. Such companies are regulated by the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, which is separate from some of this. The regulation for some of these bodies is problematic, and GPs are obviously outside it, even if ICBs start to commission them.
The aim is to allow NHS England to control aggregate spending, but to do that there has to be some direction. Lo and behold, on page 35 of the Bill there are more direction powers for NHS England. We have alluded to the fact that provider expenditure gets divvied up, and some ICBs also commission specialist services; there will have to be some NHS England-defined calculation of how on earth all that fits together. Someone somewhere will need a very large spreadsheet and will have to try to balance the flows of money around the system.
I have asked a lot people, including experts, whether anybody starts to understand financial flows. That is obviously important because we are talking about our taxes and we need to know how they are being spent, who is spending them and who is moving the money between each of these organisations. What about when these bodies cross different boundaries? Will the Minister say whether the trust or the foundation trust gets to argue about which part of its base is allocated to which ICB and vice versa? I am certainly glad—I often am—that I do not live in London and am not trying to work that out for some of the large teaching hospitals that cross many boundaries. There used to be a role for strategic health authorities to try to match what providers said was in their accounts with what commissioners said they thought they had given them. I do not think they matched that often, and the structure in the Bill is much more complicated than that. How it will work in practice matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already asked some of the questions. This issue is very complex and involves big sums of money, and ultimately it is about patient care, so who is going to hold it all together? Where is the collective leadership and who will be the top people in these ICSs? The advert for the ICS chairs has gone out, and the pay is £50,000 to £80,000 for three days a week. The requirement on those people is clear; let us see how many of them are not already well known to NHS England. That is deeply problematic, if they are going to work—and we all agree that we would quite like them to work.
In the new system, can commissioners and providers both be blamed for the same things? As my hon. Friend said, can they be put into special measures? Where are the levers? What is going to happen, other than NHS England commissioning expensive consultants to say to people, “You know what? It’s looking a bit complicated and some of you haven’t got the right bits of money in the right places,” and trying to bash some heads together? All that will be done behind closed doors.
When we get down to the money, permissiveness becomes a bit of a work of fiction. This part of the Bill needs to be looked at again, between its leaving this place and arriving in the other place, to get a bit more sense into it. As we all know, the guidance is going out there. This has been worked on by NHS England, so it could come back in fitter form. As I said to the witness from Oxfordshire last week, joint work and integration often fall apart ultimately because of the money. Any local authority financial director, any foundation trust financial director, any good hospital financial director and any community interest financial director will be looking, quite rightly, at their own bottom line at the end of the day, as that is their job.
It is entirely up to NHS England how it navigates this. It looks like clever financial leverage work, and I really do not think that it will work and it all needs to be looked at again. I return to my theme that this is why we need somebody independent and highly skilled working on behalf of the local community to make the ICS work, and not to have it, as a result, an NHS England outpost deciding how it moves money around the system. We need to understand the financial flows, and ensure that they work much better than is laid out in the clauses.
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief because I am conscious of the fact that we have agreed to get through quite a few more clauses today, although I will try to address the points that hon. Members have made. One of the key issues at the heart of what I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, was saying is around what happens if an ICB or a foundation trust spends beyond its limit. How does that work? What is the process? I am pleased that this brings some welcome clarity, rather than the fragmentation we sometimes see in accounting cashflow, following the cash processes at the moment.
First and foremost, local systems will be informed of their resource envelope at the start of the year and will be required to agree a plan that matches, or is within, that envelope. Therefore, all will start the year with a plan that sets out what is being delivered and how much funding they will receive to deliver those services. However, if overspends emerge within year, that should initially be resolved within the system by the individual organisation either finding offsetting savings or securing savings elsewhere within that system envelope. Through the financial duties imposed by the Bill, the system is encouraged to be collectively responsible for managing its funding envelope, moving away from what we often see at the moment, which is fragmentation in understanding how the money flows, and each organisation considering itself to a degree in isolation.
If the overspend cannot be managed within the system, NHS England and NHS Improvement can use the powers in the Bill to hold the system to account through mechanisms such as the system oversight framework and providing support via the recovery support programme, as well as more informal support from the local region. Additionally, individual trusts or FTs that are not working collaboratively within the system can be held to account using the provider licence and enforcement options available for breaches. Finally, of course, in extremis the Department of Health and Social Care can provide cash support to NHS trusts and FTs to ensure that services continue to be delivered.
The second concomitant part of the shadow Minister’s question was what action NHS England or the ICB can take in response to financial difficulties. Financial performance will be monitored by both of them, and in the first instance any difficulties will be resolved locally. However, as I have set out, tougher mechanisms or sanctions can be imposed on trusts that are not meeting their reporting and financial accounting obligations under the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Financial responsibilities of integrated care boards and their partners
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 23, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the means by which an integrated care board, NHS trust or NHS foundation trust which believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety may object to the limit set.”
This amendment would introduce an objection mechanism when an Integrated Care Board, Trust or Foundation Trust believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
Justin Madders
With this amendment, we are probably having another bash at the debate we have just had to some extent, but we are also making an important point about patient safety.
Edward Argar
Clause 23 provides for NHS England to set overall system financial objectives for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.
Clause 23 removes the sections in the National Health Service Act 2006 relating to financial duties of CCGs and replaces them with new sections setting out the financial responsibilities of ICBs and their partners. Improving population health requires the breaking down of silos. Traditional financial control focused on individual providers and organisations artificially creates barriers and fragmentation that get in the way of high-quality care.
The new approach will help to break down those barriers by enabling NHS England to set joint system financial objectives for ICBs and partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, which must operate with a view to achieving these objectives. This includes the ability to set limits on local capital resource use and local revenue resource use for ICBs, and for partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. NHS England can also give directions to ICBs, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts on resource apportionment.
I turn to amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I am grateful to him for tabling it as it gives us an opportunity to air a number of issues. It would require NHS England to produce guidance to set out a process whereby ICBs, NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts could object to their capital and revenue resource limits. Although I understand the motivation behind the amendment, which is about ensuring that the NHS has sufficient funds to deliver services safely, I do not believe that it is needed. The ability for NHS England to set system limits is important to enable systems to effectively plan their services and it enables NHS England to meet its obligation on delivering system balance and its broader obligation to taxpayers.
The decision to allocate revenue funding to systems is based on a weighted capitation formula, which produces a target allocation or “fair share” for each area, based on a complex assessment of factors such as demography, morbidity, deprivation and the unavoidable cost of providing services in different areas, meaning that systems will get funding linked to their individual needs. NHS trusts and foundation trusts will be represented on ICBs, so they will play a role in deciding how resources will be allocated within the system. They can raise concerns about proposals, including with regard to patient safety, as part of the decision-making process, although we do not consider that these clauses would put patient safety at risk. Capital allocations already include a funding element to address emergency or patient safety needs, based on planning information from systems. The funding element is intended to be used to address any issues that could arise, including in the context of patient safety.
Furthermore, clause 24 futureproofs the ICB financial duties provisions. It provides for some of the provisions in clause 23 to be replaced and is designed to be commenced at a later date. Once ICBs and their partner trusts are deemed ready to take on greater financial accountability, clause 24 can be used to replace clause 23 with a new joint expenditure limit duty on the ICB and its partner trusts. At a time when it is considered appropriate, the clause will require ICBs and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts to exercise their functions in a way that ensures their expenditure when taken together does not exceed their income. The intended effect is that each local area is mutually invested in achieving financial control at a system level, meaning that public funds can be spent in a more sustainable, joined-up and effective way. This should enable a nimbler approach to expenditure where needs across the system can be addressed more flexibly and holistically.
Should unexpected needs for funding arise, there is another safeguard in place to allow NHS services to continue operating safely, as the Department can issue cash to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. For example, if emergency support is needed to address patient safety issues, trusts can apply for additional cash funding to safeguard delivery of care. It is for those reasons that I invite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to withdraw his amendment. I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I do not know whether it is too late on a Thursday afternoon, but I did feel like I had wandered into an episode of “Yes Minister” there. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I will read the transcript of what the Minister has said with some care over the next few days. I am not entirely clear that he has addressed the central points that were made, but we will no doubt return to this at some point anyway. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Health and Care Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. There have been quite a few changes on the Government Benches in the Committee. We congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), on her promotion and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), on her transfer. If there was a Sky Sports News transfer deadline day reshuffle pack, I can see Jim White in wheels of excitement about the number of changes at the Department of Health and Social Care. We are delighted that the star striker remains in his place.
On a more serious note, the composition of the Committee has changed. Was that in order? Was some kind of approval process from the House required before that could take place?
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray. Derek Wilton on “Coronation Street” used to say, “I shall be on the cocoa by the time Trevor McDonald has finished”—a reference to people retiring for the night at around quarter-past 10 or half-past 10. We got an email at 10.22 pm last night with an updated selection list from the Chair. I do not think there are any substantive changes, but in a case where there are dramatic changes to selections and groupings at short notice, is there any rule or procedure about how much notice must be given?
The Chair
There is no minimum notice requirement, but I am sure there will not be an issue in future.
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mrs Murray; I have had a few days to think about these points. The Minister very helpfully said he would write to me about the workforce amendment we put forward last week. Over the weekend, I was talking to some members of the public who are very interested in the Committee’s proceedings. They asked when that letter might be published. I know the Minister is very busy and has a lot of new inductions for his colleagues to get through, as well as his work on the Bill, so I am not going to ask when he will release it, but would it be appropriate to add that letter to the page on the Government website where all the Bill information is contained?
The Chair
I am sure the Minister has heard your point of order, Mr Madders.
Clause 25
Integrated care system: further amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Government amendment 14.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Mrs Murray, it is—even more than usual—a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship: I am still standing before you in this Committee and opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, as seems to be our fate. He has served in his Front-Bench role longer than I have in mine, and that is going some.
Clause 25 gives effect to schedule 4, which contains minor and consequential amendments relating to the introduction of integrated care boards. The majority of the amendments relate to replacing existing references to clinical commissioning groups in legislation with references to integrated care boards. The schedule is necessary to ensure that existing primary legislation that refers to CCGs will continue to operate effectively once ICBs are established. Without it, references to clinical commissioning groups would be erroneous and the new commissioning bodies, ICBs, would not be referenced where they need to be across the statute book.
Following from that, Government amendment 14 is minor and technical. It is simply to ensure that the legislation hangs together properly. It makes no change to the status quo, but reflects that clause 15 of the Bill replaces section 3 of the National Health Service Act 2006 with a slightly amended proposed new section 3. A consequential amendment is therefore needed to section 187 of the 2006 Act so that it refers to the correct subsections. Previously it referenced subsections 3(1)(d) and (e), but those same subsections have now been moved to 3(1)(e) and (f) in proposed new section 3.
The amendment simply updates the cross references in section 187, without which section 187 would refer to incorrect subsections, which could result in regulations made under section 187 allowing for charging for the wrong services. That is, quite clearly, not our intention, and we are simply continuing the status quo and clarifying that matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Integrated care system: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment made: 14, page 151, line 34 in schedule 4, at end insert—
“107A In section 187 (charges for designated services or facilities), for ‘section 3(1)(d) or (e)’ substitute ‘section 3(1)(e) or (f)’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on clause 15 of the Bill, which changes the numbering in section 3(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26
Abolition of Monitor and transfer of functions to NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 32 stand part.
Edward Argar
NHS England and NHS Improvement, comprised of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority—the TDA—requested the primary legislative changes to support the merger of their organisations, and these clauses are fundamental to fulfilling that ambition. In recent years, NHS England and Monitor, as part of NHS Improvement, have been working closely together with a view to acting as a single organisation with a single operating model. They already have aligned board and committee arrangements and joint senior executive appointments through the joint working programme. Despite the progress made, there are limits to the extent to which they can collaborate under the current statutory framework.
Establishing a single statutory body responsible for the health care system in England has several clear benefits. First, it will create a more joined-up approach across the NHS to provide national leadership and speak with one voice to set clear and consistent expectations for providers, commissioners and local health systems. Secondly, it brings services, support and improvement under a single regulatory and legislative framework. That will deliver improved care for patients, enabling better use of collective resources, removing unnecessary duplication and ultimately making better use of public money. The merger will provide clearer lines of accountability so that the public can be assured that any service they use meets the same requirements around safety and quality.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the problems that we have found in Nottingham around driving integration was the duplication of lots of different regulators and metrics, which meant that organisations were often working to different purposes. This obviously tidies that up a bit in terms of regulators. Does the Minister envisage going further in the future?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for that question, which reminds me of some of the questions that he used to ask me in this room about what the future held when we discussed delegated legislation. I am always cautious not to predict the future, but hopefully it will be helpful if I set out the principles that I think should apply. I agree that unnecessary duplication that does not bring clear and tangible benefits to patient safety or improve outcomes is clearly undesirable. Therefore we will seek to streamline where appropriate, but without compromising patient safety or the outcomes that patients experience. While not predicting the future, I hope that gives him some reassurance of the direction of travel as I see it.
Clause 26, along with other provisions in the Bill, including clause 29, makes the legal changes necessary to bring these organisations together as one legal entity. Clause 26 abolishes Monitor and introduces schedule 5, which contains amendments that transfer Monitor’s functions to NHS England in order to fulfil the Bill’s intention to merge Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England to form a single body. The schedule transfers powers and duties from Monitor to NHS England and repeals provisions that are no longer necessary in the light of the merger. For example, Monitor’s functions in relation to NHS foundation trust mergers and acquisitions in sections 56 and 56(a) of the 2006 Act, and in relation to licensing providers in sections 81 to 114 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, will all transfer to NHS England.
We acknowledge that bringing together the commissioning functions previously exercised by the NHS commissioning board, and the regulatory functions previously exercised by Monitor, under a single organisation could be perceived as giving rise to conflicts of interest. The Bill will therefore ensure the proper management of any such conflicts, and we will work with stakeholders on robust processes that will safeguard the separation of responsibilities and improve transparency. For those reasons, clause 27 seeks to insert new section 13SA, which deals with minimising conflicts between the body’s regulatory and other functions, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
The clause places a duty on NHS England to minimise the risk of conflict or manage any conflicts that arise between its regulatory functions and other functions. In the event that a conflict were to occur, NHS England would be under a duty to resolve or manage that conflict and to ensure appropriate transparency. NHS England must include within its annual report details of such conflicts and how it had complied with its duties to manage them under new section 13SA of the 2006 Act.
Clause 28 amends section 100 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which relates to the modification of licence conditions for providers. Licences are the basis by which NHS Improvement and, in future, NHS England set conditions on providers as to the terms on which they can operate. The clause requires that when NHS England makes a major change to the standard licence conditions, as permitted under section 100 of the 2012 Act, it must assess the likely impact of the change or publish a statement explaining why such an assessment is not needed.
The clause also provides that the impact assessment carried out by NHS England must be included in the notice of the modification that is sent to the relevant licence holder and others, as required by section 100(2) of the 2012 Act. This new requirement is intended to make it clearer why NHS England is altering a standard licence condition, which we think is in the interests of providers and the smooth running of the system.
Clause 29 abolishes the NHS TDA and works in harmony with clause 26, which abolishes Monitor and other provisions in the Bill that confer functions on NHS England in relation to providers, in order to merge the two organisations into NHS England to form a single body. In transferring functions that were formerly delegated to the TDA, we have considered the mechanisms and processes associated with those duties and assessed the best fit for the system, to ensure that the relationships already in place are not unduly affected. Clause 29 revokes the directions that established the TDA, and subsections (3) and (4) include consequential amendments that remove references to the TDA. They will no longer be relevant once the TDA is abolished.
Clause 30 makes a consequential amendment to NHS England’s general functions to reflect its oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts due to the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement. The clause ensures a joined-up approach to decision making, allowing NHS England to understand the services required to best serve patients. It amends section 1H of the National Health Service Act 2006 so that for the purpose of discharging its duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England, NHS England must exercise its functions in relation to English NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as well as in relation to ICBs, which will replace the current reference to CCGs, so that services are provided for that purpose.
As part of the merger of NHS England, Monitor and the NHS TDA, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the power to make schemes to transfer the staff, property, rights and liabilities from Monitor and the TDA to NHS England. These transfer scheme provisions follow a similar protocol used within the Health and Social Care Act 2012 for the transfer of assets, rights or liabilities on the abolition of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Health and Social Care Information Centre. The transfer schemes used then proved effective and efficient, ensuring a smooth transition and no impact on the services they delivered.
Finally, clause 32 contains a regulation-making power that allows the Treasury to vary the way in which any relevant tax has effect in relation to the transfer scheme. Regulations made under this power can be used to ensure that no taxes arise, and that there are no changes to the tax positions of either the transferee or transferor body. It is appropriate to avoid unnecessary tax complications relating to a transfer scheme between public bodies. The types of taxes that can be varied are set out in the clause.
Without this clause, the transfer of assets or liabilities between the bodies mentioned in clause 31—namely Monitor, NHS Trust Development Authority and NHS England—could give rise to unintended tax liabilities. As I have highlighted, this merger has clear benefits and is central to the Government’s plans for establishing a more integrated, responsive and accountable health and care system.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his detail on those clauses, which have been very helpfully grouped. Although we have not put forward any amendments, we do want to raise some general concerns—mostly around what these clauses do not do.
As we have heard—although I do not think the Minister used quite the same terminology as we would have—these clauses have got rid of the worst trappings of the market architecture, which were characteristic of the Lansley Act. As we have heard, they enable the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, although I do not think that NHS Improvement is actually mentioned anywhere in the Bill. All references are to Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It is almost as if the Government want us to forget that NHS Improvement ever existed—or probably want us to forget who was chairing it.
The abolition of Monitor sounds another death knell for the Lansley Act, but does leave some of the market mechanisms in place. However, since they were ignored anyway, I can understand why the Government have not bothered to go the whole hog.
Clause 26 finally turns the Monitor off at the mains—although I think it is fair to say that it stopped working some time ago. NHS England is now the undisputed, supreme leader over commissioning and both flavours of providing, so the Bill not only tears up the Lansley reforms but quietly changes the 2003 amendments. Monitor was set up as the regulator of foundation trusts, and was to be the approver of applications to become a foundation trust.
Foundation trusts have had many incarnations, but were once heralded as the vigorous, autonomous new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. They were beyond the reach of those nasty bureaucrats who ran the rest of the NHS. However, as I think we have seen today, it has not quite turned out like that. There must be a clever saying somewhere that “All health service reforms end in failure”, just like all politicians’ careers—although the Minister is clearly an exception to that!
It is fair to say that we are seeing the end of the foundation trust experiment. There is no evidence that the new foundation trust model did any better than the old model. Of course, the first few anointed foundation trusts did outperform non-foundation trusts, but that was because they were already the best-performing trusts. That was why they were allowed to become foundation trusts in the first place. It was, really, a self-fulfilling prophecy, but, as time has moved on, it has been harder and harder for trusts to excel to the level originally envisaged.
Foundation trusts did have some good characteristics; they did have a better go at accountability to their governing bodies. Given this Bill’s focus on involving patients and the public in the wider health system, perhaps this system also has some positives—something to commend it. It might not have been a bad idea to have an equivalent model for the governance of ICBs, but I will not return to that now. I know the Minister has not warmed to our suggestions of greater accountability, but I will leave that for him to consider if he brings forward amendments on Report.
The Lansley Act favoured foundation trusts and made the optimistic—and what turned out to be highly inaccurate—assumption that, in time, all NHS providers would become foundation trusts. As so much happened with that Act, however, it turned out not to be the case at all. Foundation trusts are now no different from the old-school, old-style NHS trusts—a “distinction without a difference”, as Lord Stevens once quipped. For all relevant purposes, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are performance-managed in exactly the same way.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right in what he says. Given Monitor’s role, NHS Improvement’s role and local scrutiny of what is happening within the system—it is almost independent in some cases—there is a real gap here now. I have called them cartels before, although my hon. Friend will perhaps not use that word. With the absence of Monitor, where is the transparent and independent scrutiny? What is the new regime, and how will that accentuate the patient voice? We have also been unable to highlight how many millions of pounds have been wasted in the intervening years from 2012 with regards to how the previous Act was pushed through, and the terrible waste that has arisen as a result. Surely the patient voice must be really important in holding trusts to account.
Justin Madders
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will not waste opportunities to refer to the waste of public money as a result of the Lansley Act, but the wider point is one that the Opposition have made already in Committee and will continue to make. There is clearly a gap where accountability ought to lie. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about why the governing model for foundation trusts cannot be expanded to all remaining trusts. We would particularly want to see far greater patient involvement in the integrated care systems in the Bill. Clearly, we have had that debate unsuccessfully, but I hope that we will perhaps have an opportunity to return to it once the Bill returns from the other place.
I will say a few words on the licensing scheme. Given that the Bill marks an end to the whole era of markets and competition and a move, at least in theory, to a model of collaboration and co-operation—not a cartel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South might call it—why is it necessary to license NHS bodies that are now fully under the control of NHS England and the Secretary of State? That does not seem to be a particularly good use of anyone’s time, and it will create more unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.
We will do our best to help the Minister in reducing obstacles to delivering patient care, so we will not oppose these clauses. However, we think that they have probably not gone far enough. They are clearly a necessary tidying-up job, but the Government should do the job fully and properly.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister. He should be optimistic—perhaps not on this issue, but more broadly—about the reception of some of his suggestions. I think I managed to take him aback slightly last week with one suggestion, although it was perhaps not the one with which he expected me to be willing to engage. I always listen to and consider carefully what he says.
The shadow Minister made a number of points. He mentioned the references to Monitor and TDA and said there are no references to NHS Improvement. That is because NHS Improvement is not the named body in law—that is simply a legal distinction. The named bodies are the NHS TDA and Monitor, which we understand and know as NHS Improvement.
I gently chide the shadow Minister. His reference to the chair of NHS Improvement, Baroness Harding, was a little unmerited. She has worked tirelessly. Colleagues will have their views, as is entirely appropriate in this place, but his reference was uncharacteristically uncharitable.
Karin Smyth
Given that the Minister, who I think is an honourable man, has mentioned that, does he think it acceptable for the chair of NHS Improvement to take the Conservative Whip in the House of Lords, as was outlined in the pre-screening scrutiny commission by the Health and Social Care Committee? Does he think that is acceptable, as other Ministers have not done so?
Edward Argar
I believe that all appointments, including that one, are conducted entirely appropriately, in line with Cabinet Office guidance.
I move on to the shadow Minister’s substantive points, which he perhaps made more in hope than anything else. We are not resiling from the value that choice and competition can bring, but we recognise that it is not the only driver of improvement and that collaboration plays a key role, so the position is perhaps a little more nuanced than he might like to suggest or wish to see. What we are seeing here is a reflection of the reality. We are ensuring that the way the system has evolved in practical terms over time is reflected by updating the appropriate legislation.
The shadow Minister mentioned a number of specific points around foundation trusts, and I hope I can give him some reassurance. We are not abolishing foundation trusts or their rights. The licensing system that we are talking about allows for equivalent management of both types of trust in a consistent way, and the NHS will still have the power to authorise new foundation trusts in the future, if they meet the appropriate criteria.
Justin Madders
I think the Minister probably has the gist of what I was getting at in my comments. Can he tell us how many applications for foundation trust status are currently in the pipeline?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is an able parliamentarian. I hesitate to say with certainty, but my belief is none at present. However, I caveat that by saying I would not wish to mislead the Committee. If I have got that wrong, I will of course let him know.
There is nothing that stops the evolution of trusts into foundation trusts, if they so wish and meet the criteria. What we are saying here is that it is not one size fits all. We will not force anyone down that route, but the option remains for NHS England. I would argue that the way the system has evolved is a reflection of the strength of that system and the framework that we have put in place around it. On a serious note, I know that the point about foundation trusts is of considerable interest to the shadow Minister. When we reach clauses 51 to 57, which cover this issue and the operation of foundation trusts, I suspect that we may get into rather more detail about how they actually operate. I might even be able to confirm that my understanding of the figure for which he asks is correct.
The shadow Minister has made his points clearly, but I hope the Opposition will agree to these clauses. They are technical clauses in essence, and the shadow Minister has rightly used them to air broader issues that are related. They are technical clauses to reflect the reality of the evolution of the system.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Report on assessing and meeting workforce needs
Chris Skidmore
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) This report must include—
(a) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years.
(b) an independently verified assessment, compliant with the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics, of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
This amendment would require published assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, based on the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, based on projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and likely impact of technology.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 33, page 40, line 6, leave out
“at least once every five years”
and insert “annually”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually.
Amendment 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out “the health service” and insert “health and social care services”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Amendment 41, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) Health Education England must publish a report each year on projected workforce shortages and future staffing requirements for health and social care services in the following five, ten and twenty years.
(4) The report must report projections of both headcount and full-time equivalent for the total health and care workforce in England and for each region, covering all regulated professions and including those working for voluntary and private providers of health and social care as well as the NHS.
(5) All relevant NHS bodies, arm’s-length bodies, expert bodies, trade unions and the National Partnership forum must be consulted in the preparation of the report.
(6) The assumptions underpinning the projections must be published at the same time as the report and must meet the relevant standards set out in the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics.
(7) The Secretary of State must update Parliament each year on the Government’s strategy to deliver and fund the long-term workforce projections.”
Amendment 42, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The annual report must include an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels in the health service in England and whether those levels are being met.”
Chris Skidmore
I wanted to speak to amendment 94, which is the product of a revision on my part. I initially tabled an amendment to clause 33, but it was as a result of the oral evidence sessions when the clause was discussed at length by a number of organisations that I decided to re-table amendments with further detail.
Clause 33 is one of the shortest clauses in this substantial Bill, but it is one of the most important. When it comes to looking at how we plan the NHS workforce for the next five years as the clause suggests, or the next 10 or 20 years, we face significant demographic changes in the United Kingdom. We have an aging population with sadly more co-morbidities and chronic conditions, such as diabetes, than ever before, which puts increasing pressure on not only the health service, but the health and care service. That is the omission. The clause has no mention of the care service, which needs to be dealt with.
The clause is rather perfunctory. At the moment, the duty on the Secretary of State is to,
“once every five years, publish a report describing”
—not necessarily detailing or taking any action—
“the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England”
—not the care service.
Secondly, the report would be prepared by NHS England and Health Education England alone, not mentioning any of the other wider workforce organisations. They would,
“assist in the preparation of the report”
but only,
“if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
The Secretary of State holds all the cards about how the report is published and what type of data is used.
Amendment 94 sets out that we should have a report every two years. The first amendment I put down actually wanted an annual report. I know there are some amendments on annual reports, but it was very clear from organisations, such as NHS Confederation and NHS Providers, that they saw an annual report as being too bureaucratic. They would have to start the next report having just finished the previous one, hence I withdrew the amendment. In that spirit of the Committee, it is important that Back-Bench Members listen and change our amendments where possible.
I have tabled some amendments saying that the Secretary of State must lay a report every two years. We have seen with the pandemic that five years is too long a period to anticipate unknowable events and uncertainties within the system. Having a two year report would reflect better on the pressures that can occur within a system over a shorter period of time. Amendment 94 also addresses two specific issues around what this report would look like and how it is put together, because ultimately a report is only as good as the data it utilises. Where are we getting that data from? If the clause allowed NHS England and Health Education England simply to assist in the preparation of the report without any understanding of what data measures are used in such reports, we would miss an opportunity to embed detailed demographic research into our understanding of the workforce needs of the NHS and care population.
Karin Smyth
The right hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. He and I share a health economy, two universities and a thriving region, but we still have problems. People in my constituency cannot get the sorts of jobs and apprenticeships that they need. How would his amendment deal with the geographical discrepancies across the country through a single two-year report, and how would we account for the different training demands in different parts of the country?
Chris Skidmore
I think there is a subsection here about how clause 33 relates to clause 19 and the duties on ICBs as the placemaking organisations that can provide the training opportunities for the future. I also think there are great opportunities in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for potential further devolution of the skills budget through a mayoral system. That skills budget will already be devolved in some of the metro Mayor areas, so I hope that it will also be devolved across wider areas that do not necessarily have a city population. The Government are clearly looking to fill that gap. Those are also the skill needs of the healthcare population, which is why, when it comes to the duties for the ICBs, I am keen that they take on board the wider non-healthcare resident population, whether in universities, colleges or elsewhere, to bring in expertise on creating training pathways for the future.
Without going off-piste, I think there are future opportunities for more flexible qualifications. We have the lifelong learning allowance. We are looking at how to allow individuals to retrain for the future, creating apprenticeship opportunities, in-work opportunities and course-based opportunities. This is not just about providing nurses and doctors; it is also about allowing nurses to move up the scales and retrain when they are in the NHS, which would help to lower the attrition rate.
Retention is one of the greatest challenges we have—it is not only about training—and I am sure that the intention of clause 33 is also to get to grips with retaining the 20% of the workforce who leave over a five-year cycle. It would do so much better if it took into account statistics consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s long-term fiscal projections and if we were able to look at the needs of the population. That is what subsection 2(b) of my amendment suggests—looking at workforce numbers
“based on the projected health and care needs of the population”
as well as the demographic numbers of the workforce.
The amendment suggests a number of organisations that should be able to contribute to the report, including health and care employers. I return to the point that the care sector is not reflected in clause 33, and it really should be. Trade unions also play a vital role in identifying needs; that may be strange coming from a Conservative MP and I may disagree politically with unions, but they have the data and the opportunity to provide feedback from their members, which is really important. I have mentioned the royal colleges in discussions on previous amendments. Universities are critical for identifying ways of integrating healthcare and education practices. I also suggest
“any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of the report, taking full account of workforce intelligence…and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
The amendment would therefore allow for place-based opportunities, as the hon. Member for Bristol South has said, in delivering on the clause’s workforce planning.
I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. It is a probing amendment, which I hope the Minister will take seriously, especially given the length of time the issue was discussed in the oral evidence sessions.
I am sure all Members have received briefing packs from various organisations. Clause 33 comes up as one of the priorities. The organisations’ intentions are not vexatious; they are not raising the issue to make a campaign point against the Government. The tone of the Bill is one of collaboration and partnership. As was mentioned in the oral evidence sessions and the early sittings of the Committee, the Bill is unique. It is not a top-down reorganisation—it is filling in the jigsaw puzzle that has been constructed from below upwards, providing the legislative cherry on the top of a cake that has already been baked by local healthcare communities who know what they need. What they need is certainty on workforce planning. The Bill provides the legislative certainty of consistency at national level that will trickle down to local level.
I urge the Minister to listen to the requests for more frequent reporting on workforce planning, better use of data in producing the report and a widening of opportunities to be partners in that report. The Minister and Department have done a fantastic job in allowing the partnership model to evolve. We have moved away from institutional top-down accountability, where there was a competitive spirit between institutions. We have broken that down; the ICPs and ICBs now provide an opportunity for greater partnership working, for the benefit of patients and the outcomes that need to be delivered. This is the missing piece in the legislation.
We need to move workforce needs to a partnership model and away from the top-down approach that clause 33 very much suggests. The Secretary of State holds all the cards on the planning of the report and does not even necessarily have to work with NHS England or Health Education England. In the spirit of the Bill, I urge the Minister to open up the clause and consider the proposal in amendment 94 on Report or in the other place. It is an important change that would make the Bill even better. I urge him to give it due consideration.
Justin Madders
I will speak to amendment 94 and the other amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, since they are grouped together and we are clearly all talking about the same thing. There is probably only a cigarette paper between many elements of these amendments and, I hope, the Minister’s position when we get to the end of the debate.
One reason why there are so many amendments and they are all fairly similar is that it was clear from the evidence sessions that this is one of the few areas on which there was complete agreement among the witnesses. Clause 33 is simply nowhere near good enough. Given the importance of workforce issues, which is the most crucial issue facing our NHS and social care system—as the right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned, social care must be included within this—it is strange that we have really quite a tepid offering in the Bill.
It feels as though the whole question of workforce is firmly in the Department’s “too difficult” box. It knows it has to do something; it knows that without the tremendous efforts of the staff the NHS would simply collapse, but rather than coming up with an effective strategy, it has produced this fig leaf of a clause to create the impression that the issue is being taken seriously and dealt with.
Justin Madders
It is now in the Minister’s inbox, and he will know that what is currently in the Bill does not cut it in terms of the challenges we face. As I often do, I place on record our thanks and admiration for the whole NHS workforce, for turning from theory into reality an organisation that demonstrates the benefits of collectivism and socialism and is one of the nation’s proudest achievements—I certainly expect the Minister to agree with the latter part of that sentiment, if not the former.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again: without its workforce, the NHS is nothing. It is not only the doctors and nurses, but all the others who contribute to the delivery of a comprehensive and universal service, free at the point of use: the radiographers, the porters, the cleaners and the allied health professionals. I will not list them all, but we should acknowledge that a number of different people contribute towards even the most straightforward engagement with a patient, and we are grateful for each and every one of them and the service they give.
I briefly refer hon. Members to the report by the Health and Social Care Committee on workforce burnout and resilience. It conducted an inquiry into the issue and found that staff shortages were
“ultimately the biggest driver of burnout.”
It was presented with much evidence from staff about feelings of low energy or exhaustion, increased mental distance from or negative feelings about the job, and reduced professional effectiveness. Excessive workload was identified as the key predictor of staff stress, workers’ intention to quit and patient dissatisfaction, and was also highly associated with the level of errors.
I draw this Committee’s attention to some of the conclusions in the report. Paragraph 22 states:
“It is clear from our witnesses that although the People Plan presents comprehensive ambition to address the failings in the culture of the NHS, and address the needs and wellbeing of NHS staff, its delivery will depend on the level of resourcing allocated to these priorities. Without adequate funding the laudable aspirations of the People Plan will not become reality.”
Paragraph 23 states:
“We recommend that the Department publishes regular, costed updates along with delivery timelines for all of the proposals in the People Plan.”
That is something we are trying to turn into reality with our amendments.
Turning to the specifics of amendment 40, paragraph 24 of the Select Committee report states:
“The absence of a People Plan for social care serves only to widen the disparity in recognition and support for the social care components of health and social care. The Government should rectify this as a matter of urgency in their upcoming work to reform the social care sector; and it is essential that it is included in the social care reforms promised this year.”
Some reforms have been promised, but we still await the further White Paper on integration, which we have touched on many times.
“The adult social care workforce has stepped up to the plate during the pandemic. They deserve the same care and attention that the People Plan pledges to NHS colleagues.”
We wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments stated there.
Karin Smyth
I entirely concur with the comments of my hon. Friend, who asked: if not now, when? The right hon. Member for Kingswood described this as a short clause, but one that is hugely important. I do not want to quote everyone who has given us evidence, but we all agree that this is a major issue for the service and has been for a number of years. It is the major omission from this Bill, which has had all sorts of other things added to it but does not look at this issue seriously. This is a massive missed opportunity, unless the Minister takes on board some of what has been said today and supports some of these amendments, to indicate to the service, post pandemic, that this message has been heard loud and clear. The Secretary of State seems to want to take on a lot of responsibilities, and this is something quite significant that he could do something about. He could give that indication.
As I said to the right hon. Member for Kingswood earlier, we have to recognise the differences between health economies and parts of the country. Fairly recently, the Government expanded medical training places in parts of the country where there is a low take-up, and to which people are not moving to work. We know that if we train people locally, they stay local and if the Government would like a quick and easy way to level up—however they want to define it—that is it.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to all the hon. Members for tabling the amendments. They relate to increasing the Government’s accountability for assessing workforce planning and setting workforce projections. Before I turn to their substance, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suspected, I entirely agree with the latter half of his sentiment about the achievement that is the NHS. I am not sure I would necessarily attribute that to unbridled socialism, which tends to fail where it is tried. However, as Opposition Members will know and as set out well in the book written about Nye Bevan by their right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), which I re-read over the weekend, the genesis of the NHS was a complex one, which owed much to all parties in the House.
Justin Madders
I am glad the Minister has time to be reading such excellent tomes over the weekend. Can he remind us what the Conservative party did when voting on the original National Health Service Act 1946?
Edward Argar
Could the hon. Gentleman remind me what the Labour party did when in government, resulting in the resignation of the architect of the NHS?
The point I make is a serious one. The genesis of the NHS which, quite rightly, we are all proud of and recognise as a great achievement, is far from as simple as sometimes it might be portrayed by both parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that while the new hospitals we are building, the developments in drugs and therapeutics, and the new technology and new kit are all hugely important, they are limbs of the NHS. Its beating heart is its workforce and he is right to highlight that. I join with him, as I often do on these occasions, in paying tribute to all those who make up that beating heart.
Continuing to grow the workforce remains a top priority for the Government. Although I may disappoint some hon. Members, I am genuinely grateful to those who tabled amendments and spoke to them today, because this is a crucial debate, and I suspect the matter will continue to be raised, not just during the passage of the Bill but, rightly, more broadly. As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, who brings a high degree of expertise to this subject, as the only hon. Member or right hon. Member to have occupied both the office that I now occupy and that of Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation. He brings to the Bill the perspective he has gained from both those offices.
When I got this job back in September 2019, which seems like an age ago, I was responsible for workforce for a few months, until that responsibility was taken on by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) at the beginning of 2020. One of my first visits was to the University of Lincoln, which had just opened its medical school. That medical school had been campaigned for very hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney), who was out of office at the time, and by the then Opposition Member for Lincoln.
The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local medical schools. Lincolnshire, for example, has a challenge in attracting and retaining a workforce. We are already in the early stages of seeing a growing workforce of people there who are likely to start their careers in Lincoln. When I visited, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was remembered with fondness. I did not take it personally that they almost seemed disappointed to see me and not him, but that is a reflection of the affection in which he is held and the respect for him in this sector.
As the shadow Minister rightly said, yesterday I again resumed responsibility for the NHS workforce and I look forward to working with him constructively on these matters, which is the way we tend to work. We will consider the role that all stakeholders can play in identifying the needs and opportunities around the workforce. I always value input and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend, which I hope will find favour with the shadow Minister, that that includes input from professional bodies, think-tanks, NHS bodies and the trade unions. There may be times when we disagree, but I look forward to working with all of them constructively and courteously, as I do with the shadow Minister.
This year, we have seen record numbers of nurses and doctors working in the NHS, and the total number of NHS staff has increased to almost 1.2 million. There are over 17,800—2.9%—more professionally qualified clinical staff working in NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups than in June 2020, including over 2,700, or 2.3%, more doctors and over 8,900 more nurses.
We continue to make good progress towards meeting our manifesto commitment of 50,000 more nurses by March 2024. Encouragingly for future workforce supply, applications for nursing and midwifery courses in England were up 21% this year compared with last year, and we have seen the highest number of students accepting places in the past 10 years. Through Health Education England, we will continue to invest in the NHS and social care workforces, and an additional duty is not required for this to happen.
I will not repeat the point that the shadow Minister very kindly made about the July commission. I will certainly look into the status of the response to that report. He will recognise that even when we do not agree, which is not that often, although there are such times, I endeavour to be efficient and courteous in responding to such matters, so I look forward to picking up on that with my new responsibilities.
Justin Madders
I certainly did not intend to upbraid him for not responding, given that he took over responsibility only yesterday. He will be aware of the importance of the report and of an official response.
Edward Argar
I am, of course, and I reassure the hon. Gentleman that prior to the reshuffle I was looking at a number of issues related to the recovery of our workforce. A fit, healthy and supportive workforce is crucial to that. I have read and considered the report, and, with my new responsibility, I will endeavour as swiftly as I can to ensure that the Government respond as appropriate to the Committee, and to Committee reports more broadly, in a timely fashion.
We believe that the proposed duty in clause 33, which inserts proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006 in order to require the Secretary of State to produce a workforce accountability report at least every five years, addresses one of the main issues in the current system: the need for greater transparency and accountability for the various bodies involved in the workforce planning process in England. The proposal in the Bill is to ensure that there are proper structures and accountability for ensuring that the necessary workplace planning and projections are carried out and co-ordinated effectively by the various bodies in the system. For example, the report will set out the role and responsibilities of the new ICBs and how they will support the delivery of effective local and national workplace planning.
Draft guidance issued by NHS England, which covers the role of ICBs regarding the workforce, sets out the direction of travel in that regard. It sets out the ICBs’ responsibility to develop system-wide plans to address current and future workforce supply for the local area, with demand and supply planning based on population health needs. The guidance also refers to their responsibility to provide workforce data to regional and national workforce teams in order to support aggregated workforce planning and to inform prioritisation of workforce initiatives and investment decisions.
I fear that my remarks may be a little more lengthy than usual, but I think that that reflects the importance and breadth of this issue. Turning to the other amendments in the group, amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish the report on assessing and meeting the workforce need annually, rather than at a minimum of every five years. I acknowledge the witnesses’ comments, which the shadow Minister has rightly highlighted, but we need to be a little cautious. We cannot predict all future evolution and needs, which is why we have mandated the report to be published at a minimum of every five years. That flexibility allows us to provide an updated report in order to reflect any changes to roles and responsibilities earlier than the statutory required period, if necessary, but requiring an annual report would impose an unnecessarily prescriptive and, I fear, rigid arrangement on the production of this document and would be disproportionate to the level of change in roles and responsibilities that we expect to see in the system on an annual basis. I therefore suspect that it is a matter for debate as to what the most appropriate timescale is—we have therefore set a minimum period, rather than a maximum period.
Amendment 40 seeks to go further than our current duty on reporting workforce accountabilities, by requiring the report to set out the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs, both of the health service and of social care. As the shadow Minister has alluded to, and as he and I agree, our 1.5 million-strong social care workforce is an absolutely essential and valued part of the social care system and, indeed, our broader healthcare system in this country. Social care workers are on the frontline, caring for and supporting people at the heart of their communities.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I fear that we will not be able to accept it today. The scope of clause 33 as it stands has been carefully drafted to ensure that it reflects the statutory role and responsibility of HEE, which will assist in the production of the report. As a result, the workforce accountabilities report will cover the NHS in England, including primary, secondary and community care; the regulated adult social care workforce where sections of the workforce are shared between health and social care—for example, registered nurses and occupational therapists; and the regulated public health workforce, including doctors and other regulated healthcare professions. Regulated professionals in adult social care are therefore already included in the scope of the report, but HEE has no specific remit for the wider, unregulated adult social care workforce. I can reassure the Committee, however, that the Government are working hard to bring forward a White Paper for adult social care. As the shadow Minister rightly alluded to—he repeated his comments, so I will repeat mine—the proposal set out by the Prime Minister will build on the strong foundations for reform and integration that will be laid through the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not tempt the Minister to tell us what will be in that, but his confidence that it will be an improvement on the current position is noted. Does he anticipate that the White Paper will also include a very clear commitment to a workforce strategy, along the lines that we have discussed?
Edward Argar
I do not know whether the shadow Minister has seen what I was about to say, but after two years of doing this together, he has become relatively psychic. I anticipate that the White Paper will set out in detail how we propose to fund social care professionalisation, as well as initiatives or plans to improve workforce wellbeing and further reforms to improve social care recruitment and support.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I know it is not the done thing for Whips to contribute to debates, but because I have been a care worker, this part of the Bill is close to home for me. I wanted to touch on the word that the Minister used when he spoke about “assumptions” about workforce planning. Does he agree that actual independence takes away the need for Ministers to make assumptions, and that is why the amendment is important? Otherwise, Ministers are in danger of marking their own homework when it comes to whether they have met the workforce projections that they say they have met.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady alludes to it not being normal form for a Whip to intervene, but her contribution is, as ever, extremely valuable in this context—particularly given the work that she did before she became a Member of this House—and I am grateful to her. My counterpoint would be that we need to be cautious about a separation of projections and planning from the reality of day-to-day delivery. The system, as envisaged, will bring together an actual knowledge of what is going on on the ground with those projections and data delivery.
I suspect that I will not convince the hon. Lady, but I recognise and acknowledge the expertise that she brings to the area. Back in my days as a councillor, I was a cabinet member for adult social care and saw at first hand the amazing work done by care professionals and by volunteers in the care sector. Notwithstanding any political disagreements we might have, I pay tribute to her for that.
Finally, regarding the consultation requirements in amendments 94 and 41, I assure the Committee that consultation already happens throughout the workforce planning and delivery process. To give a recent example of such engagement, HEE completed a call for evidence as part of its refreshed “Framework 15”. That call for evidence closed on 6 September and received responses from a wide variety of bodies. Between October and April of next year, engagement and consultation will continue through various events led by HEE. I am sure that as I assume my new responsibilities, I will occasionally be questioned on those by the shadow Minister, either across the Dispatch Box or in written questions and letters, as is his wont and, indeed, his right.
At local level, ICBs will be under various workforce-related responsibilities and obligations, as I have set out. As part of that work, we can expect ICBs to work with local stakeholders in their area. We expect all this stakeholder consultation to continue, but we want engagement to be flexible, in keeping with one of the principles—the permissive principle—behind the Bill.
Let me turn to the issue of safe staffing. Amendment 42 would significantly amend our proposed workforce accountability report so that it would have to cover an assessment by the Secretary of State of safe staffing levels for the health service in England and whether those were being met. The effect of the amendment in reality would be to require the Secretary of State to make such an assessment but, in so doing, risk detracting from the responsibility of clinical and other leaders at local level for ensuring safe staffing, reflecting their expertise and local knowledge, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. We do not support the amendment as drafted, for various reasons.
First, there is no single ratio or formula that can calculate the answer to what represents safe staffing in a particular context, and therefore against which the Secretary of State could make an objective assessment. It will, as we have seen over the past year and a half, differ across and within an organisation. Reaching the right mix, for the right circumstances and the right clinical outcomes, requires the use of evidence-based tools, the exercise of professional judgment and a multi-professional approach. Consequently, in England, we think that the responsibility for staffing levels should remain with clinical and other leaders at local level, responding to local needs, utilising their expertise, supported by guidelines from national bodies and professional organisations, and all overseen and regulated by the CQC.
Secondly, the amendment would require the formulation of safe staffing levels against which the NHS workforce could be assessed. I fear that that would be a retrograde step, as it would inhibit the development of the more productive skill mixes that are needed for a more innovative and flexible workforce for the future. That new workforce is crucial to successful implementation of the new models of integrated care that the Bill is intended to support.
The specific wording of the amendment is incredibly broad and would require the Secretary of State to assess safe staffing levels across all healthcare settings, across the whole of England, for all medical and clinical staff. Such a duty would be burdensome not only for the national system but, potentially, locally—for local clinical leaders. It would move us away from that local accountability and expertise.
I assure the Committee that we will continue to engage with stakeholders and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, to look closely at this area. I want to reassure Members, including Opposition Members, that we have heard their concerns and the views that they have expressed in relation to workforce in today’s debate and reflecting the evidence of witnesses. I am grateful, as ever, for the tone in which the shadow Minister has raised his concerns and put his points. We will carefully consider these issues and continue to ensure, and to reflect on ensuring, that we work to address them through the Department’s wider work on workforce.
Let me just say, before concluding, that while we were doing the changeover between clauses, I did a very quick check and I believe I was correct in my answer to the shadow Minister that no applications were currently pending for foundation trusts. I wanted to clarify that it turns out I was right—I suspect he thinks he was right in his assumption as well.
For the reasons that I have set out, I encourage hon. Members not to push these amendments to a Division but to continue engaging with me and other Ministers.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister not only for his kind words to me personally, but for his considered response to this set of amendments. It is clear that he is mulling over this, and I would like to give him time to think about potential opportunities for changing the clause. I know how these things work; I have sat in the very same seat that he is sitting in. I know he has to spin off various pieces of paper that have been provided to him by departmental officials. The officials who are sitting here have listened to this debate and will want to go back to the Department to discuss with their colleagues what has been mentioned in Committee today.
There is a gap between the sector’s expectations of what workforce planning might look like and what is currently written in the Bill. The Minister has proven my amendment to be defective. It is already highlighted in the legislative remits of Health Education England that it has to consult the social care sector and also the wider sector. I will not press the amendment to a vote, but I do think there is an opportunity. If we can plan in advance and create systemic frameworks, we will save ourselves time—a stitch in time saves nine. We have an opportunity to provide certainty and security for the workforce and to provide a sustainable framework, although I am not sure whether the five years is sustainable.
As I have mentioned before, I was here 10 years ago on the Committee for the Health and Social Care Bill, which became the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We are now removing parts of that, and the Minister at the time, in the very same seat, argued until he was blue in the face that there would be a benefit. We can learn from that experience, but the lived experience of professionals suggests we need to be more frequent in our assessment of the workforce needs of the NHS and the care sector.
We know that the demographic train that is coming down the tracks is going to hit us. We have seen what has happened with gas supply prices and the energy sector; we knew nine years ago that we had only about four days’ gas supply, and yet no action was taken. If we transpose that over here, we know that we face workforce issues, if not a crisis, in the next 10 years. That will all come down the tracks in a perfect storm of increasing healthcare issues, an ageing population and an attrition rate in a workforce that cannot currently keep up with demand.
There are supply and demand issues. We need more frequent assessments to ensure that supply and demand meet each other, and we need investment in the workforce and in training. Although I will withdraw amendment 94, I am keen for the Minister to consider what further action might be taken on Report or in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Justin Madders
I would just like to say a few words about amendments 40 to 42, if that is acceptable, Mrs Murray. We wish to press amendments 40 and 41 to a vote, with your permission. It is clear from the evidence that there is a demand for something to be done. It is interlinked with patient safety and cannot be ignored. Our main concern is: if we do not do this now, when will we?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 40, in clause 33, page 40, line 7, leave out ‘the health service’ and insert ‘health and social care services’—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on assessing and meeting the workforce need for both health and social care services.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 33, page 40, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before the functions in this section are exercised.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to consult the Welsh Government before the functions on workforce assessments in this clause are exercised.
I will be brief, given that much of what I would otherwise have said has been covered in the debate on the previous group of amendments. I will just say to those on the Front Benches, in their discussion of the genesis of the NHS, that success has many parents. Aneurin Bevan of Tredegar was the father of the NHS, based on his experience of the provision of health in that area, but it was also based on the foundation that was set up by my predecessor but three as Member for Caernarfon, David Lloyd George.
Having got that out of way, the amendment would place a duty to consult the Welsh Government on workforce assessments. Although the amendment is a probing one, I am concerned that the devolution settlement remains somewhat complicated and sometimes unclear, even in its current iteration. As a piece of history and a reference to how that settlement can cloud matters, I will mention a question I asked a former Labour Secretary of State for Health, Mr Alan Milburn, some years ago about nurses’ pay. His response, which I committed to my memory, was “It is one of the abiding joys of my life that I have no responsibility for things Welsh.” Unfortunately for both Wales and him, he actually had responsibility for nurses’ pay at that time. Even Secretaries of State are not perfect, let alone Ministers of State and others. That situation has now been resolved.
The danger is always that the remaining integration of parts of the Welsh health service and health service in England might be overlooked. I referred to that earlier in respect of services and people from Wales—and people from England, for that matter—accessing health services on the other side of the border. People in north Wales specifically will recognise the names of individual hospitals in England. I refer briefly to Alder Hey on the Wirral, which provides services to children with severe conditions. There is the Royal Liverpool; the Christie in Manchester, which provides specialist cancer treatment; and the hospital in Gobowen, which has for a long time provided orthopaedic services. Recently, severe casualties and people who have suffered road traffic accidents have been helicoptered to Stoke for specialist treatment. As I said the other day, around 13,500 Welsh people access GP services in England, and 21,000 or so people from England access GP services in Wales. Those are the 2019 figures.
The workforce-training and education aspects of cross-border arrangements must be considered because staff are mobile. People from Wales access training in England and then return to Wales, and it works the other way around as well. In my own constituency specifically, the school of nursing at Bangor University has for a number of years trained nurses from all over the UK and elsewhere. We are now establishing a medical school that will certainly be training doctors who will return to Scotland, England or Northern Ireland.
The other positive opportunity that proper workforce planning would present the health service throughout the UK is in the specialisms that we hope to develop in Wales—particularly in my area of north Wales. Those specialisms include, for example, treating injuries arising from accidents on our coasts and mountains, for which we already have some specialism. There are also particular issues around mental health and multilingualism, particularly in talking therapies and work with children and older people.
There are opportunities for people who might be trained in Wales before going over to England, and vice versa. For the reasons that I have outlined, I think it essential that those matters be taken into consideration in workforce planning.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mrs Murray, and to follow the thoughtful contribution by the hon. Member for Arfon.
The hon. Gentleman’s points about interdependency are important. Of course, we cherish and build on the devolved settlement, but we understand that we still have important relationships, not least at our borders. I thought that his point about specialised care was a thoughtful one, too: we know that as conditions or treatments become complex, there will be specialisations, and we would never want artificial barriers to get in the way of people accessing specialised care. His point about training was also good and jumped out to me.
Yesterday, I spoke to a surgeon in my community who took great pride in working in the hospital where he was born. In between, he had gone away; I am told that there are parts of the world other than Nottingham—I dispute that fact—and he wanted to go and see some of them. That will inevitably involve crossing borders, and it is important that that is reflected in the Bill. That will happen from nation to nation, but in the future it will happen from integrated care system to integrated care system. Where there is divergence, we need to be thoughtful of it.
The statement of values relating to cross-border care said:
“no treatment will be refused or delayed due to uncertainty or ambiguity as to which body is responsible for funding an individual’s healthcare provision.”
That is an important principle because it sets out that it is the job of the system rather than the individual to understand and navigate the separation between different bodies that may diverge but which work together in common purpose. That is easy to say, but hard to do at times. As I say, that is something that we will see between integrated care systems in time, too. That is true for patients, but also for staff, whether those staff work in Wales but live in England or vice versa, and for the important interrelationships between border integrated care systems on the Welsh border and the NHS in Wales.
There will be devolved and separate competencies between those bodies, but the human beings who make those systems go live side by side in communities, sometimes even next door to each other. A decision taken in one place, of course, impacts on everybody; we see that a lot in social care. Local authorities are under so much pressure at the moment, both in the resources that they have to fund social care and finding individuals to staff that care. There could be price wars at the borders that mean that individuals move between organisations more frequently than they would in a system that was better planned. We have to be mindful of that.
During the evidence sessions, we heard about the safe staffing legislation for nurses in Wales. That is the sort of thing that would already impact on border CCGs, and will do on integrated care systems in due course. That will only grow as the considerable workforce pressures that we discussed in the previous debate bite down even harder. Again, we must be mindful of that. It is crucial that there is a collective approach—a minimum approach—where the NHSs in neighbouring nations have due regard to each other. If the workforce becomes a zero-sum game, we will all lose in the long term.
I was heartened in those proceedings to hear about the contact between the Minister and his colleagues in Wales. I know that he takes matters seriously in Wales and across the United Kingdom, which is good. We might hear more about how that works with regard to the work- force. In the meantime, we support the inclusion of this measure in the Bill and the fact that it will be a priority.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Arfon. Although I represent an east midlands constituency, in sunny Leicestershire—the hon. Member for Nottingham North would argue that Nottinghamshire is sunnier—I have a huge affection for Wales. In every speech he gives, the hon. Member for Arfon brings to the fore his pride in Wales and his constituency. In the vein of highlighting successful politicians representing Welsh constituencies, I take this opportunity to put on the record a tribute to my former Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has become the PPS to the Secretary of State for Wales. I congratulate her on that appointment. It is well deserved; she has looked after me very well during her time in this House. I am grateful to her and put my congratulations to her on the record.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment before the Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before the functions contained in clause 33 were exercised. Clause 33 would insert proposed new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which, as we have just debated, would require the Secretary of State to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs of the health service in England.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, alluded to a point regularly made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd. Although politicians and people in this House might see neat administrative boundaries drawn on a map, the reality is often much more complex. Certainly, those boundaries should not be seen in their everyday lives by constituents and others, who on occasions rightly need to exercise their right to access specialist services in England; I dare say there will be occasions where the counterpoint is true, and people living on the English side of the border may access health services on the Welsh side. We need to recognise that and work pragmatically with that reality.
Although in many other areas of the Bill we will work closely alongside the devolved Administrations, we do not agree that there is a formal need to impose an obligation in the legislation to consult Welsh Ministers before the Secretary of State exercises the specific power in proposed new section 1GA. I will turn to how we work with the Welsh Government in a moment.
Hywel Williams
I am not entirely reassured by the Minister’s words; possibly the best response is, “We shall see”.
I make one further point, if I may, in reference to his former Parliamentary Private Secretary: people from Ynys Môn are known in Welsh as people from “Gwlad y Medra”, which translates as “the land of I can do it”. Clearly, she can do health, and we look forward to seeing her performance at the Wales Office as well. I add my congratulations to her. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Can I clarify, Mrs Murray, that we have a hard finish at 11.25 am?
Edward Argar
I will endeavour not to be on my feet at that moment.
Clause 33 inserts new section 1GA into the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce systems. Under the duty, the Secretary of State is required to publish, at least once every five years, a report describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. A duty is also placed on HEE and NHS England to assist in the preparation of the report, if asked by the Secretary of State to do so.
As we have discussed this morning, the report will describe the workforce planning and supply system for healthcare workers, including those working in the NHS and public health, alongside regulated healthcare professionals working in social care and other sectors in England. The report will be published at a minimum—I emphasise in each of my remarks that word “minimum”, although the shadow Minister may feel that it is not sufficient—of every five years. However, I can commit to that publication cycle being kept under review by the Secretary of State, should circumstances change.
Clause 33 will provide greater clarity and transparency on how the workforce planning and supply system operates in England. The report produced under it will describe in one single document the workforce planning and supply roles and responsibilities of relevant national bodies, including the Department, HEE and NHS England, the new integrated care boards and individual employers, and how they work together in practice at national, regional and local levels.
Clause 33 will complement our ongoing non-legislative steps and investment in workforce planning in England. In July 2021, the Department commissioned HEE to work with partners to review longer-term strategic trends for the health and social care workforce. This important programme will review, renew and update the existing long-term strategic framework for the health workforce—HEE’s framework 15—and will genuinely help to ensure that we have the right numbers, skills, values and behaviours to deliver world-leading clinical services and continued high standards of care.
Alongside the work that we are already doing with NHS England and HEE, clause 33 will further improve accountability for all the bodies involved on the important subject of planning for and meeting future workforce supply and demand.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee for long; I have said more than enough on the subject—not persuasively, clearly.
The Minister made the point that I did not think that a minimum of five years was sufficient for a report on the workforce, and that is absolutely correct—and I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination. Every stakeholder and every person who gave evidence to the Committee said that five years was simply insufficient to deal with the magnitude of the challenge that we face. If the Department really wants to grasp the nettle, it should be taking heed of what those stakeholders said.
The workforce is a very complicated and ever-changing issue. It is part of a world market in healthcare staff. What the right hon. Member for Kingswood said about his amendment was important: simply to dip into other parts of the world when we are running short is not a solution. Not only is it morally difficult to justify, but it does not represent a long-term solution—we are as prone to losing staff to other parts of the world as anyone else. People will remember that the junior doctors’ dispute resulted in an exodus to Australia and other parts of the world. Going around the world and dipping into other countries’ healthcare resources is not a solution to the challenges that we face. We are not going to divide the Committee on clause 33, but we think that it is insufficient.
I repeat the Health and Social Care Committee’s finding that
“workforce planning was at best opaque and at worst was responsible for unacceptable pressure on staff.”
That really cannot be ignored. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. I hope that when the clause gets to the other place, there is more success in putting the onus on the Government to deal with the challenge.
Edward Argar
I hear what the shadow Minister says, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance: the Government will continue to reflect very carefully on the points made both in the debate today and in our evidence session.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
As I said this morning to Mrs Murray, and I will repeat this afternoon for your benefit, Mr McCabe, it is a pleasure, particularly following the reshuffle, to still be serving under your chairmanship.
Clauses 34 and 35 would allow the Secretary of State to confer the exercise of his public health functions on NHS England or integrated care boards, and would allow those functions to be further delegated or subject to other collaborative arrangements, as defined elsewhere in the Bill.
Clause 34 substitutes proposed new section 7A for the existing section 7A in the National Health Service Act 2006, originally created as part of the 2012 health and care reforms, and amending the 2006 Act. To date, section 7A has been used to support the commissioning of key national NHS public health programmes, including our world-leading screening and immunisation programmes. The Government’s intention is that it should continue to do so. These public health services are embedded within, or have a clear affinity with, local NHS delivery mechanisms—a clear example being the delivery of childhood vaccinations by general practitioners.
Proposed new section 7A fulfils the same purpose as the original, in that it enables the Secretary of State to delegate the practical exercise of his public health functions to other bodies, but it is updated to keep pace with the thrust of the Bill and enable a wider range of delegation and collaboration arrangements. Not to do so would risk leaving public health programmes behind, with unnecessary restrictions on, for example, the range of bodies that could enter collaborative arrangements. The clause also consolidates amendments to section 7A made previously by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 in respect of inclusion of combined authorities as bodies to which the exercise of public health functions may be delegated.
In addition, to ensure that the delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards that make further provision on joint working and delegation arrangements. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to the delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms regarding the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will also have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under those provisions. Subject to those safeguards, the clause supports the aims of greater health and care integration and a focus on improving population health outcomes.
Clause 35 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State, by direction, to confer the exercise of any of his public health functions on NHS England or ICBs. The clause, again, goes with the grain of the Bill more generally in resetting the relationship between the Secretary of State, as rightly accountable to Parliament, and an enlarged NHS England with an expanded set of responsibilities, which include direct commissioning and oversight of some health services.
The Bill is moving away from a focus purely on competition, and is instead re-emphasising the value alongside it of integration and collaboration. That includes being very clear on the role that the Government have to play. To that end, there is a suite of proposals in the Bill that assert the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene, set direction and make decisions, not as a substitute for clinical expertise, but in setting that clear direction and being accountable. I suspect that, if not on these clauses, then on those we will debate in a moment, that will come to the fore in our discussions.
Clause 35 is, to an extent, illustrative of that and relates closely to, for example, clause 37’s power to direct NHS England. As the law stands, and indeed as it would stand with the changes proposed by clause 34 alone, the Secretary of State’s ability to delegate the exercise of his public health functions effectively depends on securing agreement with the body being delegated to. That arrangement has generally worked well since its inception as part of the 2012 reforms, and as far as possible the Government intend to continue to operate in that way. However, the power gives Minsters a backstop if agreement is not reached in a timely way or is unreasonably withheld. It also enables them to give clear instructions where needed or where it would be more efficient to provide a direction rather than set up a whole arrangement.
Delay and confusion can and do affect the health of those relying on public health services, so the backstop power reflects the proper relationship, as we see it, between the Secretary of State and the public health system. It also sits alongside other mechanisms, notably regulation-making powers, in relation to local government’s exercise of public health functions. However, it is important to emphasise that directions must be published as soon as practicable, and the power would, of course, have to be exercised within the normal bounds of ministerial decision making, accountability and transparency.
Furthermore, any decision to exercise the power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and in line with the Secretary of State’s general statutory duties. Those duties will of course form part of any Secretary of State’s reasoning on whether it would be appropriate to exercise the power. In particular, they would need to consider section 2A(1) of the NHS Act 2006. As such, the Government believe that clauses 34 and 35 embody a proportionate addition to the Secretary of State’s powers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister says, the clauses relate to public health. We might previously have anticipated that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) would have fielded them, but obviously she has moved Departments. I want to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to her for her service as Public Health Minister. We worked well together, particularly in the proceedings on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. We have disagreed over the course of our work, and that is good—disagreement is good in a democracy—but we always disagreed well. I wish her well in her new role, although I might highlight the irony that, after all the work she did in public health to reduce fizzy drinks consumption, the top of the order of business at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the moment is presumably trying to restore carbon dioxide supplies to get those fizzy drinks going again—I am sure she will seek for them to be sugar-free, if nothing else.
Today is also my first opportunity to formally congratulate and welcome the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) to her new role as Public Health Minister. I have long thought that it is pretty much the best job in Government, and gives the Minister the chance to shape and improve the lives of millions, if done well. From my work with her as a near neighbour, I know that she will give the job her all. I look forward to working with her and scrutinising the work that she does.
Of course, the job of Public Health Minister has been made an awful lot harder by the preceding decade. The other day I spoke about the bill for a decade of austerity falling due, and that is manifest nowhere more than in the provision of public health services and the impact of cuts on those services. In his introduction to these clauses, the Minister characterised the legislation as protecting the status quo, but the status quo relative to where we were in 2012 is very different: public health funding for 2019-20 was down 15% on where it was prior to the changes in the 2012 Act. If we set that against a growing and ageing population and all the attendant extra spending challenges that go with that, the real-terms impact is much greater. That has meant significant cuts: a cut of nearly half for support for health at work, the place where many of us will fall sick; a cut of a quarter for NHS health checks, a core preventative tool; and a cut of a quarter for smoking cessation programmes, despite how effective they are. Of course, the areas with the greatest needs have suffered the most and experienced the greatest cuts. Those cuts do not even fall equally.
For all the talk that we hear from the Government about prevention—we see it in these proceedings, the White Paper and the Bill—the reality is that Government policy over the last decade has made things much harder for our health system by creating extra demand. That is devastating not only for those individuals who have missed out, but for the system too. There is much greater demand on our health system as a result of the decisions that we have taken, and that is sad.
We have talked a lot about the 2012 Act, and much of what we are doing in Committee is removing its provisions, because they were not very good. However, one area where there seems to be no disagreement—no suggestion from the Government or the Opposition that we might change the position—is the idea that public health should go back home to local government. That is still an area of consensus that we can build on—of course it is. It means that our excellent public health staff, spearheaded by our world-class directors, can influence not only traditional public health-type services, but the whole range of services that shape the public’s health: licensing, planning, leisure, social care and much more—all those important things our local authorities do. It is just a shame and a wasted opportunity that this period has been characterised by cuts, particularly to those with the greatest need, rather than by investment in our communities.
I shudder to think of two things. The first is the amount of time that those skilled staff have spent on what is euphemistically called “service redesign” but is actually cuts. What could that amount of wasted time have been better spent on? The second is the professionals in that field who have chosen to leave because they do not want to be part of that. That is a real shame, and has really hindered our approach to tackling public health.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on clauses 34 and 35; at the end of the day, we would much rather that public health funding was spent at a local level than at a national one. We think it will have greater impact, and frankly we can get better value from it by combining it with local services. However, I want to test the clauses a little, starting with clause 34.
What we have seen in proceedings so far—I think this is sitting 10—is that, in reality, this is not an integration Bill; it is an NHS reorganisation Bill under an integration banner. I heard the Prime Minister himself promising a further White Paper, and presumably a further Bill, on integration in the future. The Minister has said that this Bill paves the way, but this was never a paving Bill. I challenge anybody to find in the White Paper or any publication from the Government relating to this piece of legislation the word “paving”—that is, until the Minister introduced it after the Prime Minister’s rather unhelpful intervention.
We heard from the Minister himself, when explaining to the Committee why a councillor cannot chair an integrated care board, that NHS bodies do not permit councillors to do so. He is telling us that this is about NHS bodies, not about partnership bodies. These are NHS bodies; they are accountable to NHS England and they can be altered by NHS England.
It has been a settled point of public policy for the past decade that public health is delegated to local authorities, for all the good reasons I mentioned. This may well be just my understanding, but I do not want to let this clause go without testing it: proposed new subsection 7A(2) provides for the range of eligible bodies that the Secretary of State can delegate the powers to. The first is NHS England, which would make sense in the case of big, national programmes such as the ones the Minister talked about in terms of vaccination. Another is a local authority, which makes sense for all the reasons I have given.
Yet another is a combined authority, which I suspect was not a feature of the 2012 Act—I do not think, although I might be wrong, that combined authorities were yet a twinkle in a local government leader’s eye at that point. However, with a combined authority, any arrangement would surely be by the consent of its members, rather than by delegation to the combined authority itself. Combined authorities are generally skeleton structures that act as an agglomeration of interested parties, rather than significant entities in themselves, so surely a local authority would receive those powers first and then, by agreement, transfer them to combined authority level with its partners.
Finally, there is an integrated care board. What is the reason for that? If these things get delegated to local government, why would they be delegated to an NHS body? Is that not an attempt, rather than repealing the provisions in the 2012 Act that moved public health back to local authorities, to do it on a de facto basis without addressing the point? That might be an unintended consequence, so I hope the Minister will address that and say that that is not the case.
Last Thursday, we dealt with the counterpart conversation to this one. We have debated multiple times the provision for health functions of the Secretary of State or NHS England to be delegated to the integrated care boards. That is in the spirit of what this legislation is about— local decision making—but at no point was there ever a proposal for any of those functions to be delegated to a local authority or combined authority. That, again, gets to the root of the problem with this Bill, and the core reason why the Government’s frequent integration efforts stall, spin their wheels and do not go anywhere. Local authorities are not treated equally, whether that manifests in social care—a very visible inequality in our health system—or in public health, as in this case. They ought to be equal partners, but they are anything but. Again, I hope the Minister can address that issue.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister has made a number of serious points—I am not sure how one spins the wheels when the car is stalled, but none the less I took his point. First, at the heart of this Bill is the fact that we seek to strike the appropriate balance between what is clearly a national health service, accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament, and local flexibilities and local integration. The debate we will have for the next two hours or so will probably be about whether we have struck that balance appropriately, but that is the core of what we are seeking to do here.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the importance of local authorities in this space. He and I share a common view on that, and he is right: one of the few things in the 2012 Act that I suspect he would have agreed with was the recognition of the public health function of local authorities. We are not seeking to do anything in the Bill to undermine that function in any way. It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I believe that the Bill provides for multiple layers of integration. Within a local NHS system, at an ICB level and then at an integrated care partnership level, there will be increased integration with local authorities and others, laying the foundations for the ambitious programme that the Prime Minister set out when he spoke earlier in this Session about the health and care levy.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about combined authorities. My recollection—I may be wrong—is that they date to about 2016, rather than 2012, and my understanding of the power is that it does not go against what he was saying, but provides for the continued evolution of the system and enables that delegation to take place. In practical terms, I would envisage that, where local authorities combine and work together, they would have their own arrangements, and we are not seeking to cut across those local working arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the ICBs, saying that they are NHS bodies and asking whether this is a threat to local authority delegation of public health functions. My reading of that is that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks on these clauses, there are some public health functions that are NHS and delegated through CCGs, such as GPs participating in child immunisation programmes—hence the reference to ICBs, because they will be replacing CCGs in the new world.
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman talked about funding for public health. On his comments about the bigger picture on funding and spending levels more broadly, I simply remind him of the note left by a previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
We cannot get away from that context in this space, but more broadly he is right to highlight the importance of public health. The past 18 months have shone a light on public health; under Governments of all political complexions, public health has not always enjoyed that prominence in public debate, external media and other commentary. One thing that I hope will follow on from the terrible events we have endured over the past 18 months is a greater understanding and appreciation of public health and its measures, and for public health to enjoy the support it needs to do its job. I think all Members would agree that one of the few positives has been the recognition of the value of public health and prevention.
I think that those were the main points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I see these clauses as permitting a further evolution of the system and a recognition of the need, ideally, where we can, to further delegate powers from the Secretary of State to lower down within the system. On that basis, I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will feel able to support the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Power of direction: investigation functions
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 36, page 42, line 33, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing in subsection (2) supersedes Part 4 of the Health and Care Act 2021.”
This amendment will ensure nothing in new section 7D of the NHS Act 2006 about the Secretary of State’s powers to direct HSSIB supersedes what is in part 4 of the Bill.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and to see the Minister back again. We heard about his increased workload this morning; I also saw him on the Treasury Bench during the urgent question. I wonder where he finds the time—he should speak to his trade union rep if he feels there are too many demands being placed on his time. We will do our best to ensure that this afternoon is as stress-free for him as possible; if he accepts our amendments, that will go some way towards enabling that.
I will not speak for long on amendment 108 because we will be talking extensively about the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch later on in the Bill. Concerns have been expressed in briefings received by the Committee and in evidence about some of the relevant provisions in the Bill, particularly on access to information. Clause 36 looks at the proposed power over bodies that have investigatory powers, which include HSSIB. It is difficult for us to accept the clause as it stands without having gone through all the details on HSSIB, because we cannot possibly know whether our concerns will be resolved about how it will operate in practice. That is why we have put forward amendment 108.
The amendment would ensure that the powers in clause 36 do not in any way impede the important principle that HSSIB will be an independent body established by the Bill. In conjunction with further amendments, which we will no doubt get to in part 4, we can all be confident that HSSIB’s independence is sacrosanct. That is important for not just us as parliamentarians, but everyone within the NHS who may have reason to come across HSSIB. It is also important for patients, of course, because they will ultimately be the judges of whether HSSIB has been a success. It would be helpful to understand what the approach will be in relation to maternity investigations. HSSIB has a potentially important role in identifying how providers can sustainably and systematically improve the quality of such investigations and then provide appropriate support. However, ensuring proper accountability, clarity and independence remain important, and this amendment seeks to ensure that those matters are enshrined on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I made it in rather slower time down to the Chamber to listen to the statement. After one of our sittings last week, I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North was on his feet asking a question in the Chamber before I had even made it out of this room, which shows a certain speed that I can only seek to emulate.
I appreciate that the amendment is linked to the independence of the Health Services Safety Investigation Body. The Government are clear that HSSIB will be independent, which is why it is being set up as a non-departmental public body, with a chief executive—to be known as the chief investigator—and executive and non-executive members. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that clause 36 is a temporary measure to ensure that the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch can continue to exist in the interim phase before the new body is established.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement means that the NHS Trust Development Authority, of which the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is a part, will be abolished. We need the important investigation function that the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch provides to continue until HSSIB is fully operational which, subject to parliamentary approval, is planned for spring 2023.
The power set out in clause 36 is designed to enable the Secretary of State to direct NHS England, or another public body, to carry out the investigation function in the interim period. I reassure hon. Members that the HSSIB will be independent. Clause 36 is not designed to infringe upon its independence and cannot be used to direct the new HSSIB in how it exercises its functions; it is there simply to ensure the continuity of current investigations until the 2023 start date. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider not pressing the amendment to a vote.
Justin Madders
I am reassured to some extent by the Minister’s words, but we have seen over the past 18 months that temporary powers do have a habit of becoming rather more permanent than was originally intended. I think it would be perfectly possible for the Government to include some sort of sunset clause to ensure that the intentions set out by the Minister are adhered to, but we may come back to that. As things stand, we maintain our criticisms, and it would be remiss of us not to push this matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief, because I believe that in responding to the shadow Minister’s amendment I set out the intentions behind the clause and the reasons why it is drafted as it is. Notwithstanding his desire to push his amendment to vote, all I can say is that I will continue to reflect on the points he has made. I cannot promise the outcome, but I will reflect on what he said. Having made the case when I addressed the amendment, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
General power to direct NHS England
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I suspect that, with this, we get to the main event of this afternoon’s proceedings.
I begin with clause 37, which introduces powers for the Secretary of State to give directions to the newly merged NHS England. This merger, which is widely welcomed, of three different bodies with different accountability arrangements into one has inevitably required us to look at the appropriate accountability arrangements for the future, and the extent to which the accountability arrangements have evolved and kept up with the evolution of the organisation. The powers in the clause will ensure the appropriate balance between democratic accountability to the Secretary of State and the NHS’s clinical and day-to-day operational independence.
Clause 37 will give the Secretary of State new powers over a newly merged and larger NHS England. It does not give the Secretary of State any new powers over other NHS bodies. It gives the Secretary of State precisely no new powers over clinical decisions. The clause is about ensuring appropriate accountability mechanisms between the democratically elected Government and one of the biggest arm’s length bodies, if not the biggest. That is a principle of democratic accountability in a publicly funded national healthcare service, and I am sure it is accepted not just by the leadership of NHS England, but by Opposition Members, even if they may not feel that the clause reflects their interpretation of it.
In practice, NHS England will continue, as now, to make the vast majority of its decisions without direction, consulting the Government and others as it needs to. The Government’s primary means of shaping the NHS agenda continues to be the mandate to NHS England, which has been an established means of providing direction to NHS England since 2013.
As we have learned in recent times, events can move fast, and the mandate may not be adaptable to all circumstances—and nor was it designed to be when it was conceived. The powers in the clause are designed to supplement the existing mechanisms, such as the mandate, to give the Secretary of State the ability, where he or she deems it appropriate and in the public interest, to provide direction and to intervene in relation to NHS England’s functions. Of course, the Department’s title is “Health and Social Care”, and while NHS England will rightly continue to be focused on the NHS, the Government must take a wider view—and this wider view may lead us, on occasion, to a different conclusion about the appropriate course of action from that held by NHS England colleagues.
There is already a strong and close working relationship between Ministers and NHS England. The clause helps to formalise that in a way that is more transparent for everyone to see, building in the normal expectations of ministerial decision making and accountability by requiring Ministers to issue directions in writing, and to ensure they are published and made in the public interest. Any decision to exercise this power will be premised and guided by general public law principles and broader statutory duties.
To ensure the NHS’s continued clinical and day-to-day operational independence, proposed new section 13ZD also sets out specific areas where the power of direction in section 13ZC cannot be used. The Secretary of State is unable to use this power to intervene in the appointment of individuals by NHS England, in individual clinical decisions or in relation to drugs or treatments that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has not recommended or issued guidance on.
We believe that clause 37 is crucial for ensuring that we have the right framework for national oversight and accountability of our health system, and of one of the largest arm’s length bodies, responsible for over £130 billion of public money. The clause ensures, in proposed new section 13ZE, that appropriate levers are in place—as there are for other arm’s length bodies—for Ministers to respond and take swift action if NHS England fails to carry out any of its functions. It also ensures, in proposed new section 13ZF, that Ministers have the levers they need to direct NHS England to provide information. Without it, we would be expanding the functions, responsibilities and powers of NHS England without ensuring that there are appropriate accountability arrangements in place for this large integrated body.
The changes that clause 37 introduced are proportionate, in our view. They reflect the evolution of NHS England in recent years, changes to the wider system and the appropriate expectations on Government to support, challenge and steer the system, while also leaving it free to determine operational matters.
Clause 62 amends the National Health Service Act 2006 by repealing the duty on the Secretary of State and NHS England to promote autonomy. The rationale for doing so comes is two parts. First, the response to the pandemic has further highlighted the importance of different parts of the health and care system working together in the best interests of public and patients. By repealing the duty to promote autonomy, the clause further enshrines integration and collaboration at the heart of the legislative framework underpinning the system.
The second reason for repealing that duty is to ensure compatibility with the duties elsewhere in the Bill on NHS organisations, including NHS England, to consider the effects of their decisions on the better health and wellbeing of everyone, equality of care for patients and the sustainable use of NHS resources. To avoid any conflict in duties, it is important to remove NHS England’s duty of autonomy, as these new duties require NHS England to co-operate and work closely with other partners, rather than autonomously. Repealing the duty of autonomy will also make it easier for NHS England to facilitate co-operation within the system—when commissioning services or issuing guidance, for example.
Neither the provisions in clause 37 nor those in clause 62, or indeed anywhere else in the Bill, do anything to change the nature of NHS England as an arm’s length body. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member—I fear that I may not—that the removal of these duties does not mean that Ministers are about to start interfering in the NHS or in any other body exercising functions relating to the health service.
Integration is at the heart of the Bill. By creating integrated care boards and removing unnecessary bureaucracy that can get in the way of local organisations wanting to work together, we are putting more power and autonomy in the hands of local systems, and that is our intention here. We are seeking to strengthen local leadership and empower local organisations to make decisions about their populations. We believe that both clauses not only support that intention, but strengthen it, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
The Minister rightly pointed out my mixed metaphor, so I will undertake to avoid metaphors in this contribution. It is hard not to feel like an undercard to the main event here—that is a simile, of course, rather than a metaphor, and I gave no such undertaking on similes.
I might surprise the Minister by agreeing with bits of what he said: we do not intend to divide the Committee on clause 37 and we do think that there is an important distinction between the powers in clauses 37 and 38, which I think will come out in the debate. However, if we went out to Parliament Square now and straw-polled people walking by, asking them who they thought was responsible for the NHS in England at a national level, I think we would wait a very long time before anyone gave any answer other than the Government and, by extension, the Secretary of State.
Alex Norris
And of course the Minister, through appropriate delegation, and we are all the better for it. The Minister can quote me on that—but not on a political leaflet, as that would be very challenging for me.
Covid has shown that the public think that the politicians they elect are accountable for the decisions taken in the interests of their health, however they might manifest in ordinary life, so I think the repeal of the duty to promote autonomy, set out in clause 62, probably follows inevitably from that. We want an expert-run health service that works together and follows the best available evidence and science, not one that is unaccountable and diverges from the interests and expectations of the public at large.
That leads me nicely to clause 37. It is possibly a tautology to say that if someone is held responsible for something, they ought to have responsibility for it, as the clause set outs. To put that bluntly, with more than £100 billion of spending—40% of the Government’s revenue budget—going into that area, people will expect political accountability. If NHS England is not seen to be acting in the public interest at the highest possible levels, there ought to be a mechanism, by exception, to correct that. It is the exceptional part that is really important.
That is defined negatively in the clause by what the Secretary of State may not do—for example, hiring or firing an individual, which I think is right, or directing the healthcare of a specific person. I do not think the Secretary of State would want to be in that position with important cases of individuals who are in the public sphere, or have the ability to act outside NICE guidelines on drugs or treatment, as happens in such cases. I do not think that is a good system, hard though it may be when prominent cases come to our attention.
That gives us a common-sense reading of what these clauses provide for the Secretary of State. Yes, the buck stops with the Secretary of State and his political colleagues as a collective if there are major failings in the health service or major failings of Government and of leadership, but the clause does not give Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose—undoubtedly with political pressures in mind—whether to involve themselves in the detailed running of the service. I think that will be covered in clause 38.
A concern raised by the Nuffield Trust in evidence was that there should be a stronger mechanism by which such decisions can be scrutinised. Will the Minister address that? I heard what he said about publication of information about the Secretary of State’s decisions, but why not provide for a parliamentary mechanism by which decisions could be scrutinised? That would ensure public confidence that there is no Executive overreach or direction at a low level of how our healthcare service operates, which I do not think would be at all desirable. I hope that the Minister will address that in his remarks.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I would like the Committee to take a moment to mourn the loss of the principle of autonomy as a guiding driver of the health service over some 20-plus years. That principle is part not just of the Lansley reforms, but of previous Labour reforms, and indeed of reforms by the Government before that. The idea was that the system would become more efficient and responsive with more autonomous units, rather than a great mass of health authorities, hospitals and systems that are rarely understood by local people, and that the competition of autonomous units would drive financial and service efficiency, for example. This is quite a moment, and I do not think we should just let it pass.
When I was a member of a primary care trust, which I may have shared earlier, our local region had “earned autonomy.” That meant that if we did certain things particularly well—bringing waiting times and waiting lists down, or fulfilling financial balance requirements, for example—the local team, board and chief executive would earn more autonomy to do more. In modern parlance, things became more permissive, and they were trusted to do something.
Justin Madders
I am a little confused, because my hon. Friend is talking about the end of autonomy, but everything we have heard from the Government is about how permissive the Bill is and how it will leave people free to make their own decisions. I must be missing the point somewhere, mustn’t I?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which we will come on to when we discuss the following clauses. If there is no autonomy, but we are trying to be permissive, we come back to the vexed issue that the Minister alluded to earlier: where the balance lies between national and local accountability. We will come to that in further clauses.
I will not long mourn the loss of autonomy—I am not sure it really worked—but it is a principle for people to locally manage the units. As I said in relation to financial management in a previous session, if it is very clear that a chief executive or a finance director has responsibility for their bottom line, that drives a certain amount of focus and responsibility. I find it a little extraordinary for the Conservative party to be promoting the lack of autonomy. I hope hon. Members will take a moment to reflect on the seismic change we now have in the direction of our public services and the next era of the NHS.
Edward Argar
There are a few points that I will seek to address. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for highlighting the accountability of the Secretary of State—he also highlighted me. I remind colleagues that in my ministerial capacity, as a junior Minister, I am in legal terms but an extension of my Secretary of State; all the powers are vested in him and I am but a legal extension of him. Colleagues may dwell on that as they wish, but possibly not too much.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North set it out well. If we went out into Parliament Square and asked three dozen people who they believe is accountable for the NHS and the delivery of health services in this country, they would say it was the Government, or possibly the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I think that is right, and that is why we must ensure that the accountability is reflected in the responsibility and the ability to exercise that responsibility and accountability over how the NHS operates.
On the promotion of autonomy, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North alluded to and as I set out, if we are seeking to promote integration and co-operation, as the Bill does, that therefore sits slightly ill with a duty to promote autonomy, and this is about how we reconcile those two matters in legislative language. He talked about a parliamentary mechanism in this context. I emphasise the need for the directions to be published in writing and to be in the public interest.
As we know, such documents are always able to be debated in the House. Were something to be done that he thought inappropriate, I can bet my bottom dollar that I would be standing at the Dispatch Box answering an urgent question from him 24 or 48 hours later. There are mechanisms in this House by which Ministers can be held to account for decisions they make. That is why I believe that this move aids transparency. Rather than informal conversations and discussions, as happen in any organisation, the clause will require that, where a disagreement occurs, there is a clear direction for it to be published transparently, for shadow Ministers and others in this House to question and challenge it, or to raise, within or outwith the House, their concerns in front of the public.
The hon. Member for Bristol South quite rightly alluded to how PCTs operated. Like her, I sat as a non-executive member of a PCT board. I remember those days. If I remember correctly, not only did she sit on a board; she also has extensive experience in running healthcare services as a senior leadership figure within the local NHS, so she knows of what she speaks.
I do not think that what we are seeing here is quite as the hon. Lady characterises—a huge change in the direction of our party’s policy or the direction of travel. We are putting in place a pragmatic and sensible measure, to reflect the focus now on a duty to co-operate, which a duty of autonomy sits slightly ill with, as I say, and to make sure that we have clear accountabilities. We recognise in theory and in legislation what is already deemed by the public to be there in reality, which is the accountability of the Secretary of State and the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 102, in schedule 6, page 180, line 12, at end insert—
“relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee” means any Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in an area to which the proposal for a reconfiguration of NHS services relates.”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 103.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 180, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Before taking a decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a), the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult all relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committees, and
(b) have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the Integrated Care Board’s Medical Director.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult any relevant Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (as defined by Amendment 102), and to have regard to and publish clinical advice from the ICB Medical Director, before intervening in local service reconfiguration.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 180, line 43, at end insert—
“(aa) publish a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest,”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement demonstrating that any decision they have made on a reconfiguration proposal is in the public interest.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
If I may, I will turn to the amendments first and then the substantive clause. I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling the amendments. I said that the previous clause was coming to the main business of the afternoon, but I now suspect that was but an hors d’oeuvre to the discussion we may have on this clause and this set of amendments.
Amendments 102 and 103 would require the Secretary of State to consult all relevant health overview and scrutiny committees before making a decision on a reconfiguration. Amendment 103 would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to, and publish, clinical advice from the ICB’s medical director. It is of course vital that local views are represented in any reconfiguration. However, although I understand the rationale behind these amendments, I do not think they are strictly necessary. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement plays in service change decisions; we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible.
The Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, which is being retained. The focus of the IRP is and will continue to be the patient and quality of care in the context of safe, sustainable and accessible services for local people. It has also provided the system with advice based on its experience to date around critical success factors.
If I may go down a slight rabbit hole here, I would like to put on the record my appreciation for the work of the IRP. Certainly during my tenure in this post, I have consulted it and seen its advice on a number of occasions, and I am grateful for the work its staff do, the speed with which they do it and the benefit I have gained from that advice in making decisions or advising the Secretary of State on particular decisions.
In practice, the Secretary of State will always need to seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts before making any decision, and all decisions made using the powers inserted by clause 38 and schedule 6 must be published. This will ensure transparency and allow for proper scrutiny of the way the power is being used.
Schedule 6 also includes the requirement for NHS commissioning bodies, including integrated care boards, to give the Secretary of State any information or other assistance required to carry out any functions under the schedule. It is envisioned that the Secretary of State will obtain information from NHS commissioning bodies when making reconfiguration decisions. This will include any representations that an HOSC, stakeholder, patient group or any other interested party have made, if applicable.
All decision making on reconfigurations, at both local and ministerial level, will continue to be guided by the four tests laid out in existing guidance that reconfiguration should be assured against: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
As such, we believe that clause 38 and the guidance that the Secretary of State is required to produce under the powers in schedule 6 will provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State receives appropriate advice before using the powers in this clause. As a result of not accepting amendment 103, we will also resist amendment 102, which is consequential on amendment 103.
Amendment 104 would require the Secretary of State to publish, alongside any decision they have made under this provision, a statement demonstrating that the decision is in the public interest. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for all his or her decisions. Ministers are expected, as a core principle of the constitution, to act in the public interest, and this is reflected in the ministerial code. In addition, the Secretary of State’s scrutiny and direction-making process on this and any other matter must already take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and their legal duties, including the public sector equality duty, that adhere to such decisions.
The Secretary of State is also under a number of duties set out in the National Health Service Act 2006, including a duty to promote a comprehensive health service, to secure continuous improvement in quality of services, and to have regard to the NHS constitution. As I have already set out, the Secretary of State will continue to be advised by the IRP, and will seek appropriate advice from clinicians, local leaders or other experts.
As for paragraph 4 of schedule 6, the Secretary of State already has a duty to publish any decision they make on a reconfiguration and to notify the NHS commissioning body of the decision. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw his amendment—I suspect that I will be unsuccessful in that plea, but I make it none the less.
I will now address clause 38 and schedule 6. The clause inserts proposed new section 68A and proposed new schedule 10A into the National Health Service Act 2006. It also introduces schedule 6, which includes a new intervention power to allow the Secretary of State to call in a reconfiguration of NHS services at any stage of the process, without the need for a referral from a local authority. A reconfiguration of NHS services is a change in service provision that has an impact on the manner in which a service is delivered at the point at which the service is received by the user, or the range of health services available to individuals. That could be, for example, a change in where a mental health in-patient unit is based, building a new stroke unit, or restructuring a whole hospital trust.
The new intervention power will enable the Secretary of State to act as a scrutineer and decision maker for reconfigurations, to intervene where, for example, they can see a critical benefit or cost to taking one or other course of action, or to take action where there is significant cause for public concern. We do not expect or intend to use the power with any regularity, and where it is used, it will be done so transparently. As I have emphasised, the Secretary of State must publish any decisions made about reconfigurations.
Schedule 6 sets out the scope of the reconfiguration powers as they pertain to NHS commissioning bodies, NHS services, NHS trusts and foundation trusts. It introduces a new duty for the relevant NHS bodies to notify the Secretary of State of any proposed or likely reconfiguration. The Secretary of State will be able to take any decision that could have been taken by the NHS commissioning body. That includes the ability for the Secretary of State to decide whether a proposal should proceed, the results the NHS commissioning body should achieve, and the procedural steps that should be taken. As I set out earlier, decision making will continue to be guided by the four reconfigurations tests. The new power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions.
As the shadow Minister set out, the public expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes reconfigurations of it. The clause ensures that decisions made in the NHS that affect all our constituents are subject to democratic oversight. Without it, the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and take decisions will remain limited, often coming at the end of a long local process. As now, he would not be alerted to a potential change in services until the change became an issue and he would remain powerless to intervene without a formal referral by a local authority.
I am conscious that that existing arrangement satisfies few in Parliament, including Opposition Members, on the occasions when they make representations about the process. However, it will be for this debate to see whether Members feel that the proposed new arrangement satisfies them—I will not prejudge that for a minute, looking at the faces of the Opposition Members. I therefore commend clause 38 and schedule 6 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I congratulate the Minister on his valiant attempts to defend the powers that he wishes the clause and schedule 6 to give his boss.
The Opposition are pretty realistic and do not think that the clause will survive the parliamentary process in its current form. It would save a lot of time if the Minister was to indicate now that he had taken note of the many concerns expressed and that things will change. However, as the clause remains on the face of the Bill, we will have to go through the long and important reasons why it will not be able to stand in its existing form. The Minister will continue to defend the indefensible until it no longer needs to be defended.
We have heard evidence as to why the powers in the clause are not needed and, indeed, why the Secretary of State would not want such powers. Again, we are trying to help the Minister and his Department out by pointing out some of the pitfalls. The clause really is the total antithesis of everything this Bill is supposed to be. The Minister has told us many times that he wants to take a permissive approach, but the truth, as exposed by this clause, is that being permissive is okay until it is not, and then we have the power grab, the micromanagement and the sound of bedpans dropping all the way up to the Secretary of State’s desk. That is the logical conclusion of the clause.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I want to speak generally to the clause and the schedule, rather than in support of any amendments. I thank the Minister for setting out the continued role of the IRP and the four tests that have been put in place. I am sure that all of us on the Committee have at some stage in our local communities faced a healthcare service reorganisation. They are very painful processes, as the hon. Member for Bristol South will recognise. We had a reconfiguration across both trusts in Bristol that began, I think, in around 2004 and has yet to be properly completed. They are incredibly painful processes that can leave local communities feeling disaffected and disempowered, whoever is taking the final decision.
We need to think carefully about the potential unintended consequences of the schedule as it stands. I have not tabled any amendments; I just want to raise potential concerns about the detail. In Bristol and south Gloucestershire, Cossham Hospital was provided to the local community by Handel Cossham, who was the Member of Parliament at the time for the east and south Bristol region. He was the only Member of Parliament who, I think, technically died in the Palace; he collapsed in the House of Commons Library and died of a heart attack. I think in those days they could not even claim that he had somehow survived.
Handel Cossham donated in his will land to the people of Kingswood, on which they built Cossham Hospital, named after him. Even before the NHS came into creation, therefore, Cossham Hospital was there, having been built in 1905. The local people of Kingswood, even though it sits in the Bristol East constituency now, felt very passionately that this was their hospital; it was not the NHS hospital. Yet there was a proposal to close Cossham Hospital, which was then reversed. In consequence, the decision was taken to close Frenchay Hospital in favour of a new hospital in Southmead. Frenchay Hospital was meant to become a community hospital, but a U-turn was taken by the healthcare authorities at the time—the clinical care commissioning groups and North Bristol Trust, which squabbled over who was in control because the land had been handed over from North Bristol to the CCG.
I benefited, when I was elected in 2010, from the “Save Cossham Hospital” campaign, which saw the very good Labour MP lose his seat. I faced battles when there were promises to put a minor injuries unit into Cossham Hospital and then there was another U-turn. Ultimately, no one has been held properly accountable, but the IRP published a report that demonstrated that North Bristol Trust had neglected its duty to communicate effectively with the public.
It is that element of communication with the public that I want to talk about in relation to schedule 6, because I have concerns. I agree with the Minister about removing the control of the health overview and scrutiny committees, because they became toxic platforms for councillors, who suddenly had to take decisions as local authority members. They did not know anything about them; all they knew was that their seats were at risk, so the committees were becoming highly politicised forums. People were turning up to the councils and demanding that councillors referred things to the IRP.
Perhaps the Minister can comment a bit more about the nature of who is doing the referral and who is contacting the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State will not necessarily be aware of all the reconfiguration decisions. Who is the active agent who is making the referral to the Secretary of State? Will it be a councillor, a member of the public or a Member of Parliament? My worry is that when we get to election time, the Secretary of State becomes a lightning conductor, and this will electrify decisions. For new colleagues in marginal seats in the red wall, this could be one of the decisions that creates the dynamic by which the general election is fought on various reconfigurations. The Opposition will claim that it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to deal with the matter and that he has let down local communities. That is the dynamic and toxic discussions that we have to avoid, if the provision comes into play.
I agree that the Secretary of State needs to have more information to hand and the ability to make decisions, but I am concerned about the definition in schedule 6, which states that
“‘reconfiguration of NHS services’ means a change in the arrangements made by an NHS commissioning body…that…has an impact on—
(a) the manner in which a service is delivered to individuals (at the point when the service is received by users), or
(b) the range of health services available to individuals.”
That is so broad that it could include the tiniest change. Mr Jones, a constituent of mine, might say, “Actually, this has impacted on my local provision of healthcare services for me. I want you to start a petition to the Secretary of State to change this.” I wonder whether there could be some conditionality placed within the definition that might touch on an overwhelming community interest, or something that might touch on the detriment of patient outcomes.
I believe that when we make reconfigurations, they are not necessarily done for financial reasons. They are done to deliver better patient outcomes, so we have to find a way for all political parties to demonstrate that when we put trust in professionals to take decisions, they are doing so because they recognise that there are ways in which reconfigurations can lead to better patient outcomes. We have to be able to move people in that journey. It is not just about the money when it comes to reconfigurations, and I understand that. As political leaders, it is worth supporting clinical decisions when they are the right ones for the benefit of patient outcomes, even if they are difficult decisions for us to take. Some reflection of that in the definition of “reconfiguration of NHS services” would be welcome.
Ultimately, it will come down to guidance, which is why the section on guidance is important. The Minister has mentioned guidance being published. Currently, paragraph 8 of schedule 6 only says:
“The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS commissioning bodies, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”
I think we would all really welcome that guidance being extended to the local authority’s health overview and scrutiny committee, so that it can understand what role it is playing within this fiery dynamic.
What we really need to do with the clause is ensure that members of the general public understand what the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary of State are to any reconfiguration, and that they are set out very clearly to start with. Once we start going down the journey of a petition being collected, it gathers steam and therefore becomes a campaign. Suddenly, rather than having the Department of Health and Social Care, we have a new Department called the Department of Health and Reconfiguration Services, which is what we need to avoid. For the sake of the public and the community, we have to be able to demonstrate that reconfigurations will happen—that is the nature of the NHS. Decisions need to be taken when the facts change and the clinical outcomes change, and I recognise that fact. However, we have seen flip-flopping in Bristol eroding public trust. We need to ensure that, from the outset, people understand why the Secretary of State has these powers and the conditions under which he can take decisions, working with the IRP. We would welcome guidance, potentially for Members of Parliament and local authority members, so they are able to have advance conversations when constituents come to them saying, “I want you now to refer this to the Secretary of State” or “I’ve got a petition of 10 people who want to refer this to the Secretary of State.” They will then know exactly the context in which they can consult the Departments.
Those are the only points I want to make. I am not here to support any of the amendments, although I support the clause. I wanted to reflect on things that might be added in order to break down the granularity of detail, provide wider community context and make sure the public understand where the Secretary of State sits in this potential conversation around reconfiguration.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingswood. I feel the need for us to write a book or a pamphlet about the planned reconfiguration of health services in Bristol from my time on the board. I agree with a lot of what he said about the Kingswood-Frenchay area, but I hold the reconfiguration up as a good example of wider consultation, clinical leadership and patient and public involvement.
Some of the messiness we got into reflected healthy discussion of the issues. As he said, we are still going through the process, but at the end of those long days we managed to build two very good, specialised hospitals, particularly around A&E services, and therefore close an A&E service. Although not a clinician, I had lots of work in the Frenchay area at the time and it was a terrible place to work and deliver clinical services, having been built as temporary wartime provision, although it was much loved by local people. That is something we might reflect on at another time. The process continues. We have just closed the consultation on stroke services, and other good services, including primary community care services, have come about as a result of the reconfiguration. Reducing a hospital base from three to two is a major exercise, but it did happen.
The points made by the right hon. Gentleman were well made, as were those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. We could play good cop, bad cop, because I am disappointed that the Minister is not taking the very helpful hands that I have offered to find more ways around this, rather than saying that we just want to see the whole lot come out. It will come out eventually—I think we all know that—but along the way let us put some helpful things in place.
My amendments deal with health overview and scrutiny committees and clinical advice. I will not press them to a vote, but I would like the Minister to address them. I think they might appear in similar form in other places, at other times, so what we say is important.
The Government need to account for where and how they are going to get their clinical advice. Reconfigurations, both large and small, are important to local people, as hon. Members have said. The Cossham example is a good one. Some of those buildings do not belong to the NHS. They belong to local communities and pre-date the NHS. People love buildings and their associations. As we embrace technology, we can see that people like buildings because they are something they can grab hold of and understand.
Clinicians—and clinical advice about change—are crucial in allowing and facilitating change. As with politicians, if there are three clinicians in the room then often there will not be one single answer. The issues about what we should be moving towards are often not black and white. The whole vexed issue around the tests and where clinical advice comes from is problematic for the Government and the Secretary of State.
As my hon. Friends have said, the national clinical advisory team did independent reviews, and then that disappeared. We have looked at clinical senates. The Lansley test, which has been alluded to, wanted clarity about a clinical evidence base. In order to provide such clarity, a lot of clinicians need to come together, across specialities and across primary and secondary care, to agree and to then go and talk to the public, to make people understand why and when they are putting forward their propositions.
The timing is interesting, because the test assumed the support of GP commissioners. In this new world, there is no clinical leadership of these new bodies; they are managerially led. Some of the managers might be clinicians, but when the tests were established—this was also true of primary care trusts—the previous bodies in their previous incarnations were largely clinically led. We may dispute whether that was in actuality, whether those people were acting as clinicians, what sort of clinicians they were, whether they were clinicians in the field of the service reconfiguration we were talking about and so on, but that is an important point in terms of trust with the general public.
The new bodies are not clinically led. In my amendment, I suggest the ICB medical director, but that will be a pretty tall order for the ICB medical director even in my amendments. They are also supposed genuinely to promote patient choice. We talked earlier about the removal of autonomy, and what we are seeking to do in many of our amendments to the Bill is to put back the voice of the patient somewhere in this permissive integration world.
The other test was generally to enjoy public, patient and local authority support. While poor old Lord Lansley is not getting much praise in these meetings, some sort of provision for tests with the public, local authorities and clinicians, recognising the complexity that has been outlined particularly well by the right hon. Member for Kingswood, still living through some of this, is well made.
I do not think the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wants all this on his desk. In my time in this place I have watched with great interest, as I am sure we all have, as hon. Members across Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and all across the south-west have all risen at various times to bring up the issue of their community hospital, their A&E and various other services in their part of the country. Those issues are keenly felt and will all need consideration. Somebody—largely clinicians, and then other managerial people in those bodies—will have to sift out those processes.
What is alarming people, as we heard in evidence from our excellent witnesses—my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston outlined the key arguments—is that there is a gap. Who is filling it? How is it being filled? That is not just about process; it is about serious clinical engagement. That is why the Minister would be wise to pick up some of the helpful amendments that have been tabled, to alter this; otherwise it disappears completely. I think it was Nigel Edwards from the Nuffield Trust who said it is working pretty well at the moment.
We will all have our points in time where we disagree with things, and we will all want to bring in something else. That is partly our role as elected representatives, and I know the NHS does not like politics and politicians getting involved in these things sometimes, but it is the job of local representatives, whether local councillors or local Members of Parliament, to articulate on behalf of their constituents, to understand the debates and issues, to mediate them and certainly to challenge clinicians and managers of all types on the veracity of the proposals they put through.
The other thing I have said publicly is that sometimes the evidence put forward is not as robust as it should be. That external local scrutiny is well served by those of us who take a strong interest and ensure that the veracity of that information is solid. I have been able to go back to constituents—it is a brave politician who goes back to a constituent to say, “No, actually, I think we need to close that A&E,” but frankly, as we have seen from various reconfigurations across the country, at times that saves lives and is the right thing to do. Giving people locally the support to articulate that is also important.
Edward Argar
I fear we may not have consensus in Committee at this point, but none the less I will endeavour to answer some of the points raised. I am always grateful to the shadow Minister for his kind offers of help and assistance, and he will know that I always reflect carefully on the evidence we have heard and on the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I welcome his welcoming of the publication of the impact assessment in time for him to be able to quote it back at me. Finally, I thank him for his heartfelt and kindly offer of alternative approaches, given his concern for my workload were these proposals to be approved. I am touched on a number of levels by that, and equally by his suggestion that I and others have been engaged in the dark arts of spin—heaven forbid.
In the context of clause 38 and these amendments, right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, have raised a number of important points that bear further reflection. As we have said throughout this process, the challenge with this Bill is striking the right balance between being permissive and ensuring accountability at a national level, and we believe this clause plays a key part in doing so. I disagree with the shadow Minister’s view—although I respect it—that the clause does not strike the right balance, and I do not believe that the powers set out in it are disproportionate, as he has suggested. He has highlighted the role of the IRP. I mentioned my gratitude for its work in my opening remarks, and I was very clear that that work will continue. The IRP will continue to give the valuable advice it has given thus far.
I do not believe that the notification requirements will prove unduly onerous: a notification can be a very simple process. To the shadow Minister’s point about timeliness, process and definitions, we are working very closely with the NHS and other partners to produce guidance that will set out clear expectations about how and when the powers will be used, and how they will be exercised. In his remarks, he touched on a concern that Ministers might be beset by lobbying from the public and others. I would argue that such lobbying would clearly point to greater public engagement with such matters and increased transparency, which are things that we might welcome. For fear of upsetting my hon. Friend the Whip, the Member for St Austell and Newquay, I will pass over the invitation that the shadow Minister and others have extended to my colleagues on the Government Benches to break the Whip. I saw the expression on my hon. Friend’s face when that was suggested, so I strongly discourage any of my right hon. or hon. Friends from contemplating that course of action. Even though a reshuffle has only just happened, there is always another one at some point.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Health Service Journal, which I enjoy reading. All I would say is that we continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders, as we have done throughout the process. Indeed, I think that in her evidence, Dame Gill Morgan highlighted the collaborative nature of the genesis of this Bill. I intend to continue with an open and transparent approach, discussing with colleagues and engaging with them and others, because we know that we can always learn by listening.
Justin Madders
I am finding the Minister’s response very entertaining, but he really does need to tell us exactly what is wrong with the current system that this Bill is going to fix.
Edward Argar
I will come to the shadow Minister’s point, but I just want to get through the points he made earlier in his preamble. He mentioned the quote in the Health Service Journal article from a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care, and I think that quote accurately reflects the nature of this Bill. I am grateful to those officials from the Department who ensured that the Health Service Journal got its quote.
I now turn to the substance of the shadow Minister’s argument and some of the gritter points that he, the hon. Member for Bristol South and others have alluded to. Fundamentally, he asked what challenge this Bill seeks to resolve. He asked a few other questions as well, which I will try to answer.
We believe that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in reconfigurations for which they are ultimately accountable, and that this proposal will increase accountability to Parliament and the community by enabling intervention at an earlier stage. Too often, controversial proposals are referred at the very end of the process after a huge amount of work, effort and expenditure, rather than at an earlier stage when there is already a divergence of opinion in the local community. The Bill gives the Secretary of State an opportunity to take a view—based on advice and on the IRP’s four tests, which will continue to be the basis of that—and to get earlier intervention, where appropriate. That is one of the key reasons.
I will carry on, and the shadow Minister will nod if I am missing anything. He touched on local authority engagement, who can refer, whether there is a diminution in power—I think the hon. Member for Bristol South might have mentioned that—and what qualifies the Secretary of State to make those decisions. He also referred to local knowledge.
Karin Smyth
We could spend a lot of time on this, but I think the Minister is saying that this could happen if there is a dispute within the public at any stage—perhaps at the outline business case, perhaps at the initial raising at the ICB or perhaps at the floating of the idea. That is clearly nonsense, if I may say so. Will the guidance define what “any stage” means?
Edward Argar
We anticipate the guidance setting out what is proportionate, the criteria and the appropriate point at which an intervention can be considered. I come back to the point that too often, under the current arrangement, proposals come forward right at the end of the process, after huge amounts of expenditure, effort and time, only to be overturned—potentially at the very last moment—on the basis of the referral. Having a measured and proportionate intervention power at an earlier stage is the right approach to save a lot of angst and possibly money, although we do not anticipate that the power will need to be used on many occasions, because the vast majority of reconfigurations are broadly consensual, or reach a local consensus.
The shadow Minister alluded to local authority referrals, and the hon. Member for Bristol South has highlighted the importance of local authorities and local accountability in a number of previous speeches and interventions. The new call-in power will not replace the important role that local scrutiny and engagement play in service change decisions. Decision making on all reconfigurations, as I said, will continue to be bound by the four tests against which reconfiguration should be assured: strong public and patient engagement; consistency with current and prospective need for patient choice; a clear clinical evidence base; and support for proposals from clinical commissioners.
The IRP will continue to provide the independent clinical advice to inform the Secretary of State’s decision making. His scrutiny and direction-making process must take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and all legal duties, including the public sector equality duty.
In that context, the Secretary of State will also continue to be bound by his duty on quality of service. That includes promoting the comprehensive health service and securing continuous improvement in the quality of services provided. The new call-in power for reconfiguration will allow the Secretary of State to support effective change and to be more responsive to the concerns of the public—and of Members of Parliament as their representatives—at an earlier stage.
Justin Madders
Reflecting on the Minister’s comments about why the provision is needed, my understanding is that the power to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to intervene at an earlier stage means that, in effect, local health systems will not spend an awful lot of time and effort coming to decisions that will ultimately be overturned. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any more detail or any thoughts about why, in a system that was generally thought to be working well, a decision could go all the way through that process and, at the end of it, be deemed to be wrong.
Edward Argar
One particular example comes to mind, but given that it is a live one, I will not use it. However, if I semi-anonymise it, there are decisions that are made locally and followed through, and only at that last moment is the process challenged—for example, whether a consultation was done properly—so it triggers a potential referral to the IRP, which could see that process overturned. An earlier power to intervene and an earlier opportunity to engage could in many cases avoid that problem and lead to a smoother process.
Let me make a final point. I would expect most reconfiguration decisions to be managed by the local system, and system players will be encouraged to resolve matters locally where possible and not to require any referral to the Secretary of State. Where cases are highly contentious and require ministerial input, our proposals will allow the Secretary of State to intervene. He is accountable in Parliament for reconfigurations. The shadow Minister made the broader point that if we ask who is responsible for the NHS, people will say the Secretary of State, or potentially the Prime Minister. That is already there in people’s minds. It is right that we have commensurate powers in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to properly discharge that function and accountability.
I remain touched by the hon. Gentleman’s kind concern about the volume of work I may end up having to do as a result of the measure. I do not quite share his concerns, but I am none the less touched by the thought.
I urge the hon. Member for Bristol South, perhaps in vain, not to press her amendment to a Division, and colleagues on the Committee to support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 40 and 41 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 42 stand part.
Clauses 44 to 50 stand part.
Edward Argar
With your indulgence, Mr McCabe, and that of the Committee, I will start with clause 39, followed by clauses 40 and 41 and schedule 7, and then go through the remaining clauses in the group.
Clause 39 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing section 179, which abolishes NHS trusts in England. It is an uncommenced provision. The policy intention at the time was that all NHS trusts would become foundation trusts. However, since then the provider landscape has settled at around one third NHS trusts and two thirds NHS foundation trusts, and, as far as I am aware, no applications for change to a foundation trust are currently in flight. There is no intention to alter this landscape significantly and, as such, section 179 of the 2012 Act should be repealed. Doing so provides absolute legal clarity that the Secretary of State can create new NHS trusts under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006.
Given the ongoing pandemic, and with the NHS having to deal with the broader challenge of treating an ageing population with ever more complex needs, we seek to ensure flexibility by allowing the Secretary of State to set up new trusts for any purpose, to ensure alignment within an integrated system. The ability to create new trusts, where they are requested by a local area, enables the NHS to be structured to deliver the best outcomes for population health and to respond to emerging priorities. Our aim is to ensure that the system is flexible and adaptable in the future, and wherever possible to avoid the need for complex workarounds to deliver system priorities. Although section 179 was never commenced, we want to remove any potential legal uncertainty over the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 39 removes the lack of clarity around the Secretary of State’s ability to do so.
Clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the 2006 Act. This paragraph allows the Secretary of State to appoint trustees for an NHS trust to hold property on trust. The clause removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint such trustees. In practice, these powers have only ever been used to appoint trustees to NHS charities. Historically, NHS charities were charities regulated under charity law provisions but were also linked to NHS bodies and bound by NHS legislation. This means that they were charitable trusts established under the 2006 Act and had as their trustee an NHS body, such as an NHS trust or foundation trust. The 2006 Act also allowed the Secretary of State to appoint trustees to NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts, and to transfer property.
Since the publication of the Government’s response to the review of regulation and governance of NHS charities in 2014, it has been our policy for all NHS charities to move to independent status. Since then, all NHS charities have moved to independent status, including the 21 larger charities that had trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. Therefore, there are no NHS charities with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State, and all NHS charities are solely regulated by the Charity Commission. In light of the above, and as there is no further need for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to appoint trustees, clause 40 will remove such powers.
Clause 41 introduces schedule 7, which makes minor and consequential amendments relating to clauses 39 and 40 of the Bill. Clause 39 repeals section 179 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and clause 40 repeals paragraph 10 of schedule 4 to the National Health Service Act 2006 and removes the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint trustees. In order to implement the changes as a result of these clauses, schedule 7 makes consequential amendments to various other pieces of legislation, such as the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 and the NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016. This ensures that the changes made by the Bill in relation to clauses 39 and 40 are consistently represented throughout other pieces of legislation. These minor and consequential amendments are necessary to clarify the Secretary of State’s ability to create new NHS trusts and to remove the Secretary of State’s powers to appoint NHS trustees.
Clause 42 makes changes to the licensing regime for NHS trusts. The clause removes the exemption in the licensing regime for NHS trusts, meaning that all NHS trusts will require a licence from NHS England to operate. This reflects the intention that NHS England should manage both NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which already have to have licences, in similar ways. This has been NHS Improvement’s de facto practice for some time, and this amendment brings trusts within the scope of NHS England’s licensing and regulatory powers.
NHS England intends to use this as a means to manage all NHS providers more effectively and coherently, to ensure they are fulfilling their statutory duties and delivering high-quality, financially sustainable healthcare.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister’s admirably comprehensive coverage of the clauses, which I will try to meet in similar terms.
We recognise that the clauses address a number of technical changes to the status of NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in this country. We do not oppose them as we think they are consistent with the broader aims of the Bill: moving us from a world of competition to one of collaboration. I recognise that there is a great deal of transposition in the clauses, so very little will be different in substance, and that is why I will probe the Minister, who may well have pulled his punches with them. Why did he not go further?
In reality, the clauses, which are a significant part of the Bill, tidy up previous Acts but do not change enough of their substance. Nothing in the clauses—as with far too much in the Bill—will make anybody better, shorten waiting times, ensure safer staffing levels, address crumbling facilities, or do anything about the other myriad issues faced by the health service and Ministers. The Bill is in danger of creating the illusion of acting without really acting, like repainting a building and pretending it is a new hospital.
On clause 39, I listened carefully to what the Minister said about there being no plans to unsettle or change the provider landscape, meaning it is necessary to end the assumption that all NHS trusts will become foundation trusts. I agree with that basic principle because the debate has moved on significantly from that. It is less about a competition-based system and more about a system of collaboration. Indeed, as the Minister said, notably, there is a greater focus on the ICS as the unit of understanding in the community rather than the acute hospital.
As a result of that, however—this is not in the Bill —we will have two tiers, or two different sets of trusts, littering the landscape. We will entrench a system of trusts that are simultaneously autonomous and not, competitive and not, responsible for their own bottom lines and not, and free to spend their accumulated capital and not. That is a mess. If we tried to explain to a dispassionate observer why different trusts could do different things, we would not be able to. Were we designing a system from scratch, we would never design it like that. I would argue that the Bill is the closest we will come to designing a system from scratch, so I am surprised that that two-tier system has not been addressed in a more meaningful way. That would send a strong signal that NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts are fully part—not semi-detached parts—of the NHS. They are public bodies and we expect them to act like public bodies.
On clause 40, I do not think I had anything to ask the Minister beyond the points that he made. Clause 41 deals with consequential amendments.
On clause 42, and at the risk of asking a daft question, although I do not think it is, but we will find out, what is the point of licensing trusts? Is this not just creating a bogus sense of distance from the centre, when actually the rest of the Bill is designed to consolidate NHS England as the regulator, the funder and the powerful operator? Why create this licensed distance between NHS England and its providers, other than the fact that it has been custom and practice for the past 10 to 20 years to do so? Is the licence really going to be worth the bother of printing out, or is it not just a legacy of a model of independence and composition that successive Acts have featured, but from which there is now a universal keenness to move on?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his indication of broad support for our proposals. He is right: there is a significant degree of transposition and replication of what was there before, while recognising the new landscape. He asked why we did not go further; when we debated clause 38, he accused me of going too far. I suspect, from his perspective, that the question of balance has yet to be achieved, but I think we have struck the appropriate balance.
In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister said that while this is all useful and neat, it does not address some of the underlying challenges. I would argue that the Government have set out a very clear strategy for that in the NHS Funding Act 2020—I think I stood across from the shadow Minister for that one, which was a rather shorter piece of legislation—and, of course, the recent announcement by the Prime Minister, setting out the record additional funding going into the NHS.
On the specifics, I do not believe that foundation trusts mean a two-tier NHS. There are different models, and we are not proposing to stop the formation of foundation trusts—the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has already enjoyed asking me a polite but pointed question in that regard. However, we are not going to compel it; we are not saying that that is the direction, and therefore we do not see the need for section 179. We are not saying that everyone must move in that direction. However, we will retain the ability for them to do so, should they wish.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North raised the issue of intervention, support and similar matters. There are different definitions of those concepts. For example, on the purpose of a default order, when one of those is issued, chairholders must immediately vacate their office. The order must
“provide for the appointment…of new members of the body and…contain such provisions as seem to the Secretary of State expedient for authorising any person to act in the place of the body pending the appointment.”
An intervention order may provide for the suspension or
“removal from office of all the members”
of the board,
“or those specified in the order, and for their replacement”.
An intervention is essentially quite a strong power. I would suggest that support takes a less prescriptive form and refers—as we would all understand the term—to support, advice or guidance. There is a difference in the level and severity of the interventions required.
On equivalent treatment in respect of foundation trusts and NHS trusts, one intention behind the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement is to bring together the way we support providers, trusts and foundations so that there is a single model of support and one licensing approach. NHS England will—I suspect through guidance—clarify further how that will work in practice.
I take the points made by the shadow Minister. He perhaps sees these provisions as an opportunity to go further and address other issues that he perceives to be challenges for the system. We have deliberately sought to make this a transposition. It is technical, but we think these technical changes are important to ensure that NHS England retains the powers it needs to support, intervene and make sure that the system works. Although I will, as always, continue to reflect on the points he makes, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 40 and 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
NHS trusts: wider effect of decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure you, Mr McCabe, and the Committee that I do not intend to speak for anywhere near as long as I did on the previous group.
Edward Argar
I hear the cries of disappointment from the Opposition.
Clause 43 places a new duty on English NHS trusts, and clause 57 places a new duty on NHS foundation trusts, to have regard to the wider effects of their decisions. The duty, which was described in the NHS long-term plan as the triple aim, is mirrored for NHS England and the proposed integrated care boards. NHS England will be able to produce guidance on the duty that all bodies to which it applies must have regard. That duty is also given effect by clauses 4 and 19 in relation to other bodies, which we debated earlier.
As is indicated by the name, the duty has three limbs. First, NHS trusts and foundation trusts must consider the impact of decisions on the health, including mental health, and wellbeing of the people of England. Secondly, they must consider the impact on the quality of services provided or arranged by relevant NHS organisations, including their own. Thirdly, they must consider the sustainable use of NHS resources, including their own resources.
Decisions about particular individuals are excluded. It would not be practical or appropriate to apply the duty to decisions concerning services to be provided to any particular individual—for example, treatment decisions made by clinicians. The existing duties on those bodies encourage a focus on the interests of their own organisation and those who directly use their services. Although delivery of high-quality services remains critical, the new duty will complement other changes in the Bill to facilitate co-operative working and integration. It will encourage NHS organisations to continue to look at their communities beyond the people they directly provide services to and to consider collaborative, system-wide goals.
Following the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement, NHS England will be responsible for setting and modifying the conditions contained in the licences of NHS providers. Clause 65 adds a new purpose for which NHS England may set or modify licence conditions: namely, that of ensuring that decisions relating to the provision of healthcare services for the NHS are made having regard to all their likely effects in relation to the three limbs of the triple aim.
Given that I have just discussed the triple aim in relation to clauses 43 and 57, I will not repeat the same arguments. As a consequence of this clause, NHS England will be able to set licence conditions aimed at ensuring that NHS trusts and foundation trusts comply with the new triple aim duty. Conditions relating to the triple aim in licences will ensure that the objectives of the new duty are considered alongside providers’ other duties and licence obligations. That in turn will encourage trusts and foundation trusts to consider the wider effects of their decisions and work on collaborative goals to the benefit of the whole system.
These clauses are essential in encouraging the components of our healthcare system to work together co-operatively and considerately, with an awareness of the wider effects of their decisions. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I, similarly, will not go on at great length. The clauses are consistent with the stated aim to move from competition to a culture of collaboration. It is therefore right that under clause 43, NHS trusts will have regard to the impacts of the decisions that they make on their neighbours, with particular reference to promoting the triple aim.
I want to press the point about what is meant by “relevant bodies” in proposed new subsection (4). The Bill states that it means NHS England, the integrated care board, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. All of those, of course, make abundant sense. However, we are missing an opportunity to extend it more broadly to the health and social care family, within which the Bill is meant to promote integration. The obvious exclusion is local authorities.
In previous proceedings, the Minister chided me for jumping about in respect of whether he was going too far or not far enough. I am going to take the cheese on that. There is no inconsistency between saying that in one provision—for example, the powers of the Secretary of State—the Government are going too far, and in another—for example, the status of NHS trusts—they are not going far enough. Provided that those two things are not interdependent, of course the Government might be going too far on one thing and not far enough on another. I reserve the right to say that as I see it.
I might just go back to the Minister at this point on jumping around, because the Bill started as an integration Bill. It was going to be the great integration of health and social care, and what a moment this was going to be in British healthcare history—probably second only to 1948. Obviously, that fell apart straight away because there is not much about social care in the Bill—only two clauses out of 135. Then the Prime Minister said, “Don’t worry, we are going to come back with an integration White Paper in due course.” Presumably legislation would follow that. At that point, the Minister said that this was a paving Bill.
Alex Norris
Foundation is even lower than paving, so I am not sure that that is a recommending analysis. Then earlier today, the Minister said that of course integration could take many forms. It could be integration of many bodies, and in this case many bodies within the NHS could be integrated. I gently say that, if we are wondering what exactly we are integrating, the title of the legislation is the Health and Care Bill, so I would start with health and care. I think we are missing that opportunity.
The reason for local authorities not being on this list may well be that we cannot bind the NHS to other non-NHS bodies, but that makes my case rather than argues against it. It is therefore not an integration Bill; it is just an NHS Bill. We will come back—that is the point. I keep saying this for a reason. We will have to come back to address that point, because the reason we are considering primary legislation is that systems have outstripped the status of legislation on the statute book. However, if we do not go far enough to catch up with them, we will have to do so in the future. There is an aspiration to do that sort of integration not just within the NHS, but within the broader health and care family. I really think that while it is not too late, we ought to consider what more we could do to put local authorities into this conversation.
As for clause 57, it is welcome that these duties also apply to foundation trusts, but it again highlights the fact that we are going to get to a point where the difference between a foundation trust and other trusts will be a distinction without a difference. We really ought to think about revisiting that, and I hope we will get the chance to do so yet.
Finally, of course it makes sense to amend licences, even if it perhaps does not make sense to have licences. I hope that the Minister can respond in particular to the point about local authorities.
Edward Argar
I have always been clear that the Bill adopts an evolutionary rather than revolutionary approach to driving forward greater integration, not only within the NHS in a locality but between the NHS and local authorities. On multiple levels, this is a Bill about integration and partnership working, and of course one on which the Prime Minister, ambitious as he always is for this country, wishes to build and go further.
The shadow Minister asked some specific questions about local authorities. The reality is that there is a different evolution and genesis in our local government system and the social care that sits with it, compared with the NHS. Up until 1948, effectively we saw that both were local and place-based. The National Health Service Act 1946 and the establishment of the NHS in 1948 set the NHS on a different path, which essentially looked upwards. It was a national system, albeit place-based, and it was national in its accountabilities, whereas local government continues to be based around different accountabilities at a local level.
Although it is important that we do exactly what we are doing, as the Prime Minister continues to, which is to drive forward greater partnership working and integration, we have to recognise those different developmental paths and the challenges they pose. In that context, local authorities do have, as the shadow Minister knows from his time in local government, their own distinct duties and accountabilities. The triple aim should lead NHS bodies to engage with local authorities—for example, in considering the health and wellbeing of the people in England or in their area. It pushes and nudges the NHS to think more widely about how it engages.
Equally, it is important to note that there are other measures in the Bill, such as the ICBs and the partnerships, that bring together those two bodies with their distinct DNA. We want to make it easier for them to work together in partnership and to integrate further, but we do recognise those different accountabilities and approaches —one directly accountable through local councillors to a local community, and the other part of a national system. These measures, we believe, will drive the NHS to go further in having heed to those local factors. That may not fully answer the shadow Minister’s point, but I hope it goes some way to doing so. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs Murray. With your indulgence, I will speak to each of the clauses in turn.
Clause 51 amends section 88 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Section 88 requires that Monitor—or, in future, NHS England—treats an NHS trust that has become an NHS foundation trust as having made an application and met the criteria for a licence. The clause will require NHS England to apply that provision when that queue of NHS trusts waiting to become foundation trusts do so—[Laughter.] I hope the Committee will forgive my gentle reference to what the shadow Minister said last time. On a more serious note, the clause will also require NHS England to apply it when a foundation trust is created as a result of the merger of an existing foundation trust with an NHS trust or another foundation trust, or the separation of one foundation trust into two or more new foundation trusts.
Clause 51 clarifies the situation when new foundation trusts are created, merged or separated and ensures there is no unnecessary bureaucracy as a result. It is an important clarification for NHS England on how to exercise its licensing powers in such situations, should they arise.
We are investing record levels of capital expenditure into the NHS to help it build back better after the pandemic. We intend to set capital expenditure budgets at integrated care board level, and we expect providers to work with ICB partners to agree capital expenditure, in line with the ICB capital plan. To ensure that the interests of the wider system are taken into account at individual provider level, clause 52 provides a new power to allow NHS England to make an order imposing capital expenditure limits for NHS foundation trusts.
That narrow and reserved power will ensure that a limit can be set only for an individually named foundation trust for a specified period, and would automatically cease at the end of that period. The power relates solely to capital expenditure and not to revenue expenditure. NHS England must also consult the foundation trust before making the order. There will be clear transparency, as the order will be published.
In applying to an individual foundation trust in particular circumstances, the power stands in contrast to the capital limits that apply to all NHS trusts. The power is likely to be used where there is a clear risk of an ICB breaching its system capital envelope as a result of non-co-operation by that foundation trust, and when other ways of resolution have been unsuccessful.
NHS England must set out in guidance the circumstances in which it is likely to set a capital limit and how it will calculate it. NHS England intends to work closely with foundation trusts to develop that guidance. I want to make it clear to the Committee that the clauses are not intended in any way as an erosion of the autonomy enjoyed by foundation trusts. Unlike NHS trusts, foundation trusts will continue to have additional financial freedoms, such as the ability to borrow money from commercial lenders. However, the clause is crucial for managing NHS capital expenditure across a system and to ensure that all NHS providers operate within the ICB capital limits. Without that control, other NHS providers may have to reduce their capital spending to ensure that the NHS lives within its allotted capital resources and that resources are spent in a way that best delivers for patients and the taxpayer.
The provisions in clause 53 are largely a consequence of the merger of NHS England and Monitor, in this case reflecting Monitor’s oversight role in relation to foundation trusts. Subsection (1) gives foundation trusts greater flexibility in their forward plans. Paragraph (a) removes requirements currently in the National Health Service Act 2006 concerning the content of the forward plan. Paragraph (b) removes the requirements for the forward plan to be prepared by the foundation trust’s directors and for the directors to have regard to the views of the foundation trust’s governors when preparing the forward plan.
Foundation trusts will no longer be mandated to set out information in the forward planning documentation around non-health service activity and income. The clause also removes the requirement for governors to be mandated to determine whether the foundation trust’s forward plan interferes with the trust’s health service activity.
As the Committee will know by now, and as a consequence of the abolition of Monitor and its merger with NHS England, NHS England will formally become responsible for the support and oversight of foundation trusts, which includes taking on Monitor’s regulatory and intervention powers. That change will enable improved oversight and greater flexibility across the system. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill make the detailed changes, including formally giving NHS England responsibility for giving directions in relation to the content and form of foundation trust accounts. That includes specifying information to be included in the annual reports and accounts of foundation trusts.
The clause is simply part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor into NHS England, ensuring continuity of oversight of foundation trusts’ accounting and forward planning. NHS England will be able to provide fundamental advice and guidance to foundation trusts in the exercise of their functions. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill will formally allow NHS England to monitor the performance of foundation trusts and to take steps to intervene where necessary, which may take the form of advice and support. As we discussed on a previous occasion, however, it may also involve NHS England requesting the trust to take action to remedy emerging issues. At the same time, the clause makes the requirements on annual plans more flexible, to reflect the direction of travel towards system-wide, rather than organisation-specific, planning.
I turn now to clause 54, which inserts proposed new section 47A into the National Health Service Act 2006 and allows an NHS FT to carry out its functions jointly with another person, should the foundation trust consider such arrangements to be appropriate. That would allow a foundation trust to exercise its healthcare delivery functions jointly with another foundation trust as part of a provider collaborative. The clause will make it easier for FTs to work with partners across the health system to develop integrated, seamless services in the best interests of patients.
Clause 55 amends sections 56, 56A and 56B of the 2006 Act, which relate to the merger, acquisition, separation and dissolution of NHS foundation trusts and NHS trusts. It removes the requirement that an application to acquire or merge an NHS FT with another NHS FT or an English NHS trust be supported by the Secretary of State if one of the parties is an NHS trust. NHS England will now consider each application, but the Secretary of State’s role has been strengthened, as he must now approve such applications. However, NHS England will consider the applications and provide advice. That is in keeping with the policy intention that the Secretary of State should have a strengthened accountability role for NHS foundation trusts, in the light of the transfer of Monitor and NHS Trust Development Authority functions to NHS England. NHS England replaces Monitor in the relevant sections of the NHS Act 2006.
Like Monitor, NHS England has a duty to grant the application to merge, acquire or separate if it is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken to prepare for an acquisition or the dissolution and establishment of new trusts. Additionally, the clause adds a further requirement to each of the sections, which provides that NHS England must refuse an application if the Secretary of State does not approve it. That strengthens the role of the Secretary of State in the process, and it will be for NHS England to take note of the Secretary of State’s comments in taking forward its plans. The clause provides for enhanced oversight and places strategic decision making in the health system in the hands of NHS England, while also conferring a commensurate and important role on Ministers, in line with the direction of accountability set out in the Bill.
Clause 56 relates to the transitioning of the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England. That will allow NHS England to grant an application by an NHS foundation trust for dissolution. The clause confers the powers that rested with Monitor to transfer or provide for the transfer of property of an NHS foundation trust on its dissolution. Previously, on the dissolution of an NHS FT, Monitor had the power to transfer the property of the NHS FT to the Secretary of State. The clause amends that power so that, when making an order to dissolve an NHS foundation trust, NHS England now has the power to make an order to transfer, or provide for the transfer of, property and liabilities to another NHS FT, an NHS trust or the Secretary of State. The clause also includes a new duty for NHS England to include the transfer of any employees of a dissolved NHS FT in the transfer order.
Taken together, these clauses ensure that foundation trusts are able to play a central role in a more integrated and collaborative healthcare system. As part of that, the clauses also provide NHS England with the powers it will need to help support NHS FTs. I therefore commend clauses 51 to 56 to the Committee and propose that they stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mrs Murray. I am glad you enjoyed Tuesday so much that you came back for another round. We will do our best to inform and entertain as we go along.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Department’s position on the clauses. We really need to have another go, don’t we, at trying to understand the landscape for foundation trusts? I have already referred the Committee to the description of foundation trusts when they were first established, as vigorous, autonomous, business-like new organisations that would shake up the NHS and bring choice and competition into healthcare. As we know, there was no evidence that that model did any better than the previous standard trusts, once the high performers had been accounted for.
The Minister’s contention that the clauses do nothing to impinge on a foundation trust’s autonomy is quite the claim. The big change in the clauses is the stripping away of financial autonomy, as set out in clause 52, directly contradicting the many occasions when we have been told that the Bill is all about permissiveness, local decision making and accountability. In clause 55, we also see the Secretary of State giving himself yet more powers.
Clause 52(2) could, in effect, mean there was an indefinite block on foundation trusts using their own capital resources. Will there be any limitations on what is a broad power? I refer to the evidence from Dr Chaand Nagpaul, who touched on that:
“At the moment, we are seeing foundation trusts thinking about their budgets, community providers thinking about theirs, and general practice as well. There is not even collaboration between the community and the hospital. No foundation trust currently has the ability to say, for example, ‘We will go beyond our budget and invest in the community—it may actually reduce our hospital admissions.’ At the moment there is no structure or processes to enable collaboration even within the NHS.”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 93, Q120.]
Dr Nagpaul sets out very well the lack of clarity that we still have about how finances will work at a local level within an ICB, and clause 52 gives foundation trusts even less autonomy in that respect.
On that point, I noted with interest today yet another Health Service Journal article, which talked about how integrated care partnerships may not be up and running for some time after the ICB has been set up. That raises questions about what their role is going to be in helping to form those capital priorities for an integrated care system.
In other evidence, Richard Murray said:
“The bit that I think is really uncertain is how the big hospital schemes get picked. That is the bit that looks very different. Obviously, there is a manifesto commitment.”—
although we know that, in recent times, the Government have not been so keen to follow those commitments. He continued:
“There used to be a process by which it was determined whether providers could afford to repay—if they could do it through loans, or if there was a need system. That is now going off in a completely different place, and I think that is the bit that is not quite clear. How does that work within this system? Who gets to choose how those projects get picked, so to speak?”—[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 118, Q158.]
I appreciate that the point is slightly off-piste, but as we are talking about capital expenditure it is appropriate to raise it, and I am sure the Minister will take the opportunity in his response to set out that process in more detail. At the same time, can he set out in more detail what the guidance set out in proposed new section 42C would entail? Hopefully we will be able to set out some broad points in respect of that.
While we are on the Minister’s response, will he consider the broader point we made on Tuesday about foundation trusts’ focus on involvement of patients and the public and whether that needs to be strengthened across the board? He needs to think again about the whole question of accountability on ICBs.
To go back to the essential question, are foundation trusts now any different to plain, old-school NHS trusts? Is a foundation trust now a dodo? Is it extinct or on its way out? If an ambitious young chief executive of a trust were to approach the Minister and say they were thinking of putting in an application for foundation trust status, what would the Minister say to them about the benefits of such an application, both to their trust and to the wider healthcare system?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his suggestion of a consolidation Act. I can tell just how much he enjoys the sessions we spend in Committee and how eager he is that, no sooner do we finish, than we are back in another Bill Committee together. In terms of his gentle gibe about reorganisation in another two years, there was roughly a two-year gap between the 1999, then the 2001, then the 2003 and then the 2006 reorganisations of the NHS under the previous Government. I fear this is something that affects Governments of all types.
Justin Madders
Indeed, but the point that we would make is that there was such a mess to clear up after 18 years of Conservative Government that we had to do a lot of reorganisations. If the Minister can state for the record that there will be no reorganisations within a specified timescale, we would all be delighted to hear that.
Edward Argar
We must always retain flexibility so that the legislative framework reflects the evolving nature of healthcare provision in this country and we can we deliver what all our constituents want us to.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the importance of licensing. The licence applies to anyone providing NHS services, including the independent sector. With the system oversight framework, it provides a tool that helps to ensure quality across all types of providers in a consistent way, hence the importance that we still attach to it.
At the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s speech were his points about foundation trusts, a 2004 innovation. The reason we are introducing these changes is that we recognise not only the ability of foundation trusts to be autonomous, but the need for them to collaborate and integrate. The aim is to create a framework that allows for local flexibility but brings together local services, recognising the synergies that need to exist between all healthcare providers in an area. With the ICB holding the ring, we get local flexibility, but we look at it the local system level rather than the individual provider level. I alluded to it jokingly, but as I promised in our last session I can confirm to him that I was correct that there are no current applications from NHS trusts to become foundation trusts. I said that I was relying on my memory, but I can confirm for the record that my memory was accurate.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the new hospitals programme and capital more broadly. While slightly stretching the scope of the debate, I think that is probably relevant because he was talking about capital, so I am happy to accept that—subject to your judgment, of course, Mrs Murray—as being in scope. In terms of investment in new hospitals, the bottom line is that this is capital provided by the Treasury—by central Government —to build new hospitals where they are most needed. He will have seen the criteria and the approach set out for the next eight schemes, which are currently being considered. An expression of interest is the first stage of that process. A number of criteria are set out—for example, are there safety issues? Is there an urgent need? Will this facilitate transformation and improve patient experience? The criteria are set out publicly.
The next stage, which will take place next year, is the whittling down of the applications to a shortlist and further consideration. I believe it is entirely right that, guided by advice from officials and local NHS systems, Ministers make those decisions, because it is central Government money that is being invested directly in the schemes, rather than the normal capital allocations from NHS England to local NHS systems that are decided at local system level. This is additional, over and above the normal capital allocations.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned proposed new section 42C and asked what it is envisaged the guidance will say, what it will cover, and how it will work. Essentially, we envisage it setting out how and when NHS England and NHS Improvement will exercise the powers—for example, where a foundation trust’s plans potentially put at risk the broader ICB plans for capital, unduly divert resources, or skew the capital allocation in a particular direction. We do not envisage their being used with any regularity, and hope that, as now, broadly, there is a collaborative approach. It is more informal now than envisaged under the provisions, but there is a collaborative approach.
In his broader remarks about the balance between autonomy and freedoms, the hon. Gentleman asked what I would tell a keen and ambitious NHS trust chief executive who was considering taking advantage of the spaces in the queue to become a foundation trust the advantages in doing so are. Essentially, I would say that they should consider what best reflects the local needs for their local healthcare system, because foundation trusts will of course retain freedoms around commercial borrowing and other existing freedoms. The powers that we are introducing act as a safeguard should they be used against the wider interest of the system. There are still advantages, but each NHS chief executive in that situation should consider carefully their own local circumstances and what is most effective in providing for their patients and service users.
My two final points go to what the hon. Gentleman said about the fear that the powers are significant and should be used only as the last resort, and his second point about whether there should be a greater willingness to allow NHS providers to decide how they spend their surpluses, rather than a regulator or central Government deciding. I might be paraphrasing, but I think those were his two key concerns. On his first point, the powers act as a safeguard to allow national-level intervention when local negotiation cannot resolve disputes. I have alluded to what we would use the guidance for, which is to add a bit of flesh to the bones. We think that is best set out in guidance rather than on the face of statute, as circumstances change over time and applying a narrow statutory test could hinder the aims of the clause, which would ensure that NHS spending overall is in the best interests of the public.
To the second point about whether it should be down to NHS providers and systems to determine how they spend surpluses or moneys that they have saved each year for a particular purpose, the hon. Gentleman is right that NHS trusts and foundation trusts operate as autonomous organisations that are legally responsible for maintaining their estates and providing healthcare services. That will continue, but only where there is a clear risk of a trust acting against the wider interest of the NHS system locally and an ICB would the controls be considered for application.
Justin Madders
The Minister is setting out the aims, but I am a little unsure what a foundation trust acting against the wider interest of the ICB would look like. Can he give us examples of where that might have happened?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to give a specific example. The reason we chose the flexibility of using guidance is that we cannot envisage every eventuality, so we will set out in guidance the process and approach. I will try to give him an illustrative example rather than a specific one, if he will allow me. If we have an ICB making collective decisions about where capital investment is most needed at a system level, and if we have a foundation trust with resources deciding to prioritise huge investment in one particular area, that might not necessarily reflect the broadly agreed local priorities in the ICB plan and the ICP plan for that area. I envisage such matters being resolved at an ICB level. I have certainly seen in this job and in a past life, as I suspect the hon. Member for Bristol South has, where informal resolution of these things is often the most effective way, so I would not envisage these powers being used often, but it is important that we have the flexibility that they bring. On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Transfer schemes between trusts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 59 stand part.
Government amendments 15 and 16.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As we have discussed, clauses 39 and 40 make it clear that the Secretary of State continues to have the ability to create new NHS trusts. Clause 58 is an integral part of ensuring that the NHS has the correct provider landscape necessary to deliver integrated care and to respond to emerging priorities.
The clause allows NHS England to make a transfer scheme relating to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. Such a transfer scheme can provide for the transfer of property, rights, staff and liabilities from one NHS provider to another to ensure that the right resources can, when necessary, be transferred to support the delivery of services across the NHS.
NHS trusts and NHS FTs will be able to apply jointly to NHS England to make transfer schemes under the clause. NHS England, as the national regulator, may grant the application for the transfer scheme if it is satisfied that all necessary steps to prepare for the scheme have been undertaken. The process can ensure, for example, that all transfer schemes are in the best interests of patients and represent value for money for the taxpayer. Transfer schemes for NHS providers are crucial to ensuring that we have a flexible, adaptable provider landscape to deliver the best care to our patients.
Clause 59 introduces schedule 8 to the Bill, which amends chapter 5A of the National Health Service Act 2006, which relates to trust special administrators. Schedule 8 outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms.
A trust special administrator is appointed to take charge of the trust, at which point the trust board of directors—in the case of NHS foundation trusts, the governors—are suspended. Trust special administrators may be appointed by NHS England to exercise the functions of a chairman and directors of an NHS trust, or the governors, chairman and directors of a foundation trust, where that is necessary to secure sustainable and high-quality services and where other interventions to secure financial or clinical sustainability have been exhausted.
Schedule 8 co-outlines the changes to the process and authorisation for the appointment of trust special administrators, including the reporting mechanisms. The changes are part of transitioning the provider-based functions of Monitor and the NHS TDA into NHS England, and it does not represent a substantial change in policy approach. It also transfers delegated duties placed on the NHS TDA to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator to an NHS trust. It also transfers functions of Monitor to NHS England in relation to the appointment of a trust special administrator for NHS FTs.
The administrators are to be appointed by NHS England to make recommendations about actions to secure sustainable and high-quality services. NHS England must appoint a trust special administrator if required to do so by the Care Quality Commission. Otherwise, it may make the order to appoint only if it considers that to be in the interests of the health service and if the Secretary of State has given their approval.
The process remains broadly the same under schedule 8, giving NHS England the appropriate role in relation to NHS trusts and foundation trusts. However, one change I draw to the attention of the Committee is in relation to NHS trusts: both NHS England and the Secretary of State will receive the administrators’ report, which will state which action, if any, either is to take. The schedule confers a shared duty on NHS England and the Secretary of State to consult one another before taking any decision on action.
The provisions enable NHS England to discharge its responsibility for the support and oversight of NHS trusts and foundation trusts, including taking on Monitor and the NHS TDA’s regulatory and inspection powers in relation to such trusts. They provide transparency to the appointment process and its reporting mechanisms, and clarity to the system in securing and delivering sustainable and high-quality services when the trust providing them has been placed into administration. I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.
Government amendment 15 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when the Care Quality Commission requires NHS England to make a trust special administration order and ensures that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving those boards. Proposed new section 65B(4)(b)(ii) introduced under paragraph 2 of schedule 8 retains the existing requirement for the Care Quality Commission to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question. The commission considered that to be appropriate. However, it does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an integrated care board area without formally providing services to that integrated care board. For example, where an NHS trust ends up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from an NHS trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of the formal process.
Similarly, Government amendment 16 will ensure that integrated care boards are consulted when NHS England decides to make a trust special administration order and that the process properly accounts for all future commissioning arrangements involving ICBs. Proposed new section 65B(5)(b), introduced by paragraph 2 of schedule 8, retains the requirement for NHS England to consult commissioners of services from the NHS trust in question, if
“NHS England considers it appropriate”.
However, that again does not account for situations where, in future, an NHS trust may provide services in an ICB area without formally providing services to that ICB. For example, where an NHS trust may end up spanning two integrated care board areas, those boards may decide to have a lead commissioner of services from a trust. The purpose of the amendment is to put beyond any doubt that any integrated care boards that might be impacted by a trust special administration order being triggered for an NHS trust should be consulted as part of that formal process.
Amendments 15 and 16 ensure that the trust special administration process reflects the role the ICBs will play and the different levels of autonomy and status between different NHS trusts and foundation trusts under the present system, putting the need for calibration and consultation at the heart of the measure. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. There is not a tremendous amount to get excited about in these clauses and amendments, but I want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister.
On clause 58, it makes sense to provide for a time where there needs to be a transfer of property, rights or liabilities from one NHS trust or foundation trust to another. Indeed, I suspect that our conversations about boundaries in earlier parts of the Bill are far from finished. That may have a knock-on impact on providers, so we may see it used in the near future. On the powers reserved for NHS England to create transfer schemes, it is not greatly surprising that it is the ultimate arbiter of applications. That is consistent with the rest of the Bill.
I could not tempt the Minister to cover one point in the final grouping on Tuesday evening, and I hope he might expand on it now. Where are the integrated care boards in this? Surely they would have a significant view about changes to the providers, and possibly the splitting up of providers—the Minister mentioned cross-border trusts, and how that might be led with lead providers. It is not inconceivable that the integrated care boards might have significant views, so should there not at least be a sense that their views have been sought? If not, there ought to be support, which would probably be desirable. In the previous grouping, we covered the fact that that was also true for trusts entering special measures and for trusts becoming foundation trusts. Again, there was no sense of what the ICB’s role was. I do not think that the Minister mentioned that in his summing up. I hope that he might do so on this occasion.
I heard what the Minister said about Government amendments 15 and 16, which I have a lot more sympathy for. I raised this issue on Tuesday night. Where the Care Quality Commission and NHS England are involved in a trust failure situation, they should of course want the ICB to be a part of that process. I believe that the point the Minister made was that amendments 15 and 16 will amend the clause sufficiently to ensure that integrated care boards have their say in situations of failure. I hope he will clarify that ICBs in any such situation will get due consultation about what comes next.
I accept the Minister’s point that clause 59 does not represent a material change in direction or policy from where we are today, but instead tidies up who is responsible and deals with new arrangements for NHS England, as set out earlier in the Bill. Again, there is not much of a reference to the ICBs. Hopefully we get clarity that the point of the amendments is to put that back in. If so, obviously we would support that, but I would wonder why that has not happened in other places—both in this group and previous ones too.
The Minister will love how granular this inquiry is. I ask it for no other reason than out of a genuine desire to know the answer; I am not trying to catch anybody out. Schedule 8 replaces section 65KD of the National Health Service Act 2006. Proposed new section 65KD mentions ICBs—I think it was about the only reference to them in the schedule, before the Government tabled amendments 15 and 16—and provides for what happens should an ICB fail to discharge its functions. In that case, under proposed new subsection (5)(b),
“the Secretary of State may exercise the functions of NHS England under section 14Z59(2), (3)(a) and (5)(a)”,
which are introduced by the Bill.
Proposed new section 14Z59 is titled:
“Power to give directions to integrated care boards”.
At that point, the Secretary of State has taken over NHS England’s role and now acts as NHS England himself or herself. Can the Minister explain why that would be necessary? If we are saying that an ICB is part of a failure of circumstances, not discharging its functions properly, would not the first port of call traditionally be the centre—NHS England—to step in and provide support, or is there a judgment that the national leadership has failed too if the local leadership has failed, and therefore the Secretary of State must be the next link in the chain?
I am conscious that that is a granular query, but I think the provision departs from principles earlier in the Bill. It may well be that this is a very specific and niche example, in which case there is less to worry about, but I would like an explanation on that, and on where ICBs are in the grand processes around clause 58. When changes happen, what consultation does there have to be with them, and what support will they have?
Edward Argar
On the shadow Minister’s central question about where ICBs fit in, he is right that we envisage their being, as we have discussed throughout, central to decision making in their locality. He is right to highlight that, as drafted, there was the potential for them to be regarded as not front and centre, hence Government amendments 15 and 16, which we hope add clarity and add that ICBs will be consulted, for example, when a special administrator is being appointed. We wanted to include them as part of that process. I fully acknowledge that, as drafted, there was a degree of ambiguity. That is why the Government introduced the amendments. I do not like having to amend my own legislation, but I think it important that we do so here.
Alex Norris
The Minister should not be shy about that at all. It is good sign, and shows that, after publication, he is still reflecting on the Bill and improving it as we go along. That is a strength rather than a weakness. However, these are amendments to schedule 8. I am surprised that there are no counterpart amendments for clause 58 or to the group that we discussed previously, which included clauses 39 to 42 and clauses 44 to 50. Why was the judgment made not to amend those in a similar way?
Edward Argar
We took the view that in this case there are very obvious consequences. In normal circumstances, we envisage collaborative work with, and the involvement of, the ICB. I was very keen that we were explicit here. It could be argued, as I would have done, that the clauses did not prohibit such co-operation, but I wanted to be very specific, because the appointment of a special administrator and the actions likely to be taken in that context could have profound impacts on the system. I wanted to be absolutely explicit about the need to involve ICBs.
The hon. Gentleman asked a detailed and granular question about paragraph 15(4) of schedule 8, and the powers in proposed new subsection (5)(b). The key point is that we would envisage it going up through the chain of accountability—chain of command is wrong word—but it is important that we recognise, as we do with the Bill, that the Secretary of State has a role in that chain of accountability to the House, to the public and to others. That theme has run through a lot of the discussions of the legislation, so we therefore think it appropriate to include the Secretary of State in that subsection.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 61 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
As the Committee knows, one intention of the Bill is to create more flexibility, alongside the promotion of greater local integration. The clauses help to allow local bodies to work together in different ways to deliver effective health services.
Clause 60 enables NHS organisations, and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations, to commission and arrange services collaboratively, not only with other NHS organisations but with local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies that could be specified in regulations. Existing NHS legislative mechanisms make it difficult for the health and care system to work collaboratively and flexibly across different organisations, forcing local systems to adopt complex workarounds to be able to take joint decisions and pool budgets. In that context, back in the day, when I served in a local authority, we used section 75 of the 2006 Act as one mechanism for doing that with the local primary care trust.
In practice, however, those arrangements can sometimes be cumbersome and difficult to manage, and can delay making vital decisions. The new provisions inserted by the clause into the NHS Act 2006 will enable NHS organisations and any other bodies that may be prescribed in regulations to delegate functions to, or jointly exercise functions with, other NHS organisations, local authorities, combined authorities and other bodies as specified in regulations. Where functions are exercised jointly, the provisions will also enable those organisations to pool funds and form joint committees, facilitating partnership working and joint decision making at place and system level.
To ensure that delegation or joint exercise of functions does not lead to reduced accountability for delivering services, we have proposed appropriate safeguards in the clause. The Secretary of State will be able to set out in regulations which functions can and cannot be delegated, impose conditions in relation to delegation or joint exercise of functions, and specify the extent of such arrangements, for example. Furthermore, the parties will be able to agree terms as to the scope of the delegation arrangement. NHS England will have the ability to issue statutory guidance in relation to functions that are being delegated or jointly exercised under the provisions. The relevant body, as defined in the provision, must have regard to such guidance.
The provisions will replace those in existing sections 13Z, 13ZB and 14Z3 of the NHS Act 2006, which provide for the delegation of joint exercise of NHS England’s functions. The clause also amends section 75 of the 2006 Act, which I just alluded to. That section details arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities so that where a combined authority, for example, exercises an NHS function as part of arrangements under the new provisions, it can be treated as an NHS body. That is in line with how combined authorities are treated for other, similar joint working arrangements.
Clause 61 and schedule 9 focus on the delegation of functions. Clause 61 inserts a new section into the NHS Act 2006 that makes express the assumption that a general reference in the Act to a person’s functions includes any functions that they are exercising on behalf of another person. That means, for example, that a reference in the Act to the functions of NHS England should cover any public health functions of the Secretary of State that NHS England may be exercising on their behalf under section 7A arrangements. The practical effect of this would be, for example, that any general duties that apply when NHS England is exercising its functions would also apply when it was exercising delegated functions. Until now, delegated functions have not been dealt with consistently in our health legislation. While it is not feasible, notwithstanding the suggestion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, to remedy this issue across all health legislation in one consolidating Bill, this clause seeks to produce a more consistent approach.
Schedule 9 contains amendments to the NHS Act 2006 and other legislation to reflect the broader approach taken by clause 61 to delegated functions. Clause 61 also enables regulation to be made to create further exceptions where necessary to ensure that delegated functions are not covered by a provision where this would be inappropriate. Clause 61 addresses an important but technical legal issue in the Bill and is essential for enabling consistent and clear interpretation of our legislation.
These clauses are essential for ensuring that NHS organisations can collaborate effectively with each other as well as with other partners in the system. I therefore commend clauses 60 and 61 and schedule 9 to the Committee.
Justin Madders
Members will be relieved to hear that I will not detain the Committee long on this. Clause 60 does what the NHS itself has decided it needs. Over the last six years, we have had various iterations of this integration process, joining things up around joint working, joint bodies and delegation. The provisions try to put all that in one place.
A recurring theme is clarity about the extent of crossovers between local authorities and the NHS. In that respect, proposed new section 65Z5 suggests that local authorities can carry out any function of an NHS body. Could the Minister say more about that? Does it mean that we could see local authorities commissioning—setting up GP surgeries in wellbeing centres? We are assuming that this is one-way and there is no reciprocal arrangement for the NHS to take on local authority functions, so that a foundation trust could not take on an arm’s length management organisation or some other local authority function as a tax-efficient way of avoiding certain liabilities. Could the Minister respond on that?
I also wonder about care trusts, which were the original integrated working teams with the NHS and local authorities. They are rarely mentioned and were largely regarded as unsuccessful. Is there any intention to favour such genuinely integrated bodies? They were used in one recent case by an integrated care provider to get around some of the prohibitions on new trusts. Can the Minister tell us anything about where care trusts now fit into the landscape?
Given the joint nature of the provision, I would like to know why the guidance was published only by NHS England. Should it not have been a joint effort by the NHS and the Local Government Association? Was the LGA consulted and involved in the preparation of the guidance? That perhaps exposes that this is really about the NHS, not about integration across the board. As we have heard today, the ICPs will roll up at some later point, perhaps exposing the reality that this is going to be an NHS-dominated process.
Finally, on the pooling of funds, is there any limit on that? Is that envisaged to be an occasional opportunity, or will it be a more significant step down a road of full funding? Will the Minister set out whether the direction of travel will be quite as dramatic as possibly suggested by the clause?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his support for the clauses and for the, as ever, perfectly sensible questions he poses. I hope to reassure him that the intention behind the clauses is not to create tax-efficient organisations or anything like that; it is to create the most efficient organisations for the delivery of joined-up care. I alluded to section 75 of the 2006 Act, which is an example of what many local authorities are doing already.
On guidance, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, throughout the genesis of the legislation, we worked collaboratively with the Local Government Association, reflecting local authorities more broadly. As we develop guidance, I am clear that the NHS, NHS England and the Government will continue to work with the association to ensure that local government’s view is reflected in the drafting. A number of conversations have already taken place between officials and the LGA. Notwithstanding the debates we may have in this House or how the legislation emerges, I am clear that we will continue to work collaboratively throughout with all the partners involved, even in areas where we may disagree. We will always seek to work with them.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns—he will shake his head if I paraphrase him unfairly—about whether the legislation will allow for unlimited or unfettered delegation without checks and balances. Will we be able to transfer anything from an NHS trust to a local authority, or vice versa? The short answer is no. There will need to be a clear line of accountability between the body ultimately exercising the function and the delegating body. Safeguards ensure that any onward delegation is appropriate. That said, there may be circumstances in which a local authority would commission a particular healthcare service linked to other functions of the local authority delegated from the NHS. We would expect that clear accountability to be in place where that is done. We do not envisage the power being used regularly in that way, but there might be circumstances in which it would be.
Regulations may restrict what, where, when and how—and, indeed, to whom—delegations occur. The delegation agreement may also prevent further onward delegation of functions beyond a certain level. In addition—this goes back to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the LGA—NHS England will, I expect, issue statutory guidance on delegation and joint committees, which would include scenarios, case studies, model delegation agreements and similar to show how, in practice, we envisage this working. The guidance would be statutory, and I envisage it being developed in concert with local authorities, represented by the Local Government Association—that is probably the most effective way of doing that.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance that there is nothing sinister—for want of a better word—intended in the clauses; they are merely meant to make things easier for local NHS bodies and local authorities, in particular, to co-operate more. That goes back to the integration at the heart of—the thread that runs through—all the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Before I speak to clauses 63 and 64, I crave your indulgence, Mrs Murray: I should have said to the shadow Minister that the previous clauses were about delegation from the NHS to local authorities, not the other way around. I would just like to put that on the record for him, because he expressed a concern about that.
Clauses 63 and 64 have been included in the Bill to help support ICBs and ICPs and to enhance integration across the health and care system. Clause 63 allows NHS England to issue guidance about appointing an individual to roles simultaneously in NHS commissioners and NHS providers, or in relevant NHS bodies on the one hand, and local authorities or combined authorities on the other. We have seen a number of clinical commissioning group and local authority joint appointments that have supported integration and been successful, and we would be keen to see those continue.
The clause further sets a requirement for these NHS bodies to have regard to such guidance when considering making a joint appointment. Joint appointments between organisations can support aligned decision making, enhance leadership across organisations and improve the delivery of integrated care. However, we believe that greater clarity is required to support organisations in making appropriate joint appointments, to avoid conflicts of interest that can be difficult to manage. Before issuing any new or significantly revised guidance, NHS England would be required to consult with appropriate persons.
Clause 63 will allow NHS England to publish a clear set of criteria for organisations to consider when making joint appointments and ensure regard is given to such guidance. That will also provide a safeguard against any conflicts of interest that may arise in the process of making joint appointments.
Clause 64 amends sections 72 and 82 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which deal with the co-operation between NHS bodies and the co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities respectively. The clause inserts a new power for the Secretary of State to make guidance related to the existing co-operation duties between NHS bodies and between NHS bodies and local authorities. While the existing co-operation duties in sections 72 and 82 relate to both English and Welsh NHS bodies and local authorities, the guidance relates only to England, and the requirement to have regard to guidance issued under this new power will apply only to English NHS bodies and English local authorities.
Our intention is not to produce a single piece of co-operation guidance, which would risk being too general or too wide-ranging to be effective. Rather, we are considering discrete pieces of guidance in specific areas such as delivery of alcohol and drugs services, sexual and reproductive health, or hospital discharge services, to encourage and facilitate co-operation and integration in their delivery.
The clause also amends section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which concerns the setting of licensing conditions for providers of NHS services. The licence, as we touched on earlier today, was established in 2013 so that providers of NHS services must meet to help ensure that the health sector works for the benefit of patients. Currently, conditions can be set on co-operation, but these provisions can apply only in certain circumstances.
The clause goes further: it supports system integration, promotes greater co-operation by removing the limitation on setting licence conditions on co-operation, and expands the range of bodies with which co-operation can be required. That will strengthen and reinforce the requirements on providers to co-operate and further strengthens the ability for NHS providers to deliver the system plan.
Co-operation is central to the intentions and underpinnings of this Bill. New guidance and expanding the role co-operation plays in the licensing regime will give organisations greater clarity about the practical expectations for co-operation, help the NHS to build on the innovation, working relationships and positive behaviours that have been seen over the past year, and further embed these behaviours across the health and care system. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am sure the Minister will be unsurprised to learn that the Opposition are a little wary of the powers in clause 63. One person doing two jobs is never ideal. I make an honourable exception for the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, who, in his other role, plays an important part in contributing to the wellbeing of the nation. Such exceptions are rare, and we think that two jobs for one person is never a sustainable or long-term solution.
We draw a distinction between a secondment, which obviously means that the position is by definition time limited and allows the post-holder to return to their original position. It is often good for career development, and that kind of mobility and interchange between the NHS and local authorities may be a very positive development, particularly with ICBs. However, the idea that there can be a joint appointment of a commissioner and a provider sounds wholly contradictory. Although the Minister has tried to allay our concerns by referring to guidance, it is clear that an NHS body needs to only “have regard” to that guidance. The question remains: at what point does someone step in when there is a clear and detrimental conflict of interest? We will see what the Minister has to say, but it we may need to keep a very close eye on that.
Clause 64 is a rather less obvious power grab by the Secretary of State, but it is one all the same. Clearly, he is not satisfied with the extent of co-operation between NHS bodies, because the Secretary of State now wants to be able to tell them how to co-operate. The guidance is to be issued, and a duty is to be placed on NHS bodies to follow it, or else face the consequences. What of? It is good old-fashioned persuasion—the willingness to work together for the greater good. It is actually the case that the Secretary of State wants two goes at this, as there are further powers to issue guidance in respect of NHS bodies and local authorities, which currently have to co-operate in order to advance the health and wellbeing of people.
Surely it is the case that they are doing that already. I cannot think of any reason why they would not co-operate, but what would be the sanction if they do not? Can the Minister tell us who he thinks these errant councils are that are not co-operating? Between myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and the Minister himself, we must have over a quarter of a century of experience in local government, and I cannot think of any occasion when councils were anything other than co-operative with the NHS. That is my experience, but if the Minister can help fill in the gaps, I would be most obliged.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister tempts me to name and shame. He may be tempting me in vain. He raised three key points. One was about one person doing two jobs. To paraphrase him, he asked how that would work and why it was appropriate. He also mentioned conflicts of interest and asked why it was necessary and appropriate for the Secretary of State should have these powers.
To his first point, the clause is about driving greater integration. During my time as a member of Westminster City Council many years ago, we had a joint appointment. Our director of public health, if I recall correctly, was also an NHS appointment and she sat in both organisations in the senior management structure. It was extremely effective. Conflicts of interest, as we would envisage here, were managed both within the system and in accordance with guidance and principles of appointments and appropriate governance. That worked extremely well. It was not so much one person doing two jobs, but where the job was needed and the job description fitted both organisations, it delivered a real synergy and better outcomes.
There are circumstances where it can work. I would not have envisaged it being used essentially so that one person has multiple roles and jobs, but there are occasions when there is a benefit from someone sitting jointly in two organisations to help drive that integration and shared understanding. We can create, as we are doing here, mechanisms and structures to help drive integration and co-operation, but as the hon. Member for Nottingham North will know, and as the hon. Member for Bristol South will know from her time in the NHS, we can have those structures, but ensuring that organisations work effectively often relies on individuals, personal relationships and the trust that builds up at that level.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about care trusts, and the clause is partly designed for just that. The real problem with the clause and with joint appointments is that we already know that there are probably not enough senior, experienced people to go around to manage the difficult job of running a large hospital. The issue is ultimately about the focus on those hospitals and, indeed, on patient safety. The job of a chief executive of an NHS trust or foundation trust is an absolutely critical and quite busy one, but we are encouraging those people to take on an ICB leadership role, or joint roles in a local authority. We can either accept that those are large organisations that require particularly skilled people whom we pay properly, or we can simply merge the organisations. I would go for the former option. There are not enough of those people to go around. There is not enough variety of people. We are not encouraging the pipeline of talent, and we are not diversifying enough, and that is reflected in the NHS looking inward at itself. It is a big mistake to accept that we must have those joint appointments to bring the NHS together and make organisations collaborate.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but those joint appointments have always gone on—they have existed for many years. The example I referred to was in about 2008 or 2009, and it worked extremely well, as both organisations benefited from that individual being a part of both. Our clauses seek to ensure that those joint appointments work well and effectively.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why the powers sit with the Secretary of State rather than with the local NHS or NHS England. I am afraid that he will not tempt me into naming any particular local authorities or otherwise. The NHS is a critical part of our health and care system, but integration and co-operation need to go beyond the NHS itself, encompassing the role of local authorities in this space, which we all recognise. I hope that that co-operation will be consensual and voluntary, as the hon. Gentleman said, but it is important that the Secretary of State, with his accountability to this place and to the public, sits above that system. I would argue that he is in the best position to offer guidance on how that system can co-operate, and to help to resolve matters.
Justin Madders
One of the things that we have been told consistently is that integration and joint working are already well under way on the ground, and that the Bill is, in part, just putting a legislative seal on that work. If that is correct, why does the Secretary of State need those additional powers?
Edward Argar
Because we wish to take the opportunity to further drive forward the integration. The system has evolved, but we want to be more ambitious. The powers reflect the fact that the Secretary of State is able to take that wide perspective to most effectively see those two organisations coming together at a macro level—at the national level. That does not mean that I am denigrating in any way the evolution that is already occurring voluntarily in a whole range of areas around the country.
I sense that the hon. Gentleman is still unconvinced by joint appointments, so I will say a little more about them before I conclude, although I might still leave him unconvinced. There are already very few prohibitions on joint appointments, and we see an increasing number of them. In some cases, however, there could be a perception, or a reality, of a potential conflict of interest that could be difficult to manage or could lead to a perception of bias. We recognise that, which is why we have proposed the power to issue guidance to help organisations make the right joint appointments and to help them understand what factors to consider when deciding whether to proceed down the route of a joint appointment. The new powers for NHS England to issue guidance will ensure that there is a clear set of criteria against which to judge joint appointments when considering whether to make one. Bodies will have to have due regard to that guidance. I believe that the powers are proportionate.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. One of the critiques that we have developed —I hope that he has noticed—is that the Secretary of State has given himself an awful lot of powers and abilities to intervene. It seems highly incongruous that in the specific example of joint appointments, where there would be a clear role for the Secretary of State to intervene, he has not availed himself of the opportunity to do so.
Edward Argar
As with so much else in the Bill, we are trying to future-proof it. Indeed, the shadow Minister and others made the point in a different context. Where are the powers? What are the options if there is disagreement, a dispute or a conflict? While not anticipating conflict, we are seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State is able to issue guidance to resolve any conflict or issues that may arise in that context. It is a pragmatic and proportionate measure to ensure that any such risks can be managed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
The NHS payment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
I express my gratitude—I may be less grateful when I sum up—to hon. Members for tabling the amendments, and for the discussion that we are going to have about the NHS payment scheme. The Bill replaces the national tariff with a new NHS payment scheme, with additional flexibilities to allow the NHS to deliver population-based funding and more integrated care approaches. The NHS payment scheme, which will set rules about how commissioners pay providers for services, will apply to all providers of NHS services, including NHS trusts and foundation trusts, the voluntary sector and the independent sector.
Amendment 84 aims to ensure that payment to private providers can be made only at tariff price. While we will not introduce competition on price, rather than quality, there may be scenarios where it is appropriate to pay non-NHS providers different prices from those paid to NHS providers, to take account of differences in the cost of providing those services—for example, different staffing costs or a different range of services provided. There may also be cases where the financial regimes of different providers make it appropriate to set different prices or pricing rules. When setting any prices, NHS England will aim to ensure that the prices payable represent a fair level of pay for the providers of those services, as well as fair pay between providers of similar services.
I reassure the Committee that we do not expect to see the rules being used to give a premium to private providers to encourage them to enter the market. We do not expect to pay the independent sector 11.2% greater than the NHS equivalent cost, as the King’s Fund briefing on independent sector treatment centres set out in 2009. Nor do we expect commissioners to pay for 100% of the contract value regardless of whether the activity reached the contracted level. Instead, the new payment scheme delivers what the NHS has asked for to implement its long-term plan. For that reason, we encourage Opposition Members not to press the amendment to a Division, but I may be pressing them in vain.
The Government will also, I am afraid, oppose amendment 100, which would require the NHS payment scheme to be approved by the Secretary of State. The NHS payment scheme will be published by NHS England, following consultation with relevant providers and commissioners, and, where relevant, the publication of an impact assessment. Integrated care boards and relevant providers will be able to make representations and formally object in response to consultations on the NHS payment scheme, as they can with the national tariff. Where the percentage of objections exceeds the prescribed threshold for either ICBs or relevant providers, or both, NHS England must further consult the representatives of the ICBs and providers that were objecting. NHS England may then publish a revised payment scheme, with another consultation for significant changes. It will also be able to publish the proposed scheme without amendment, but will be required to publish a notice stating that decision and setting out the reasons for it.
The Government are responsible for setting out overall funding for NHS England, who in turn will continue to be required to have regard to fair levels of reimbursement for providers in setting the details of the payment scheme. The Department and NHS England will continue to work closely together in the development of the NHS payment scheme, as we do with the national tariff. However, as a last resort, derived from clause 37 powers of direction, the Secretary of State will be able to require NHS England to share the NHS payment scheme before publication. The Secretary of State will also be able to direct NHS England not to publish a payment scheme without his approval, and about the contents of the payment scheme under his general powers of direction under clause 37.
Although we do not expect to need to use the powers of direction to intervene in this area, they can be used and will act as a further safeguard against unfair payment scheme provisions, as well as allowing for appropriate parliamentary accountability for funding flows in the NHS. The consultation requirements in schedule 10, and the general powers of direction, allow for sufficient Government oversight and accountability for the payment scheme, and further specific provisions would be inflexible and unnecessary. [Interruption.] I will shorten my remarks. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I am happy to go on and on, but I fear the Committee might wish me to conclude. In that context, I will highlight to the Committee that, as with the national tariff, fair levels of reimbursement are a key principle of the legal framework reflected in NHS England’s duty in subsection (6) of proposed new section 114A(6) to have regard to differences in providers’ costs and the different range of services that they provide for the purpose of securing that prices and the overall payment scheme result in a fair level of pay to different types of providers.
I will also highlight and draw to the Committee’s attention provisions in proposed new section 114C as inserted by schedule 10, which makes clear that, before publishing the payment scheme, NHS England must consult integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person that NHS England thinks appropriate. It must also provide an impact assessment of the impact of the proposed scheme.
Karin Smyth
There is a lot of drawing up of complicated documents and costings and then a lot of complicated consultation and decisions on whether the Secretary of State will or will not decide whether he wants to be involved in looking at what the final solution is. Does the Minister have any idea of when we might see the final NHS payment system under the new arrangement?
Edward Argar
I would not prejudge the passage of the legislation and how the House might judge it, but I look forward to such a scheme being introduced expeditiously, if I may put it that way to the hon. Member. I hope I can also reassure the Committee in respect of amendment 107, which was not selected but raised issues pertinent to the clause more broadly. This is important. It is right that the amendment was not selected—I appreciate that it was not tabled by a member of the Committee—but it does highlight issues that we need to put on the record. I appreciate the impulse behind it.
Although NHS staff pay and conditions are outside the scope of the proposed payment scheme and are protected by provisions made elsewhere, unions and other representative bodies may wish to be reassured that their members are able to go to work in appropriately funded services. I hope I have given reassurance on that point and set out why I feel the amendment, although I am grateful that it was not selected, would be unnecessary, as the Bill already requires NHS England to consult with integrated care boards, relevant providers and any other person the NHS thinks appropriate before publishing a payment scheme. It must also publish an impact assessment of the proposed scheme, ensuring that any potential consultation is properly informed of the potential effects of the scheme. I appreciate that the amendment was not selected, but I put those points on the record as I can understand the intent behind the amendment and I wanted to offer those reassurances. I hope I can persuade Opposition Members not to press amendments 84 and 100 to a vote, but I may be unlucky in that respect.
Clause 66 introduces schedule 10, which amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by repealing the national tariff and replacing it with the new NHS payment scheme. The national tariff has for many years improved access to services and driven up quality across the NHS, but as we move towards a more integrated system focused on prevention, joint working and more care delivered in the community, we need to update the NHS pricing systems to reflect new ways of working since the tariff was introduced, and in the light of the covid-19 pandemic.
The new NHS payment scheme will build on the success of the tariff. It will support stronger collaboration than ever before, with shared incentives for commissioners and providers of services to improve quality of care and promote sustainable use of NHS resources. The scheme will move away from a wholly payment-by-activity approach to an approach that supports more joined-up ways of delivering services, with commissioners and providers working together to deliver the best quality care.
The new payment scheme will remove perverse incentives for patients to be treated in acute settings and allow more patients than ever before to be treated closer to home and in the community. It will allow NHS England to guide the health system, through the development of guide prices for entire care pathways, while ensuring that local systems have the necessary flexibility to deliver high-quality care and use NHS resources sustainably.
The payment scheme will specify rules that commissioners must follow when determining prices paid to providers of NHS-funded healthcare services. It will allow significant flexibility over the current pricing scheme, and allow rules to set prices, formulas and factors that must be considered when determining prices paid. It also allows for in-year modifications to the rules, to reflect changes in the costs of providing services.
Crucially, the scheme will also allow the NHS to set prices for public health services commissioned by the NHS, on behalf of the Secretary of State, such as maternity screening, to allow for seamless funding streams for episodes of care. These changes to increase the flexibility and reduce transactional bureaucracy associated with the current tariff are, we believe, crucial to integrating care and tackling the elective backlog. I therefore commend this clause and schedule to the committee.
Alex Norris
Clause 66 is exceptionally important, so I cannot promise the same brevity as the Minister. I think the rules work slightly differently on the hard stop on a Thursday than they do on a Tuesday.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that clarification. If I am interrupted by colleagues in order to meet the conventional times, I will not take that as a kindness.
The clause governs how billions and billions of pounds will be spent every year, so it is surprising that it is so thin: three lines under clause 66 and a rather broad schedule 10. People could read into it whatever they want. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South made a good point that we could be in the business of filling that out for a very long period.
I am also surprised that the Minister is so reticent about the Secretary of State’s involvement and that this power is solely reserved for NHS England. We are not suggesting that the Secretary of State would want to set payment levels for specific treatments; but the Secretary of State, either today or in the future, may want some sort of say over what is being incentivised in the system and how that extraordinary purchasing power works in practice, whether that is about innovation, prevention or incentivising buying British, for example. That is something in which I would expect there to be some political interest.
The Minister talked about using clause 37, but that is a rather blunt tool. What we offer in amendment 100 is much lighter and much less drastic than using the clause 37 powers. If the Government will not accept our amendment, I am surprised that they have not introduced a similar one of their own. Perhaps they may yet do so.
The history of the tariff and payments bears an airing here, because it informs our future. It is an itinerant journey, which all Governments of the day, of different political persuasions, have their fingerprints on. This is not a partisan issue; it is about getting this right for the future. The purchaser-provider split in the ’90s and the development of various market and quasi-market systems was patchy and sporadic. That is a topic that has launched a thousand dissertations. Sometimes it feels like we aimed for payment by results, which is a noble cause, but in reality we can very easily get to payment by volume, and that is our challenge.
Going back even further than that, it was even less satisfactory. Traditionally, we had funding mechanisms that were very hard to understand and worked by adding a bit to the previous year’s allocations, and then really sophisticated people might make some downward adjustments for efficiencies and upward adjustments for assumed increases in activities. Inevitably, bits of the health service would get into trouble and would need bailing out, and new ideas would be dolloped out without much of a process. We have, to a certain extent, returned to that during covid. Block funding has given trusts one less thing to worry about. That was probably wise, but we would not want to do it forever.
The idea of the tariff was a variant of the 2012 Act. It could, I guess, incentivise competition on quality, but not really on price, as in a real market, as the Minister said. Prior to that, in the first decade of the century, the introduction of payment by results was one of the factors that allowed the longest successful period in the history of the NHS, which saw waiting lists come tumbling down—so much so that the demand for queue-busting private options evaporated and private providers became suppliers to the health service, rather than suppliers of private healthcare.
Payment by results, or pricing, can be a tool to tackle waiting lists. Given that Conservative Governments leave office with spiralling waiting lists, that is worth remembering for the future. Although that may be a discussion for another day, I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks NHS pricing is likely to be part of the recovery strategy. It is all well and good saying that this may take years and years to come to fruition, but what about now?
The historic decision back in the first decade of this century was that private providers should be paid the same as the cost of the NHS, so that there is no financial incentive to use the private sector. I think that is a wise principle, but it can and has been worked around. We have seen some very dodgy, spurious outsourcing of services, such as cleaning, which was an absolute disaster in Nottingham.
There are and have always been large swathes of the health services where payment by results or volume did not apply. One was mental health, where defining the product was far from easy, so it was very difficult to price. For many years, the mental health sector wanted to be part of this, but that never happened. That is much less of a priority for the sector now; it is just desperate for proper funding. It continues to struggle.
Of course, in such a system we will always have gaming and bureaucracy. Any system such as this gets gamed. Upcoding is one example, where the work that is billed for gets put into the highest-paying category. We have invoicing, chasing errors, and disputes over such coding, the actual volumes of work done and all the rest. That was hugely prevalent when payment by results first arrived for primary care trusts, and I think it is still with us in some form today. The cost of the market systems, data collection and processing is well above the cost of providing entirely necessary management information about cost and volumes.
Of course, that is not to make an argument for no prices at all. For decades, the NHS as a system did not really have any idea what anything cost. The accounts were not particularly well kept, and there were no data collection systems and staff doing analysis. As a result, the variations were huge, and that did not work in the interests of the system. I am arguing not for a no-cost regime, but for one that lands in a sensible place and does not become an industry in itself. At the moment, we have no idea, because what is on the face of the Bill is so broad, and the Minister is promising quite a long walk into the future with not a lot of certainty.
Many discussions about the long term plan, the formation of STPs—then accountable care systems, then integrated care systems, and now ICPs—and the rest have been about co-operation and collaboration, a return to non-market days, and a dilution of the commissioner-provider split, at least so far as NHS bodies are concerned. There will still be a strong current to say that there has to be some sort of tariff and benchmark as a guide, but some will say that there may be some sort of ability to vary as circumstances dictate—a kind of “Trust me, guv” arrangement whereby people of good will and common purpose can decide what is best, and that would be acceptable. To an extent, that flexibility is understandable if we are talking about the internal workings of an integrated, publicly provided NHS.
However, when we are talking about £10 billion more a year of contracts with private acute care providers, that is real money exiting the NHS bank account, so we need to be much more careful. That is where amendment 84 comes in: there has to be some sort of limitation on what private providers are paid. I was not at all convinced by the Minister’s explanation that there might be different costs, because of course there are different costs, the No. 1 cost being the need to derive profit from the contract. That is already a big cost. Of course, that can be met by compromising on quality or through downward pressure on what staff receive, but that is also a bad thing, so I did not think that was a particularly persuasive argument.
When it comes to all this money going out to private providers, there really ought to be some standardisation of the contract. If amendment 84 were accepted, we would have greater assurance that this is something done based on need, not cost or convenience. We would much rather invest in the NHS itself, taking away any perverse incentives to lean on the private sector as a resource pool and any risk of sweetheart deals due to our reliance on the good will of for-profit organisations.
In conclusion, we do not want the Secretary of State to price up a hip operation, but we do think there ought to be some interest in what our purchasing does in this country, to ensure that it is as good as possible. I do not think we should be using the blunt and brutal tools in clause 37, so I hope that the Minister will think again about amendment 100—if not now, then at a later point in proceedings.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Amendment 100, in schedule 10, page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) NHS England must obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State before publishing the NHS payment scheme.”
This amendment ensures that the NHS payment scheme, which sets out the prices to be paid for NHS services, is approved by the Secretary of State.
That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. You missed the start of an exciting debate about the NHS payment system; I am sure you are grateful not to miss the end of it.
The complexities of NHS funding are hardly mentioned in the Bill, and some hon. Members may think thank goodness for that, but I urge them to take a bit more account of clause 66—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has said, it is a short one—because we are talking about over £100 billion of taxpayers’ money, rising to 40% of the Government’s annual spend. It is particularly important that we understand how and where that money is spent and to be assured that it is spent effectively and efficiently.
In large part because of the data collection journey that it has been on for some 20 or 30 years, we know that the NHS is the most efficient system we could have, as has been reviewed in numerous reports during that time. We have ways of looking at variations across the country and across a city such as my own, and that can only be a good thing. There are people—I am not suggesting there are any in this Committee Room—who think the NHS is a continuous money pit, is inefficient and could be operated better in another way, and part of understanding that argument is to understand the data and the way in which the money is spent, particularly the costings.
As I said in my earlier intervention on the Minister, about the process that has now been embarked on of producing a payment system, this clause is really important and really quite concerning. We have no idea when this payment system is going to be available.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Before the hon. Lady asks more questions, I may be able to reassure her by adding to what I said this morning as I have now discussed this further. I said “expeditiously”; I am willing to go further on the Floor of the Committee Room now and say that I would expect the scheme—I may be creating a hostage to fortune—to be published in the course of 2022. I hope that gives her a little reassurance; she will now hold me to that.
Karin Smyth
There is an army of accountants out there suddenly looking at their abacuses and speeding up the work they are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North mentioned coding. The basis on which we know how much things cost—we can then compare things, look at efficiency and so on—is coding. We know there has been some up-coding over the years, but we also know that it took a large effort to train up and try to reward coders, who are often the lowest of admin staff, to recognise how important they are to the system.
Part of that was a drive for competition, payment by results in foundation trusts and so on, but it seems that that is all going to be swept aside by the Bill in the interests of co-operation—that is another word for collaboration, which is something we all support. I do think that running through this Bill is a problem of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the NHS really had no idea what things cost and what value they brought. We had no way of objectively understanding how scarce resources were being allocated. In a publicly funded system, that should worry us all, particularly as we in Parliament are the guardians of the public’s money.
We can argue about how much money will be saved by not having the current system. I am not sure that much money will be saved by abolishing the current system, although the Minister may be able to assure us about this point today. I gently advise the Minister and the Secretary of State to take a great deal of interest in this and consider how the NHS will produce such a system in 16 or 17 months at the maximum, as we have just heard. The data on which the system is predicated—the collection of that data, and the use of it to inform clinical and managerial practice—will continue, but, without the incentives around competition and price and the competing agenda of recovery and the management of large hospitals in particular, it will be quite a tall order.
The Secretary of State and the Minister might want to look at the issue in a bit more detail. The Minister outlined quite a complicated process about how we will get to this scheme and a lot of consultation. Although I am all for democracy, as we embark on our conference season the Minister might want to consider at some point why a scheme should go out to quite so much review and consultation by the providers in the system.
Perhaps I could say something here about how the issue affects our local system. When we start to iron it all out and see the impact assessment on the impact—classic NHS terminology—on our local communities, there will be, for want of a better phrase, a bun fight in all our local communities. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North outlined earlier, when we talk about payment by results it is, of course, acute sector trusts that are the major drivers. Mental health, learning disabilities, community services, and GP services are outwith some of that funding scheme.
Many providers then wanted to come on to the system because they felt that it was more rewarding financially and better for their bottom line. The fact that those services are outwith the scheme remains a problem. I can see why the Government want to change that, but it is not quite as simple as they might want to make out. My hon. Friend has talked much about whether we start competing on price, but now that we know that competition on price is not being permitted, that does throw out a lot of other issues, particularly those around the procurement system.
With regard to amendment 84, the Minister made reference to independent sector treatment centres and incentives for getting the private sector in under previous Governments. We can all banter about the politics of that, but the key task for the Labour Government was to incentivise and change practice in a monolithic system, to drive down waiting lists and times. The question that I leave hanging for the Minister is, given the movement to a new payment system, how will the patient voice, waiting times and waiting lists be managed and incentivised in a central block payment system, which is what I think we are looking at?
Furthermore, with regard to our amendment, the private sector, having no responsibility for education, training and the large crumbling estate, should be able to offer any kind of services at a lower price than the NHS by any logic of efficient running. Ensuring that it is not offered more is the very minimum that we should be demanding. Given that the private sector should have a lower-cost base than the public sector, perhaps it should offer a cheaper price.
Does the Minister have a view on whether paying by results will be anywhere in the new system? Are we to continue following the changes made during covid, by which I mean the block grant system, which allows for baseline costs, a bit of variation for the population, and perhaps some deduction for efficiency and top-ups for various programmes—a bit like the old days when we mysteriously drew down pots of money from the centre for various programmes across the country? What is the balance between that block funding, payment by results and programme funding? Will there be an assessment of the impact of this change, particularly on reducing lengths of stay, as a measure of efficiency in the system, or on reduced waiting times and waits for diagnostics?
It would be good to nail down a few of these key principles in the Bill. The Secretary of State should really approve any scheme and give Parliament a look in; we should understand, as local representatives, what the impact is on our local system and whether we are gaining or losing money, or whether this is just £100 billion-plus going into a central pot and then seeing what happens—that cannot be sustainable.
Private providers should certainly have no say in the rule-setting, as this is a public service; if it is not a market, it is not a market. We are going to be able to debate this only when we know what it is. Given that the Minister has given a big push to the abacuses across the country, with a deadline of somewhere in 2022, for a Bill that we are expecting to put into a new system for April 2022, this situation is not satisfactory for us as representatives. There must be some way—perhaps this will be debated when the Bill leaves this place—for us to understand the broad principles and criteria. We know that there is going to be guidance from NHS England, but if it is going out for consultation, re-consultation and re-consultation, then redrafting and at some point the Secretary of State is going to see it, at some point Parliament should have a say or have a look at that and we, as local representatives, should understand what the impact is on our local communities.
We should also understand what the impact is on the balance between the acute sector, and the community and primary sector—and mental health and learning disability services. Another real concern about the Bill, which I will keep referring back to, is the cartel between the acute trusts and this new integrated care board, and the cutting out now of GP primary care commissioners, and the rolling back on the aims of the primary care trusts to switch the movement of the NHS to be focused not just on the money and where the big money is being spent, but on the service for patients and the public.
The crucial point for the Government will be: how are they going to use the financial mechanisms that exist to recover the backlog and put the NHS back on an equal footing? We have been asked to pay more for the new part of social care as well. As we continue to ask our constituents, the taxpayers, to pay more for what is a good, efficient service that does use its money well—we know that and we want to keep knowing that—how are we going to be able to persuade them of that in the future if we have this amorphous block allocation of money and no incentive to keep focused on efficiency and, in particular, on data collection?
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure, once again, Mr McCabe, to serve under your chairmanship. I fear I may not persuade Opposition Members not to press amendment 100—but you never know, so I will try my luck. The hon. Lady made a number of points and I responded to one when she kindly took an intervention; the only caveat I should add is that that, as she has alluded to, is subject to the passage of this legislation. I would not wish to pre-judge the mood of this House. With that in mind, the aim would be to publish in 2022, in time for the start of the 2023-24 financial year, to allow those systems to do the work they need to do.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, asked, “Why use clause 37?” I think he was referring to the clause rather than me as being a “blunt instrument”—well, I will charitably assume that he was. The reason is simply that the setting up of the payment scheme is an operational issue, and in practice—I will turn in a moment to the strategic, broad points the hon. Lady made—we would not expect to intervene in the day-to-day running of the NHS as a matter of course. However, the hon. Lady is right to say that the payment scheme and the mechanism for payments is a powerful incentive to shape activity and how the NHS operates. I can reassure her, I hope, in one respect: I will certainly take a close interest, within the bounds of appropriateness, as will be set out in the Bill and the guidance underpinning it, in what the payment schemes look like. She is right in terms of the impact. She is also right—again, this could be career limiting; I hope the Whip does not note this down—to highlight some of the levers and mechanisms that the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, used in the early 2000s to make sure the money that he was investing in the NHS was driven through system and producing results.
The Chair
Mr Norris, before we go to the vote I want to give you an opportunity to respond, particularly on the amendments, so we can be clear about what you are up to.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I will give a quick indication, if that is okay, Mr McCabe. I take what the Minister has said about amendment 100, and I hope that he will continue to reflect on it. At many points, the Bill reserves specific powers to the Secretary of State, but if we do not need to do so, because the Government can just use clause 37, why on earth would we ever do that? I actually think this would be a very suitable place to do it, but on that basis, I will not press amendment 100. I would like to push amendment 84 to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
The NHS payment scheme
Amendment proposed: 84, in schedule 10,page 197, line 17, at end insert—
“(1A) The NHS payment scheme must ensure that the price paid to any provider of services which is neither an NHS Trust nor an NHS Foundation Trust cannot be different from the price paid to an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust.”—(Alex Norris.)
This amendment ensures payment to private providers can only be made at tariff price to prevent competition for services based on price.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 67, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
“(1AA) The regulations must make provision—
(a) for anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness to be offered a conversation about their holistic needs, wishes and preferences for the end of their life, including addressing support for their mental and physical health and wellbeing, financial and practical support, and support for their social relationships,
(b) that where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and
(c) that for the purposes of section 12ZB a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
This amendment ensures that the scope of the regulations as to patient choice includes those at the end of life.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Karin Smyth
I will not push my amendment to a vote, but I seek responses from the Minister. I want to highlight the issue that we touched on earlier, and I am grateful for his comments, about how end-of-life and palliative care are the responsibilities of these new bodies.
This particularly relates to coming out of the pandemic, but even before the pandemic we had numerous reports from the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying about how people approaching the end of life do not feel supported to make the decisions they are faced with, are not always given an honest prognosis and do not know what options or choices they have. I think the issue of patient choice is very important in this clause, and I feel very strongly about it. I think this could generally be stronger in the Bill, but I will particularly highlight what is in my own amendment.
Amendment 93 would enable dying people to have conversations about what matters most to them, which is the first step to ensuring that they are at the centre of any decision making about their own care and treatment, and it starts the advance care planning process. I have been fortunate in that I have had three children, and I talked through my birth plans and my choices for the whole experience very carefully. It was presented to me as part of the process of giving birth. It does not always go well, as we know—we had a baby loss event today in Parliament, which many of us could not be part of.
The principle of choice at fundamental points in people’s lives as a patient is one we have embedded in the health service. Co-production of care for most incidents that we face is a fundamental part of clinical practice. Only at the point when people are most vulnerable, at the end of life, is the principle of advance care planning and co-production in their choices and prognosis something we are still not prepared to contemplate in the health service. It really is as basic as that. If I can make those choices about when I am giving birth, we should be able to make those choices when we are on the pathway of the end of our lives.
The evidence on advance care planning in order to support people on where and how they die is well made. This is about promoting earlier access to palliative care, communication, reducing conflict, helping families understand what is ahead and making the person less likely to have to go through rushed accident and emergency and distressing journeys into hospital. There is a need to start supporting advance care planning, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on where the Government now think they are on that.
A key part of this amendment is proposed new paragraph (c), on authorities and new ICBs having
“regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
The full value of advance care planning can be realised only when individual care preferences are reflected in actual treatment decisions. Again, that is about empowering patients, something that I hope Members from across the House support.
Alex Norris
This is an important clause and an important amendment. We have said on many occasions that we want a model that promotes collaboration, rather than competition, but in doing so it is important that we do not create 42 closed shops, where a patient has little agency over their care. That will not feel right for those individuals and it risks weakening a culture of the pursuit of excellence and the best standards of care. Therefore, enshrining choice for citizens actually becomes more important in a collaborative system, so it is right that this is being addressed.
The Minister might not have a reply immediately on this, but he might be able to work with one from his officials about reports overnight in Nottingham, where there is no choice now over someone’s cancer care and such care is being “rationed”—that was the word used—because of workforce shortages. That is exceptionally alarming and will lead to some dreadful outcomes for people in our city. I hope there could be a follow-up letter about what is being done to switch those services back on immediately.
Turning back to the Bill, it is right that NHS England would have the power to investigate cases and direct an ICB as to how to rectify failure. It is good that there is a provision whereby investigations can be averted by an undertaking from an ICB to rectify the failure directly; that feels like the right level to start at. I am keen to understand from the Minister how he expects a person to enter the system and enter into that mechanism. Are they likely to be expected to contact NHS England directly to trigger an investigation or will there be a local process at an ICB level first before escalation? It would seem reasonable that we should exhaust local options before escalating to the regulator. If that is so, what prescription will there be, perhaps in guidance, if not in the Bill, for the form that that takes, so that an ICB that is not engaging positively with an individual cannot act like a blocker to elevating that? Perhaps we could consider bringing in a trusted third party at a local level—for example, Healthwatch would very well placed.
We saw in written evidence concerns that the current plans might not go far enough. The National Community Hearing Association said in its evidence:
“Existing rights to patient choice do not go far enough and typically only apply to primary care and consultant-led services. Giving patients more choice and control over their care for non-consultant-led services, especially for long-term conditions such as adult hearing loss, results in better health outcomes and helps tackle health inequalities. We would ask the Committee to press the case for the regulations to be made under this power to expand a patient’s right to choice. Regulations can do this by enabling patients to choose an NHS community provider for their hearing care where clinically appropriate. Currently only 50% of NHS regions in England offer patients this choice, resulting in inequalities in access to care.”
I wonder whether the Minister has considered that and could perhaps give us his reflection on the matter.
Edward Argar
Before I turn to the substance of my contribution, let me say that I am not aware of the specifics of the issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised, but if he writes to me, I will pass it on to my officials and see whether I can look into it for him.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South for bringing this important discussion on end-of-life care before the Committee today through her amendment. Amendment 93 would add a provision to the regulation-making powers in relation to patient choice, requiring that any regulations made under the power must make provision so that anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness is offered a conversation about their holistic needs and their wishes and preferences for the end of their life. This would include addressing support for their mental and physical health, wellbeing, financial and practical matters and social relationships.
Such regulations would require that, where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and that a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.
It is of course incredibly important that anyone at the end of their life, whether or not they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, has the opportunity to discuss their needs, wishes and preferences for their future care, so that they can be fully taken into account. There is already ongoing work across the health and care system to support this aim, including a commitment within the NHS long-term plan to provide more personalised care at the end of life. There is also a recently updated quality statement within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on advance care planning.
Furthermore, the ministerial oversight group, which was recently established following the CQC’s review of “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” decisions during the covid-19 pandemic, is also developing a set of universal principles for advance care planning to further support health and care professionals in having appropriate and timely discussions with individuals at the end of life. I hope that the reassurance that I was able to offer the hon. Member for Bristol South in our discussion on a previous clause did help.
At this moment, I will pause briefly to join the hon. Member for Nottingham North and others in paying tribute to the work of Marie Curie, which does amazing work day in, day out. Through its work on this, it has helped to raise, in the context of the Bill, the profile of this issue.
I should also say to the hon. Gentleman that I recall his work, when we were relatively new Members in this place, on the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign. I have considerable sympathy with the campaign, and I pay tribute to him for his work back in the days when I was a Back Bencher and able to engage more directly with campaigns. I also pay tribute to the TUC for its work in this area, because it is extremely important. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not stray into other Departments’ policy remits, but the issues that he was bringing to the fore were important ones and that continues to be the case, so it is right that I acknowledge his work.
We know that patient choice is a powerful tool for improving patients’ experience of care, and we intend to ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain. I do not feel that it is appropriate for it to be written into primary legislation. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bristol South said she does not intend to press the amendment, but she makes her point.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He mentioned the ministerial oversight group on advanced care planning. Would he be able to indicate when we will hear from that review—if not now, perhaps in writing?
Edward Argar
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady to communicate that information to her.
We know how important patient choice is, and not just in terms of individual choice, although it is of course vital in that context, but also in helping drive the system to continuously improve. We take the view that it should be determined through regulations. We have chosen that approach to allow the legislation to be flexible and to reflect changing priorities and new policies in relation to patients’ rights to choice.
The shadow Minister raised the process and mechanism for complaints. The individual would in the first instance complain to the ICB, as the commissioner and main body providing and co-ordinating health services in their locality. If they are not satisfied with that, they could then escalate that complaint to NHS England. It is not straight to the top, as we all know through our casework. We recognise and advise our constituents to go through the complaints process, and only at the final stage does it reach Ministers and NHS England or ombudsmen or other national bodies. That would be our approach.
Regulations on patient choice have previously been made under section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. Opposition Members will of course be deeply saddened that that section is being repealed by the Bill, including its procurement elements. In so doing, the Bill also revokes the regulations covering patient choice, so clause 67 ensures that patient’s rights to choice continue to be protected.
The clause adds similar powers, including those relating to guidance and enforcement of the standing rules, into the National Health Service Act 2006, and introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations on patient choice. The power to make guidance and enforcement of patient choice will be held by NHS England, following the planned merger with NHS Improvement, with the complaints process that I set out earlier. The clause will give NHS England powers, which NHS Improvement currently holds, to resolve any breaches of patient choice.
There is currently a wide range of choices that people should expect to be offered in the NHS services they use—for example, choosing a GP and GP practice and choosing where to go for your appointment as an outpatient—and the clause will allow for those and other aspects of patient choice to be preserved. The clause will make sure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services are required to protect, promote and facilitate the important right of patients to make choices about who provides those services.
We know that patient choice is an incredibly powerful tool for improving patients’ experiences of care. The clause will ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain, will strengthen existing choice rights and will continue to make them a requirement of the decision-making bodies that commission healthcare services. Without the clause, patients’ right to choice would be removed along with section 75’s removal. NHS bodies would not be under duties to protect and promote patient choice. Clause 67 reinserts the right and inserts schedule 11.
Schedule 11 provides further details of the powers given to NHS England to resolve any breaches of the patient choice requirements imposed on an ICB. It requires NHS England to publish a procedure outlining how it will resolve failures of an integrated care board to comply with patient choice, and lays out the reporting and appeals process. It also allows NHS England to treat inaccurate, misleading or incorrect information from an ICB as failure to comply, which will, I hope, encourage the full and accurate engagement of an ICB in addressing a failure.
People should expect to be offered a wide range of choices, as I have alluded to, and the clause and schedule will allow for that. NHS England will be able to ensure that ICBs are required to protect, promote and facilitate that important and powerful right. We know how important that is for individuals and for driving the right behaviours in the system and to improving care.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting this issue with such importance. We know that patient choice is vital when a person gets to those end-of-life stages and has a terminal illness. Could I request that consideration is also given to timeliness around choice-making? For some people, particularly those suffering with motor neurone disease, their disease can move quite swiftly, so timeliness in those conversations is important. I would be grateful if consideration could be given to that, and I am heartened by what I hear from the Minister.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about timeliness, both from the system, in initiating those conversations, and as something that all of us need to pay heed to as individuals. Before the pandemic and before she stood down at the 2019 election, I held an event in my constituency with the former right hon. Member for Loughborough, Baroness Morgan of Cotes, about thinking and making choices early and preparing ourselves for getting older—things like preparing a will and powers of attorney. All too often, for very understandable psychological reasons, many of us do not want to think about such things, because they are an intimation of mortality. However, it is important that as individuals and as a system and a society we think and plan early, because it can make such a huge difference to the quality of our older years or the end-of-life period.
Therefore, if I may, Mr McCabe, I commend clause 67 and schedule 11 to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 68
Procurement relations
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 68, page 61, line 32, leave out “health care services” and insert “services required”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 99, in clause 68, page 61, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must provide that no contract for the provision of the services specified in subsection (1)(a) and subsection (1)(b) may be awarded other than to a relevant authority unless a formal competitive tendering process provided for by the regulations has been followed.”
Amendment 96, in clause 68, page 62, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must—
(a) include the power for integrated care boards to continue to commission the services provided by an NHS trust or Foundation Trust without any requirement for any re-tendering process,
(b) require that, prior to commencing any formal procurement process for a service provided by an NHS provider, where the contract value exceeds a threshold set by the relevant integrated care partnership, the integrated care board must conduct a public consultation and publish the business case for opening the service to a competitive tender process,
(c) require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider may be extended or renewed,
(d) be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider of services, and
(e) require providers to pay staff in line with NHS rates of pay and to provide terms and conditions of employment at least equivalent to NHS terms and conditions.
(3B) NHS England must publish a report each year on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations which are awarded to each of NHS, third sector, local authority and independent sector providers.
(3C) NHS England and each integrated care board must publish a plan every three years on reducing the provision of NHS services by private providers and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services.
(3D) Integrated care boards must publish, in full and without any recourse to commercial confidentiality, all—
(a) bids received for contracts,
(b) contracts signed, and
(c) reports of routine contract management.”
New clause 12—NHS as the preferred provider of NHS contracts—
“(1) The NHS is the preferred provider of NHS contracts.
(2) NHS contracts must be provided by NHS suppliers unless the NHS supplier is unable to fulfil the terms of that contract.
(3) Where the NHS is unable to fulfil the terms of a contract, a competitive tender must be held to identify an alternative provider.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘alternative provider’ means private companies and independent sector treatment centres, and
(b) general practice and GP-led community services are NHS suppliers.”
This new clause would establish NHS suppliers of services as the preferred providers of NHS contracts. Independent sector providers could hold NHS contracts after winning a competitive tender.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr McCabe. We have arrived back at the start: the need to end the bureaucratic, expensive and ultimately corrosive requirement for compulsory competitive tendering for health services, which led the drive from NHS England and its former chief executive to first ignore the Lansley Act and ultimately push for its repeal. It turned out that trying to implement the requirements of that Act gave rise to all the problems the Opposition foresaw a decade ago.
Has the Minister seen any impact assessment of the benefits to the NHS of removing the requirements? Is he able to give us a total amount of the cost to the NHS of this folly over the past decade? Is he able to quantify exactly how much public money has been spent on lawyers and consultants going through all the hoops that were laid down by Lansley? I am not just talking about the extra work in putting the contracts out to tender in the first place, never mind the millions that will have been spent on defending and justifying decisions taken from disappointed bidders, which is a big part of it as well. Let us not forget that, as a result of that legislation, we had the obscene spectacle of the NHS being sued by Virgin Care. That certainly was not one of the benefits trailed by the Government of the time back in 2012.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for a fantastically thorough, comprehensive and damming indictment on everything that has come before and for some warnings about what may face us. I rise because I do not want to let the moment go without saying goodbye to section 75. It is what brought me into Parliament, having worked collaboratively in the local system at that time developing clinical commissioning. There was broad agreement before the 2010 election on the direction of travel, which was completely upturned by the coalition Government and the fault lies at the doors of both parties.
The destruction is a warning, though. I am looking around the room, Mr McCabe; I think that nobody on this Bill Committee was a Member of Parliament at that time, apart from your good self. I may be wrong about that, but it might be the case. What I experienced working in that service was the horror that Parliament could produce something that had been so widely warned about and that would be so disastrous. There was not a single ounce of support beyond the political agreement that the coalition formed at that time, which got them into this terrible position, even with the pause, that could not be rowed back. That is something that has helped me as a parliamentarian: what we do here—how we are sometimes invited to vote by the Whips, the scrutiny we give to legislation and the judgment we have to use as individuals—is really important.
Every time we go into the voting Lobby or review legislation, we should all give serious thought to the processes in this place—I understand them now, but did not then—that led to that terrible legislation being passed. We should find better ways to climb off the perch when something has gone as far, and as disastrously, as that legislation did.
There is debate about political interference or accountability—whatever we call it—when it comes to the NHS; as I have said before, the huge amounts of money that parts of the public sector now consume means we should operationalise quite a lot of that. We have heard a lot of that from the Minister over the course of this Bill.
Ultimately, what we have been asked to do is get rid of something we can all agree to get rid of. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, we have little idea of what will replace it, and crucially—the theme we keep coming back to: how are the patient and public voice empowered in the new system and how is the local external scrutiny and accountability in the new system? Again, I refer the Minister to my helpful amendment about a good governance commission.
However, the situation does not bode well because, as the pandemic has shown us, when backs are against the wall contracts can be put forward, friends and family can be added to major bodies, and organisations that play by the rules and go through due process can be completely marginalised. That has tainted the Government and all of us as politicians, and we need to get away from it.
Finally, the disaster of the reforms—the Lansley Act—was not only about the public waste, time and opportunity devoted to them; the warnings about pandemics were there at the same time, in 2010 and 2011 reports. The system was not developed and not focused on to how to prepare for the pandemic that we have now endured. That is the cost of management time and focus that was put into this sort of outsourcing, regulations and procurement, and trying to understand them. It was not focused on patient outcomes as they presented or on futureproofing the system. That is why we were not prepared.
We can all dance on the grave of the Lansley reforms today, with this Bill, which is a good thing. However, I am afraid that there is deep concern about what follows. Those reforms should be a lesson to all of us about the consequences of the very grave decisions that we make in this place.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I have listened with great interest to the points made by the hon. Lady and by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, but I do not recognise my NHS as being a sort of binary choice between public and private sectors.
During the pandemic, we have seen the incredible work across sectors; I am glad that the shadow Minister mentioned the voluntary and community sector, and charities, because that sector has largely been left out of people’s comments. Possibly it was convenient to leave it out because it shows that the breadth of the NHS family is more than the NHS itself; it is very much about everybody working together. For me, that is what integrated care is all about. I welcome the mention of the voluntary and community sector.
When we look at NHS procurement, we also need to focus on prevention as well as on clinical treatments because the wording of new clause 12 seems to focus very much on clinical treatments. We all agree, I think, that the purpose of integrated care is to have a big focus on the prevention piece, and the NHS family must surely include the third sector and private sector providers that are specialists in that area. For me, there is no conflict.
Edward Argar
I welcome the sentiments underpinning some of Opposition Members’ comments about our changes to section 75. I am nothing if not prepared to listen and be pragmatic, and I am glad that they at least welcome that aspect of the Bill.
I will address directly a number of Opposition Members’ points. My right hon. Friend—I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, but it is surely only a matter of time before she is right honourable—was absolutely right about the NHS family being wider than the NHS itself. All these organisations are involved; to be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, he mentioned the voluntary sector and particular organisations that have done amazing work in the past year and a half. In fact, they do that work every year, and day in and day out, working hand in hand with the NHS. I put on the record my appreciation of the independent sector providers for what they have done during this pandemic to support the pandemic response.
The shadow Minister asked a very specific question about what activity had been undertaken, what money had been spent and what assessments had been made, including of value for money. I do not know whether I have written to him already, but a number of colleagues from across the House have written to me and I have set out, in broad terms, the number of patient episodes that have been provided by the independent sector. If he would like me to write to him in a similar vein, I am very happy to do so; my officials have heard that commitment and I will adhere to it. Regarding the broader point that he made about value for money, cost and how money has been spent, those details will be published later in the year in the usual way, when the accounts for the last year have been audited. They will be published; I make that commitment to him.
The shadow Minister raised a number of other specific issues and I will address one head-on before addressing the substance of the amendments. Essentially, he said that the NHS should be deemed the preferred provider by default almost, citing the words of Dr Chaand Nagpaul. Dr Nagpaul and I have our differences of opinion, shall I say, but he is an eminent clinician and performs a very important role, and I put on the record my respect for him and for the principles that he articulates on many occasions.
I believe that the key defining feature should be what delivers the best outcomes for patients, rather than simply having a default presumption. Now, that may well regularly be, as Dr Nagpaul asserted, the NHS. However, I think we should start from the presumption of what delivers the best services and the best outcomes for patients.
The shadow Minister asked—I think he asked this, but if it was the hon. Member for Bristol South I hope she can forgive me—what regime would apply to the Department. My understanding is that that would continue to be the Public Contract Regulations 2015 in the context of the Department itself. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suggested that in the next couple of years we would do the next reorganisation; I can reassure him that I am not necessarily sticking to the new Labour playbook of 1999, 2001, 2003—doing something almost every two years.
The hon. Gentleman’s broader point was about the involvement of private sector providers. He will be aware of this, because he knows his NHS and health history, but one of the key points came in 2004—the first time the then Government opened up clinical services to tendering by the private sector, in that case for out-of-hours services. Again, “any qualified provider” dates back to 2009, under the title “any willing provider”, as it then was. It was exactly the same scheme, and all that happened in 2012 was that the name was changed from “any willing” to “any qualified” provider; the scheme was brought in under the Government led by Prime Minister Brown.
Governments of all complexions have amended and changed the clinical regime to recognise that there is a role, as there always has been, for private and voluntary sector providers and, of course, for the NHS at the heart of it. None of that puts at risk a taxpayer-funded NHS that is free at the point of delivery. For the record, I reassure the hon. Gentleman, as he would expect me to, that in the context of trade deals the NHS is not for sale: it never has been, and it never will be.
Turning to the detail of the amendments, amendment 95 would change the scope of the regulation-making powers in this clause. Currently, these will govern the procurement of healthcare services for the purposes of the health service; this amendment would broaden the provision so that it extends to all services required by the health service.
The NHS procures many services, but has specifically asked us to introduce a new, tailored provider selection regime that would replace section 75 and enable it to arrange healthcare services in a more flexible manner and one that fosters integration and collaboration. The NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules, particularly the PCR 2015 rules, are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged in the context of the services the NHS provides. They create barriers to integrating care, disrupt the development of stable collaborations and can cause protracted processes with wasteful legal and administration costs, while adding little value to patients or the taxpayer.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am afraid the individual costs over the years since 2012 would have been borne at a local systems level, so I suspect that they are not agglomerated together in a national figure. However, I understand his reasons for asking.
When NHS England consulted on the new provider selection regime earlier this year, it suggested specific key criteria to be used in decision making under the regime, tailored towards the effective arrangement and delivery of healthcare services. The proposed criteria include integration and collaboration, and that services should protect patient choice and focus on tackling inequalities. Having a power to introduce procurement measures specifically for healthcare services will enable procurement decisions to focus on such tailored criteria, and to create a regime that works best for the health service.
However, it is right that non-healthcare services—cleaning services, administrative services and others—should, and will, still fall under the PCR 2015 and, in future, the new Cabinet Office procurement regime, which is currently being considered. This will ensure that these services are still arranged in a way that continues to add the best value to the healthcare system.
We know there may be cases in which it is essential that a service is procured as part of a healthcare service contract—I think that was one of the hon. Gentleman’s points. It is for this reason that we have included the ability for regulations made under this power to include provision in relation to mixed procurements, where other goods and services are procured together with healthcare services.
We are working closely with the Cabinet Office and with stakeholders across the health service to ensure that the regulation of mixed procurements of healthcare and other services works effectively for the appropriate arrangement of healthcare services and for the arrangement of wider public services, with respect to their distinct characteristics. Should the hon. Gentleman wish to write to me and ask me to forward his letter to the Cabinet Office to ensure it is cognisant of his views, I am happy to do that.
Amendments 96 and 99 and new clause 12 in effect make statutory NHS providers and general practitioners the preferred provider of NHS-funded services, but our intention is not quite as rigid as what the hon. Gentleman would wish. As I have said, the vast majority of NHS care has and will continue to be provided by public sector organisations, but successive Governments of all political affiliations have allowed the NHS to commission services from the private and voluntary sector, to improve accessibility and experience for patients, to increase capacity swiftly or to introduce innovation.
It is the strong view not just of this Government but of the NHS that local commissioners are the best people to determine what services a local population needs. The best interests of patients, the taxpayer and the population, rather than dogma or ideology, should guide those decisions, and that is what this Bill aims to deliver. I know that the hon. Gentleman is certainly not dogmatic—he may be ideological, but he is certainly not dogmatic—so I hope he appreciates the sentiment behind that statement.
Amendment 99 would mean that a contract for the provision of healthcare services could not be awarded to a body other than a relevant body as defined in the clause unless a full formal competitive tendering process had been followed. This requirement would need to be set out in the regulations made under proposed new section 12ZB.
Amendment 96 would require that regulations include the power for ICBs to commission services provided by an NHS trust or foundation trust without retendering. Regulations would also need to require an ICB to conduct a public consultation and publish a business case where it wished to put out to competitive tender a service currently provided by an NHS provider for contracts over an agreed value. They would also need to require an assessment to be made of alternative ways of providing a service using NHS providers before a contract with a non-NHS provider were extended or renewed. It would require any procurement regulations to be based on the assumption that the NHS is the preferred provider. Regulations would also need to add a requirement on providers to pay and provide terms and conditions of employment to their staff that are at least in line with those of the NHS.
In addition, the amendment would require NHS England to publish a report on the proportion of contracts subject to the regulations made under the new power that are awarded to different types of providers, and would require both NHS England and ICBs to publish a plan for reducing private providers’ provision and increasing the capacity of NHS providers to provide those services. As the shadow Minister set out, it would require ICBs to publish in full bids received for contracts, contracts signed and reports of contract management.
By way of context, the NHS has told us that the current competition and procurement rules are not well suited to the way healthcare is arranged. That is why we are creating a new provider selection regime that provides greater flexibility, reduces bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and reduces the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value. I fear that the amendments would start reimposing a degree of that bureaucracy. The absence of competitive tender processes does not mean an absence of open, transparent and robust decision making. Our proposed new regime is designed to allow transparency, scrutiny and due diligence in decision making, but without all the barriers and limitations associated with running full tender exercises.
NHS England has laid out a series of reasons in its public consultation why competitive tendering may not be suitable in every case. We do recognise the value of competition in particular cases, but this is about introducing an element of greater flexibility, rather than rigidity. NHS England has proposed that, having considered a set of key criteria, the decision-making body may have reasonable grounds for choosing either to continue with the incumbent provider where it is doing a good job and the service is not changing, or alternatively, where the service is changing, of selecting one provider or group of providers or of course holding a competitive tendering process.
Structuring the new provider selection regime around such criteria will ensure that the factors taken into account by commissioners are those relevant to the health service, while still retaining flexibility in the types of provider from which commissioners can commission. Amendment 99 would mean that these regulations go further than the existing rules under the PCR 2015. Those regulations allow for an exception to competitive tendering where competition is absent for technical reasons, but this provision would not allow for that, nor for an exception in relation to a procurement for an extremely urgent case.
Transparency was a keen concern of the hon. Gentleman. Regulations and statutory guidance made under new clause 68 will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny of decisions to award healthcare contracts under the new provider selection regime. The regulation-making powers specifically allow for the imposition of requirements for the purposes of ensuring transparency and fairness in arranging services, which will allow us to design a regime to ensure open, transparent and robust decision-making, including requiring decision-making bodies to keep records of the rationale for their decisions.
We do not consider it necessary to publish all bids received for contracts or the detailed content of all contracts. Doing so would have the potential to prejudice the commercial interests of the parties involved, including NHS commissioners and providers as well as those bidding.
We consider these amendments to be unnecessary. Indeed, we fear that they might actively undermine what the NHS is telling us it needs from the private selection regime to secure high-quality, safe and good-value services. Therefore, I hope that I might tempt the hon. Members not to press their amendment to a vote. I have a feeling, though, that we might face a Division on it in the near future.
Let me move briefly to the clause 68 stand part debate. The clause inserts a new section, 12ZB, into the National Health Service Act 2006.
Edward Argar
In that case, I nudge the Opposition to consider withdrawing their amendment, but I may be unsuccessful.
Justin Madders
I picked up some interesting points. There was, I think, some common ground with the Minister about the mistakes of the past. From the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, I think we have found one positive aspect of section 75, which is that it brought her to this place. At last, there is something positive to say, because we do not mourn its passing. As she said, at the time, not a single ounce of support existed for those rules outside of the coalition Government, but we will not go over all the old ground again.
In his response, the Minister talked about the “any qualified provider” regime that was introduced in 2009. My understanding is that, had we been successful at the 2010 election, we would have moved to “a preferred provider”, but, of course, when we look at the commitments made in 2010, we can forget David Cameron’s promise not to reorganise the NHS. We will see whether the Minister’s promises in respect of that are as robust.
The Minister says that what matters is the best outcome for patients, and we absolutely agree with that. We think that the best outcome for patients will be stability and a regime in which the NHS is the preferred provider, because all the evidence points to better outcomes for patients.
I am grateful to the Minister for not characterising me as dogmatic, because I do not wish to be. I wish to be pragmatic. The idea of putting into the Bill some requirements about what we expect from the regulations is a perfectly reasonable position to take, but until we see those regulations, we cannot be sure about what they will include. By supporting the amendment, what we hope to include is a base position that injects a degree of transparency, which is what has been lacking over the past 18 months, and the Bill clearly fails to refer to any particular issues in that regard. Our view is that the purpose of this Bill should be to reinforce the NHS—to bolster it—by using a preferred provider, which is why we wish to put our amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will be brief because we covered key aspects of clause 68 in debates on the amendments. The clause inserts proposed new section 12ZB into the NHS Act 2006. Section 12ZB allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the regulatory framework for the procurement of healthcare services, to better meet the needs of the NHS.
Section 12ZB provides further information about the content of those regulations. They may contain provision in relation to the objectives of procurement, and they may contain provisions ensuring transparency, fairness and effective management of conflicts of interest, as well as provision for the purpose of verifying compliance with the regime. The new section also allows for NHS England to publish guidance about compliance with the new procurement requirements to which relevant authorities, as defined in the section, must have regard.
The NHS has sent us a clear message that the current regime for arranging healthcare services is not working. It is confusing, overly bureaucratic and does not fully support the integration and efficient arrangement of services and collaboration in the best interest of patients, which, of course, run through the Bill like a golden thread. Through the clause, we will develop a new provider selection regime for the NHS and public health—a bespoke NHS regime that will give the NHS and local government more discretion over how they arrange healthcare services. Informed by the consultation run by NHS England earlier this year, it will aim to enable collaboration and collective decision-making—recognising that competition is not the only way of driving service improvement. It will aim to reduce bureaucracy on commissioners and providers alike, and to remove the need for competitive tendering where it adds limited or no value.
We recognise that in many cases competition can be beneficial for procurement. Where a competitive tender is the best way for an NHS commissioning body to secure value and quality in its healthcare provision, it will be used. However, it will no longer be the default that contracts in the NHS are automatically put out to tender. All decisions about provider selection will continue to be made in an open and transparent way, considering key criteria and applying them to decision making, in the best interests of patients and the taxpayer. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not repeat all my comments from earlier, to save the Committee’s time. I have two remaining specific questions, which I hope the Minister can address. The clause says that regulations “may” be produced. Can he state for the record that there will be regulations? Can he also give us some indication of when they are likely to be made and when they are likely to take effect?
Edward Argar
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that “may” is the technical language used in drafting such legislation, but we intend that they will be made. I am afraid I will disappoint him on the second part of his question, because I would not presume to say exactly when; that will be down to the passage of this legislation and then the usual wait and the discussions through the usual channels on securing an appropriate slot for the regulations. I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman a modicum of reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Procurement and patient choice: consequential amendments etc
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 69, page 62, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) In the National Health Service Act 2006, in section 272(6), after paragraph (za), insert the following paragraph—
‘(zaa) regulations under section 12ZB,’”.
This amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act (inserted by clause 68) to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
I will not detain the Committee long on this amendment. Following on neatly from our previous discussion, it requires that the regulations, which I am now assured will be produced, are subject to a resolution of approval by both Houses. I do enjoy spending time in Delegated Legislation Committees with the Minister, and I hope we will be able to do that again as a result of this amendment’s being accepted.
Edward Argar
I am, as ever, grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would require a draft of procurement regulations under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act to be laid before, and subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament. As set out in our delegated powers memorandum, the powers created by clause 68 amend the NHS Act 2006. In line with the vast majority of regulations made under that Act, these powers will be subject to the negative procedure in section 272(4) of that Act.
As demonstrated by the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there is significant parliamentary interest, both in this House and the other place, in the rules for determining how healthcare services are arranged. However, it is vital that we strike the right balance between democratic scrutiny and operational flexibility. The negative procedure provides that balance, ensuring transparency and scrutiny, while also providing sufficient flexibility to ensure that the regulations continue to drive high-quality services and value for money.
We have consulted extensively on the proposals for these regulations to ensure that we are delivering the flexibility, transparency and integrated approach that the NHS has asked for. The engagement exercise undertaken in early 2019 collected views from across the health sector, and the proposals put forward by NHS England around procurement gained widespread support, with 79% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals.
Earlier this year NHS England consulted on further detail of the proposed regime that should apply when healthcare services are arranged in future, following removal of the current requirements. NHS England received a range of responses from NHS national and representative bodies. In addition to written feedback, it met NHS colleagues and external stakeholders. We have been and continue to be as transparent as possible in our approach to these proposals. Therefore, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman amendment’s is unnecessary.
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will be very brief. The clause will remove the specific healthcare procurement rules that currently apply to NHS commissioners when arranging clinical healthcare services. Specifically, it will repeal sections 75 to 78 and schedule 9 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and revoke the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No.2) Regulations 2013. It also makes other minor, consequential amendments in relation to these changes and the introduction of the power to make a new provider selection regime for procurement of healthcare services under clause 68.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 71 and 72 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 73 stand part.
Edward Argar
I will try to be as brief as I can, while giving the Committee the information it wishes to have.
This package of measures is aimed at promoting collaboration in the NHS, reflecting a shift towards integration between commissioners, providers and other partners as a way of improving the healthcare people receive. Clause 70 allows for the removal of Monitor and the Competition and Markets Authority’s duties to co-operate in the exercise of their functions as concurrent competition regulators. Instead, they are replaced with a duty on NHS England to share regulatory information with, and provide assistance to, the CMA where the CMA requires it to exercise its functions.
Clause 71 removes the Competition and Markets Authority’s role in reviewing mergers solely involving NHS foundation trusts, NHS trusts or a combination of both. The CMA has led a number of investigations into NHS provider mergers or acquisitions in recent years. Although it has approved all but one merger, the investigations have been costly and time-consuming for the organisations involved.
We recognise the CMA’s important role in investigating alleged infringements of competition law and particular markets if it sees issues for consumers with reducing competition. However, as has been alluded to, the NHS is not a true market, and it has become clear that the CMA is not the right body to review NHS mergers. Instead, NHS England will continue to review all NHS provider mergers to ensure they have clear benefits for patients and the taxpayer. The CMA will retain its merger control powers in relation to the private healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, where competition plays a greater role. The NHS should be able to make decisions about provider mergers itself. Without this clause, NHS provider mergers will still be subject to costly, time-consuming investigations.
Building on the experience of the last few years, the Bill will clarify the central role of collaboration in driving performance and quality in the system. As part of that, under clause 72, we are looking to remove Monitor’s role as a concurrent competition regulator. However, although we are removing Monitor’s competition regulation functions, it is right that NHS England should continue to share regulatory information with and provide assistance to the CMA so that the CMA can carry out its functions. The clause will ensure that the CMA has the information and assistance it needs to do that in respect of its competition functions to prevent anti-competitive behaviour in the wider sector. That will ensure that the CMA can continue to make sure that the healthcare sector works for consumers, patients and the taxpayer.
The clause removes Monitor’s competition functions, which it exercises concurrently with the CMA. It also inserts schedule 12, which makes consequential amendments in relation to the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The Health and Social Care Act 2012 allowed Monitor to exercise some of the functions that the CMA holds under the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, but solely in relation to the provision of healthcare services in England. Those included powers to take action on anti-competitive agreements and conduct in the sector and powers in relation to mergers in the sector.
The Bill will enhance collaboration between different NHS commissioners, providers and local authorities. We therefore expect that NHS England’s primary role, following its merger with Monitor, will be to support commissioners and providers to deliver safe, effective and efficient care, rather than to act as an economic or competition regulator.
While competition will continue to play an important role, including through patient choice and the new provider selection regime, it is right that the duties and role of the merged NHS England give greater weight to fostering collaboration and integration rather than enforcing competition, and that competition regulation is left to the CMA. The concurrent competition duties and functions of Monitor should therefore be removed. Schedule 12, inserted by clause 72, makes the necessary consequential amendments to take account of the removal of Monitor’s competition functions. The clause allows NHS England to work collaboratively with organisations to deliver the best possible services to patients.
Finally, clause 73 removes the CMA’s role in reviewing contested licence conditions. The licence conditions have not changed substantially since they were first agreed in 2013. However, NHS England and NHS Improvement’s oversight of the NHS has changed significantly. Their primary role is to support the delivery of safe, efficient and effective care. The merged NHS England, as provided for under this Bill, should be able to set its own licence conditions for providers and regulate providers of NHS services without needing to refer matters to an external competition regulator such as the CMA.
NHS England will remain under duties to consult with local organisations on revised licence conditions. That, alongside the removal of the CMA’s review functions, ensures that any decisions remain in the interests of the NHS as a whole. In addition, NHS England’s accountability arrangements to the Secretary of State and Parliament offer a further safeguard against disproportionate changes to licence conditions. Sufficient safeguards, such as those that I have mentioned, ensure that providers have input into any proposed changes, without the need for oversight from a third party.
We therefore believe that these measures deliver the changes that the NHS has been asking for to help it deliver the long-term plan and recover from the pandemic. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee long, but perhaps we need a minute to pause, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said on Tuesday, this marks the end of an era. Monitor is gone, competition is no more, and procurement is gone—I think—and become bespoke, to be determined in more detail in the regulations. Perhaps even more stark is the fact that ICBs now have providers on the board, having jettisoned the GPs, and that NHS England is now both an actual commissioner and a systems manager for both commissioners and providers. It feels like we are going back to the future.
As the Minister said, these clauses end the role of the Competition and Markets Authority. This is the final nail; it is perhaps the final recognition that the wild promises made about the 2012 Act have failed to achieve what they said they would. The expectations that Lansley set out back then have failed to produce any desirable results. I do not know whether Government Members wish to shed a tear at this point for the end of these measures, but, for Opposition Members, health is not a commodity; it is a right. Health is not a product, and the NHS is not—and never can be—a market.
As we see the end of the ideological attempt to create a market, Opposition Members cheer the bidding into history of this failed experiment, which should never have occurred. Turning to the actual substance of the clauses, as the Minister set out, they do what is necessary to achieve that aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Special Health Authorities: removal of 3 year limit
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clauses 74, 75 and 76 repeal the three-year time limit on special health authorities, restate the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records, and repeal the powers of the Secretary of State to make a property or staff transfer scheme.
Together, along with the provisions in the Bill to merge NHS England and NHS Improvement and the powers we will discuss in part 3 of the Bill in a few weeks’ time, these technical changes will help ensure that we have flexibility in the arm’s length body landscape to support the delivery of a world-class healthcare system.
Clause 74 repeals legislative provisions that currently impose a three-year time limit on any newly established special health authority. When the three-year time limit was initially imposed under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was envisaged that any future special health authority would have time-limited functions and therefore be temporary in nature. This has not proved to be the case.
The NHS Counter Fraud Authority is the only special health authority created since the time limit was introduced. The Government consider it unnecessary for the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, or any other special health authorities that are established in future, to undergo the process of extending their lifespan every three years. As well as repealing the time limit, the clause sets out changes to the statutory instrument used to create the NHS Counter Fraud Authority, to reflect the fact that there is no longer an abolition date.
Clause 75 simply tidies up provisions in the current legislation in respect of requirements to keep accounts. It restates the requirements for special health authorities and NHS trusts to keep proper accounts and records. It also restates a number of requirements in relation to the auditing and publication of accounts. This clause does not create any change in existing arrangements.
Finally, clause 76 abolishes powers taken in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to transfer property, rights and liabilities from bodies abolished or modified by that Act. Those powers are now spent, so we are removing the clause to ensure neatness of the statute book, especially as a number of bodies in the 2012 Act are being abolished by this Bill. However, we have retained the ability to make transfer schemes in respect of previously transferred property and rights.
The Bill allows property, rights and liabilities that have been transferred previously under section 300(1), to subsequently be transferred to a Minister of the Crown, NHS England, an integrated care board, an NHS trust or foundation trust, or a qualifying company. That will ensure clarity that rights, property and liabilities are properly allocated and maintained, and not lost to the NHS.
These technical changes will support the wider intentions of the Bill to have a flexible and responsive national architecture for managing the healthcare system. I therefore propose that these clauses stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will not detain the Committee for long. We are enjoying the Minister’s conversion as regards the folly of the 2012 Act, this being another example of things not turning out as originally envisaged. As he said, these clauses are necessary and we will not oppose them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 75 and 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Abolition of Local Education and Training Boards
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 77 is a relatively short clause, which seeks the abolition of local education and training boards—these committees of Health Education England will, by the provisions of the clause, be abolished. In consequence, as set out in the legislation, we amend the Care Act 2014 to reflect this abolition. This is a substantive provision, but it is of a technical nature, to reflect the evolution of the provider landscape. I propose to make no further comments at this stage, but I suspect the shadow Minister may wish me to respond.
Justin Madders
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. We would more accurately describe this as a reflection of the reality on the ground, and how local education and training boards have not really been the vehicle for change that they might have been. Their original rationale was to
“build a system that is responsive to the needs of employers, the public and the service at local level.”
It seems odd that this is happening, given that the thrust of the rest of the Bill is to increase local autonomy, but I understand that the regional people boards will be taking up the majority of the slack. It raises the question of how exactly the undoubted variation in recruitment and training needs within ICBs and regions will be addressed, and how ICBs will interact. I would like to hear from the Minister about that. There is also a concern from the British Medical Association that this could mean the loss of dedicated local support systems for GP trainees, and there is some need for clarity on how that function will be met.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is right in surmising that once LETBs are abolished, their functions will be discharged by HEE directly in the manner he has set out. On his specific questions, HEE will continue to have responsibility for workforce planning and will engage with regional people boards, integrated care boards and the regional directorates of NHS England to carry out this function. Those responsibilities will be set out in a report that we will publish describing the system for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England, as debated in relation to clause 33—to which we may yet return, either on the Floor of the House or in the other place.
We are not removing local or regional workforce planning from the statute, as the hon. Gentleman suggested; HEE will continue to have responsibility for that workforce planning. The LETBs were sub-committees of HEE and reported to the HEE board in any case, so clause 77 just removes some of the rigidity in respect of how HEE had to operate. As is the theme throughout this legislation, this clause seeks to give a greater degree of flexibility and permissiveness to allow the system to adapt to changing needs. On that basis, I ask that it stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Hospital patients with care and support needs: repeals etc
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 98, page 68, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) A social care needs assessment must be carried out by the relevant local authority before a patient is discharged from hospital or within 2 weeks of the date of discharge.
(2B) Each integrated care board must agree with all relevant local authorities the process to apply for social care needs assessment in hospital or after discharge, including reporting on any failures to complete required assessments within the required time and any remedies or penalties that would apply in such cases.
(2C) Each integrated care board must ensure that—
(a) arrangements made for the discharge of any patient without a relevant social care assessment are made with due regard to the care needs and welfare of the patient, and
(b) the additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments after a patient has been discharged are met in full.
(2D) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs after hospital discharge, including a figure of how many patients are readmitted within 28 days.”
Clause 78 is the final clause of part 1, but it is an important one, and we hope that the amendment improves it. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views. This all relates to discharge to assess, where patients are discharged from hospital into the community setting and have their care needs assessed at home, or wherever they have gone from hospital, rather than waiting to be discharged from hospital and having to stay there longer than they clinically need to before the assessment takes place. Importantly, this is something that has been trialled during the pandemic. There is a lot of vulnerability at that point, and this process will matter to a lot of people. It is right that we give it proper consideration, and I think we ought to tighten it up.
I will confess that I have gone back and forth on the principle of discharge to assess, and I have had this conversation with colleagues in recent months. When the Bill was published, my first instinct on this clause, as former local authority social care lead, was a negative one. I felt—I still have this lingering doubt—that there was a real risk of patients essentially being parked in the community to the detriment of their health, with the obligation and cost put on local authorities. Of course, in many cases, some of that will be borne by continued healthcare funding. However, in the end that will become a local authority responsibility for each individual, and there will be a significant risk of them being readmitted shortly afterwards.
Local authorities are already scandalously underfunded to meet the social care needs of their population. Adding some of the most vulnerable people to that list and to the quantum of need that needs to be met will add greater risk, so I have serious reservations. This is not a conceptual debate, and that makes life easier; we have evidence to work with. Through no one’s planning, we have essentially run a de facto pilot scheme during the pandemic, so we know of what we talk. We have a sense of what is going on on the ground, and clause 78 will put it on a permanent footing.
On matters relating to local government, I always fall back on my former colleagues in local government. Their views on this are very clear, and I have had this conversation with them a lot. It always ends up with me saying, “Are you sure?” However, we should not miss their evidence. They say:
“The repeal of legislation related to delayed discharges is good news. This paves the way for the continuation of discharge arrangements which have worked well during the pandemic. The emerging evidence is that going home straight from hospital is what people want.”
I can certainly understand that. They also want greater clarity on the future of this de facto pilot from next month, in the interregnum between when the Bill becomes law and when the funding runs out next month. That is a very reasonable request, and I hope the Minister can respond. The strength of feeling from local government colleagues—our experts by experience—cannot be ignored, and that is why we are seeking to improve rather than prevent this innovation. It does need improving.
Important concerns were raised in the written evidence from Carers UK, which says:
“Under the CC (Delayed Discharges, etc.) Act 2003 a carer’s assessment can be requested and if so, a decision must be made about what services need to be provided to the carer, whether by social services or a consideration by the NHS, to ensure that the ‘patient is safe to discharge’.”
That will be repealed by clause 78. However, they will still be able to fall back on the Care Act 2014, so the carer will get a carer’s assessment under that if they wish. Presumably, that will now take place post-discharge. That is quite a significant change. A great deal of people will become family carers overnight. They might not be conscious that that will happen, but before anybody has made any assessment of their capability to do so, they will quickly find themselves operating as family carers for very vulnerable people immediately post discharge. By the time they get the carer’s assessment, they may well have been struggling to cope for a significant period of time. That could have some dreadful consequences, which is why amendment 98 states that there must be an assessment within two weeks. Obviously, we would want it much more quickly than that, but two weeks is a bare minimum backstop.
I do not think that this is catastrophising. According to research that Carers UK submitted, 26% of carers had not been consulted about discharge before the discharge of the person they care for, and a third were consulted only at the last minute. I do not think that is setting families up to succeed. If the Minister thinks that that will get better as a result of these innovations, we would welcome that, but I would like to understand why he thinks that might be the case and how the situation will look better. Carers UK recommends putting greater responsibility on the integrated care board to have oversight of how discharge to assess is working for the individuals in their care and across their footprint more generally. That is what we have sought to recommend with amendment 98.
The concerns of Carers UK are echoed by the British Association of Social Workers, and social workers, like family carers, have first-hand experience of the trial. The association worries about there being a move away from the fundamental point that the wellbeing principle is uppermost, and its evidence is concerning:
“A survey of Social Workers conducted in December 2020 involved in hospital discharges highlighted that the vital contribution of social work in the multidisciplinary team was being marginalised by the medicalisation of people’s journeys out of hospital. Most importantly, social workers felt that the voice of the individual was lost”.
It is quite significant to say not only that skilled staff would not be able to play their normal role in the process but that the individual’s voice would not be there.
The worst manifestation of the provisions in the clause would be for it to be in the system’s interest to move people out of hospital, because that would then be the priority. We need to make sure that that is not the case. The British Association of Social Workers would rather that the clause was not in the Bill at all, but we have not gone that far and have sought to improve it by putting a maximum two-week wait time in the Bill. That would be prudent. The amendment would also centre the integrated care board in the management and oversight of the process. If the integrated care board is to act as a system leader and integrator, surely such a system process—this is the ultimate system process—that touches on the borders between institutions ought to be within its purview. Otherwise, where will the oversight come from? Who will hold the different parts of the system to account?
I hope that the Minister addresses the concerns I have expressed, because this is an important and, in the plainest-speaking sense, risky decision. There are ways to mitigate that and we have suggested a good one in the amendment. I am keen to hear the Minister reflect on that.
Karin Smyth
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. We discussed this when the Bill hit the Vote Office, because from a system management point of view I saw this change as a positive move. It was necessary in the system to increase the flow out of hospitals, particularly in the pandemic.
We talk about flows out of hospitals, but we are really talking about individuals—our nearest and dearest. During the summer, my husband and I were both responsible for supporting my mother and my mother-in-law in and out of the system, and my mother-in-law was part of the discharge to assess programme. This is not the place for me to rehearse the traumas of becoming, as my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, a family carer overnight and realising, if I did not know already, how little there is outside hospital. My hon. Friend’s point about families suddenly becoming responsible carers overnight is really important. Thousands and thousands of families are finding themselves in that position. Most people would agree about discharging people out of hospital as soon as possible, particularly given the fear of covid and people not being able to go into hospital to see their loved ones. In my mother’s case, she was discharged very quickly, and we went to get her because there was no ambulance service.
The closure of hospitals to visitors adds to the trauma of an acute episode, and people then have to take on that responsibly. People are assessed for care and told in the same sentence, “You’re assessed for care, but there is no care,” and that care takes several weeks to come into play. Among my own family and my in-laws, we have a clinical person in the team, we are fairly articulate, we are knowledgeable about the system and we perhaps know what we are taking on and have the capacity and capability to manage the situation, but it is deeply worrying that people who have no advocate or no other support—even social workers—are told when they are discharged that they need assessed care but there is none. It will take some time for us to understand what has happened to thousands of people who have found themselves in such a difficult position. I am particularly worried about people who have no advocate.
I suspect that the Minister will not accept the suggestions in the amendment now, but I hope he will take advice so that we can understand better—perhaps through an assessment—what has happened to people who have been discharged in the last few months without having support in place. We need to hear about that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North and the hon. Member for Bristol South. I knew that the hon. Member for Nottingham North and I had a shared background in local government, but I did not realise that it may have covered the same portfolio. I share his view on two points in particular. First, we have had the opportunity, of necessity, during the pandemic to see how the approach might work in practice. My instinctive reaction is that I can see how it works from the perspective of the system and the health service but, with my old council hat on, I would say, “How does it work from our perspective?” What we have seen throughout the pandemic has not been without its challenges, but it has broadly worked.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am always happy to speak to my local councillors, who will not hold back in telling me what they think is working and what is not. However, I do think that this is the right approach when implemented properly. We know that if people stay in hospital longer than is medically necessary, it affects not only the system but individuals’ physical and mental health. It is therefore right that we get people home or to an appropriate interim place where they can be cared for and continue their rehabilitation in the right setting.
The amendment would introduce a new requirement for local authorities to carry out social needs assessments either before a patient has left hospital or within two weeks of discharge. Integrated care boards would have to agree the process with local authorities, including any penalties when local authorities fail to assess people within two weeks. It would also introduce a requirement for an annual report to be produced
“on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs”
post discharge. As I hope I alluded to in my opening remarks, I entirely appreciate the intention of the amendment—all patients must receive the care that they need on being discharged—and understand where the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are coming from, but I am not sure that it is the best way to advance that objective.
Existing discharge guidance states that health and social care systems must determine the most appropriate discharge pathway for each person to ensure that they receive the interim care and support they need, pending full assessment. Legislation already requires the NHS to meet people’s health needs, and local authorities must still assess and meet people’s adult social care needs. We are co-producing new statutory guidance on how the existing statutory duty for health and social care partners to co-operate will apply in relation to discharge. By way of reassurance, where local areas follow the discharge to assess model, unpaid carers are still entitled to a carer’s assessment where they are not able to care or need help. A carer’s assessment should be undertaken before caring responsibilities begin for a new caring duty or if there are increased care needs.
As all colleagues who have been involved in local government or the NHS will know, the devil is in the implementation rather than the detail in this case. We must ensure that the system works. The entitlement is there, and we must ensure that that pulls through into practical realities. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the discharge guidance also states:
“Before discharge a determination must be made about the status and views of any carers who provide care, including that they are willing and able to do so.”
Evidence broadly suggests that when long-term needs assessments are carried out at the point of optimum recovery, that leads to a more accurate evaluation of needs and more appropriate care packages. Many people discharged from hospital require longer than two weeks to recover; we fear that requiring social care needs assessments to be completed within two weeks of discharge would create an extra layer of bureaucracy. In practical terms, it would not necessarily function in people’s best interests.
Our extensive engagement with health and social care partners has highlighted how current bureaucratic discharge requirements, including penalties for local authorities, can damage relationships and create discharge delays, and they do not support collaborative working across sectors. We fear that creating a new penalty for local authorities for failing to carry out assessments would again risk creating a tension within the system, which would go against the spirit of the integrated working that the Bill seeks to support and the good co-operation that I would argue normally and generally occurs. Our existing clause creates freedom for local areas to develop discharge arrangements that best meet their local needs.
I fully appreciate the need for accountability, which is why we are working with NHS England to publish hospital discharge data from 2022 onwards that will include data on the destination and discharge pathways being used to support people after they leave hospital.
For those reasons, I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing his amendment to a Division.
Alex Norris
I am happy to say that I will consider that request; obviously, I have heard what the Minister has said. I was slightly heartened to hear the point about guidance. I suspect that if we do not see something exactly like what I propose in the amendment, we will see something very similar to it being put in the guidance.
However, we do not have that guidance at this point, which leaves us with two alternatives: either we press the amendment to a Division or we do not. If we do not, we will not be opposing the stand part debate, which means that we might create the impression that we have waved through something that we are concerned is too loosely defined. For that reason, we have to press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Edward Argar
I will endeavour to be relatively brisk; I think that we have covered some of the issues pertaining to the clause in our discussion of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment.
The clause repeals legislative barriers to the discharge to assess model, in order to better align legislation with current best practice. During the pandemic, local authorities and the NHS developed innovative ways to support better discharge from hospital to community care. The clause is crucial in enabling local areas to build on those partnerships to adopt the discharge approach that best meets local needs, including the discharge to assess model.
The clause will enable the safe and timely discharge of people to a familiar environment where possible. Individuals receive recovery and re-enablement support, and are assessed at the point of optimum recovery. This will enable a more accurate evaluation of their long-term care and support needs. The provision does not change existing legal obligations on NHS bodies to meet their local population’s health needs, and local authorities are still required to assess and meet people’s needs for adult social care.
In addition to those responsibilities, we are co-producing discharge guidance with health and social care partners, setting out how the existing statutory duty in the NHS Act 2006, which requires health and social care partners to co-operate, will apply to discharge. Our guidance will be clear that no one should fall through the gaps so that people receive the right care in the right place at the right time. Discharge to assess will not change the thresholds of eligibility for continuing healthcare—CHC—or support through the Care Act 2014. The clause includes consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation. Those are needed to remove references to pieces of legislation that we are repealing with clause 78 and to tidy up the statute book.
Alex Norris
I shall not duplicate anything I said in the previous debate. I fully support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said. We accept that hospital is a bad place for a sick person to be once their initial ailment is dealt with. They do not want to be around all sorts of illnesses when they are susceptible.
I want to make a final point on rehabilitation and re-ablement, as the Minister called it. That is at its most valuable as early as possible. Getting a person into their rehab and exercises rather than just being parked in an armchair is a big part of someone’s bouncing back from physical injury, and it helps with mental health as well. It is not desirable for them to wait a long time for an assessment because that will be a part of how they bounce back, rebuild their lives, and re-able and rehabilitate themselves. That strengthens rather than weakens the case for trying to be very tight about how quickly we want that to happen.
Edward Argar
I concur with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. It is absolutely right not only to have the right model in place but that that model moves swiftly and effectively to provide the services required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 19th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2021 - (19 Oct 2021)
The Chair
Before we start, I have a few notices. Welcome to Committee Room 14. Please stand to catch my eye because this is such a long room, although if you are doing anything naughty at the back I will see it. I should say that today is my birthday, but wishing me a happy birthday will get you no advantages. Electronic devices should be put on silent mode. No food or drinks, except water, are permitted during the sitting.
The House encourages Members to wear masks when they are not speaking and to give one another space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Thankfully, in this Committee Room that is easy to do. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 79
Information Standards
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 79, page 69, line 15, leave out “services” and insert “care”.
This amendment has the effect that information standards may be set for public bodies that exercise functions in connection with the provision of any health care in England, and not simply NHS services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 118 to 121.
Clause stand part.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. As a member of the Government, I am well aware that seeking to curry favour with you in the Chair is a futile task, but none the less I wish you a happy birthday.
The amendments ensure that the drafting of the clauses covers all healthcare, whether delivered by public bodies or by the independent sector on behalf of the NHS or not, and that the relevant persons are captured by the requirement to comply with information standards. Those are matters of technical detail, and ensure that the changes made by clause 79 are coherent and consistent.
Amendment 117 makes minor changes so that information standards can apply to public bodies that exercise functions in connection with the provision of healthcare in England. It ensures that information standards can be applied to public bodies, even if the healthcare is not provided as part of the NHS. Similarly, amendment 118 ensures that information standards can apply in the processing of non-NHS and NHS healthcare information.
Amendments 119, 120 and 121 make consequential changes as a result of the previous amendments. Without those changes, there could be uncertainty about whether information standards can be applied to healthcare information generated outside the NHS. Without the amendments, we might not be able to ensure that data relating to NHS services—such as data about services provided in private patient units or by independent sector providers—flows through the system in a standardised way so that it is always meaningful and easy to understand for any recipient or user.
Clause 79 amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It allows the publication of mandatory information standards relating to the processing of information, including its transfer, collection and storage. Health and adult social care providers must currently have regard to information standards, but the clause would require providers to comply with them. The clause allows for the application of mandatory information standards to private providers as well. It requires regulations to be made about procedures for creating information standards. The clause also includes a power to require information from providers for the purpose of monitoring compliance with information standards.
The measures will help ensure that information flows through the system in a standardised way so that it is easily accessible and useful, and they will help to ensure the security of that information when it is processed. Given that publicly funded providers are already required to have regard to information standards, the clause will cause minimal disruption to compliant providers but will enhance the Department’s ability, on behalf of the public, to deal effectively with cases of non-compliance.
By applying information standards to private providers, the clause aims to improve the experience of patients who move between publicly and privately funded services by their own choice, such as individuals who choose elective surgery by a private provider. It does that by enabling the setting of standards that encourage the frictionless movement of information between those providers, with the aim of supporting timely and appropriate patient care decisions.
We consider the clause a crucial enabler for the creation in its broadest sense of a modern heath and care service whose systems are integrated and responsive to the needs of patients and users. I commend it to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings on the Bill with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I would extend birthday greetings to you, but I know that Tom Brady and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are already giving you all the joy that you need at this time of the year.
Alex Norris
I thought that might get more traction with you.
I also take the opportunity on behalf of Opposition Members to pass our sincere condolences to Government Members and to pay tribute to our friend Sir David Amess. He was a wonderful man: funny, kind and caring. I say that now because my final conversation with him was about the Bill, which precluded me from joining him on a trip. He commended me on my diligence but also cautioned me not to work too hard. I will always remember that; it was classic David.
As the Minister said, we have reached the data part of the Bill. It is important for everything we talked about in part 1, because all the new cultures that we seek to foster will fall over if the data does not work and, as he said, flow freely back and forth between organisations. At the end of the day, ensuring that data can port between different organisations is our problem to solve, not that of the patient or the individual. Therefore, if we are to have properly joined-up care, it is vital that those who provide care have a full sense of who they are caring for and what is needed.
I will not cover the Opposition’s really good amendment to the next clause, which would improve it further, until we get to it. In that spirit, we do not intend to divide the Committee on this group of amendments or on the clause more generally, but I have a couple of points to address, which I hope the Minister might come to in his summing up.
On the clause in general, the Opposition support putting the entire health and care system on the same footing for information standards. As we heard in oral evidence, one of the major blockers is the myriad data systems used across the health and care landscape, many of which cannot talk to each other. When I was an adult services portfolio holder in my local council, I saw how hard it was sometimes even for council systems to talk to each other—I do not know whether that was remarkable or inevitable—never mind systems across different organisations and, in this case, the public, private, and community and voluntary sectors. That is a real challenge. I do not think we can remove that completely—systems may look different because of their different purposes—but there must be some attempt to standardise.
The Opposition do not oppose the clause, but proposed new section 6B in subsection 2(c) allows organisations to opt out—we might want organisations to be able to do that in some circumstances—and proposed new section 6C provides that regulations will cover when that is allowable. However, it is hard to know whether the clause will work until we have seen whether the regulations are strong enough and set a high enough bar on opting out. Will the Minister confirm that the measure allowing for opting out will be very much exceptional and that we will not see any nonsense about commercial confidentiality? We want data to flow across sectors, and that confidentiality has traditionally been one of the barriers to that.
Let me turn to Government amendments 117 and 118, which will expand the scope of the organisations covered. That is good. If we are to share data between social care and more traditional healthcare services, that includes a big landscape of non-NHS providers and perhaps even non-local authority providers, and it is right that information standards should be aligned. There must be a common basis on which to build. The Minister said that in general most organisations are probably already in that space and paying the due regard that they need to, but I fear that these things will be easier in concept than in execution. I am keen to learn what assessment the Minister and his officials have made of how ready the disparate providers in this landscape are to meet these new requirements, whether he thinks there will be a transition period, and whether providers will be helped to do this. Otherwise, the implementation of this strong concept in the Bill will not work. I hope the Minister can address that.
Edward Argar
May I put on record my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about our late colleague? I suspect that the Health team and the shadow Health team will also speak of him in oral questions in the Chamber in a little while. The hon. Gentleman’s anecdote was all too typical of Sir David and his approach to these things. I think the last time I spoke to Sir David was at our party conference; I had to do something on the platform, and he seemed mildly bemused by the fact that I was rushing off to have my make-up done before I went before the cameras. He then insisted on posing for a photograph with me. It was typical of him. We all miss him terribly in this place, as of course, most importantly, will his wife.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, in broad terms, for clause 79 and the Government amendments. He is absolutely right about the importance of data flowing freely and safely for the benefit of patients. That is why the clause strengthens the wording of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, so that it says “must…have regard to” and “must…comply with”.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. First, he talked about the option of opting out from regulations. I can offer him reassurance on that; yes, I hope that its use would be exceptional, rather than the rule. Our assessment is that there is already widespread compliance with what we are seeking to do here, but as he rightly says, we have to make sure that we have as robust a framework as possible, because it is up to us to make this work for the patient, rather than their having to work their way around a challenging framework.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was about the burden of execution. He is absolutely right; as we all know in this place, and from our previous careers in local government—we talk about this a lot—something can look immaculately thought-through and put together on paper, but when we hit the reality of practical implementation, there can be significant challenges. It is not our assessment that there will be significant burdens or challenges with implementation; I go back to my point that our understanding is that the vast majority of these requirements are already adhered to. However, I am happy to keep the matter under review, and to make sure that we tweak the implementation if we need to, and are sensitive to the reality on the ground.
Let me put a bit more flesh on the bones on the subject of the waiver—the opt-out, as it were—as we may touch on the subject when we come to the hon. Gentleman’s later amendments and in subsequent clauses. The thinking behind the waiver is that there may be circumstances in which an organisation feels that it genuinely cannot meet a published information standard that applies to it. That is why there is the waiver power. It could apply to use it, but that request would have to be considered very carefully by officials before it was granted.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance, but he knows, I hope, that I seek to be pragmatic in much of what I do, and in the implementation of the provisions, I will seek to apply a degree of common-sense pragmatism.
Amendment 117 agreed to.
Amendments made: 118, in clause 79, page 69, line 21, at end insert—
“(aa) in subsection (3), for ‘services’ substitute ‘care’;”.
This amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State’s power to set information standards extends to information concerning health care other than NHS care.
Amendment 119, in clause 79, page 70, line 2, at end insert—
“(d) in subsection (7)—
(i) at the appropriate place insert—
‘health care’ includes all forms of health care whether relating to physical or mental health and also includes procedures that are similar to forms of medical or surgical care but are not provided in connection with a medical condition;”;
(ii) omit the definition of ‘health services’.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 117 and 118.
Amendment 120, in clause 79, page 70, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 251C (continuity of information: interpretation)—
(a) after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) “Health services” means services which must or may be provided as part of the health service in England; and for that purpose “the health service” has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006 (see section 275(1) of that Act).’;
(b) for subsection (7) substitute—
‘(7) Adult social care’ and ‘public body’ have the same meaning as in section 250; and ‘processes’ and ‘processed’ are to be read in accordance with the meaning of ‘processing’ in that section.” —(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 119.
Clause 79, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Sharing anonymous health and social care information
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 80, page 71, line 15, at end insert—
“(4A) Before the power in subsection (1) may be exercised, and every five years thereafter, the Secretary of State must review, and lay before Parliament a report of that review, the possibility of combining the exercise of that power with the exercise of the powers under which—
(a) the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, and
(b) other data-sharing programmes
are run.”
I am moving this amendment in my name and those of my colleagues. There has been some disappointment that on part 1 of the Bill we have not been able to move the Government particularly far from what was originally presented in the Bill. As has been said a number of times, this Bill ought to drive integration in health and care services, but instead we really have a reorganisation Bill, with a promise from the Prime Minister to return with an integration White Paper in due course—when presumably some configuration of all of us will come back and do all this again. It is hard to think that we have not left some opportunities on the table, so I hope we can do better on parts 2 to 5 of the Bill, and I do not think there is a better place to start on that than amendment 109, which would significantly help the Government with an issue that they have been struggling with for more than a decade.
It is obligatory for Health Ministers and shadow Health Ministers to start by saying that data saves lives, and it does. It tells us what is happening in our communities and our country and how we may need to change services to meet the needs of populations. But if it is done right, it can also tell us what will happen in the future and what future needs we will have to meet. For the purposes of designing health and care services, that is golden information. It gives us the chance to get ahead of the curve, to make good early investments and to avoid dreadful workforce gaps, which we are seeing at the moment and which have been created over the last decade.
We are fortunate that there is no country in the world better set up for high-class use of data than ourselves. We have a single health system in each of the four nations covering our entire populations. Of course, our data is spread over more places than simply NHS databases. If we can get it organised, we ought to have the most rich understanding of our population’s health and of the outlook for the future. What an extraordinary gift that is, but we are not using it effectively enough at the moment and we can do much better.
I remember, early in my stint as shadow Public Health Minister, meeting a group of dentists, one of whom said to me that they can not infrequently recognise the signs of certain eating disorders by the impact that frequent vomiting has on the back of a person’s—in these cases, generally a young person’s—teeth. They found it hard to understand why they had no idea whether anyone else who provided care for that individual, or perhaps even the individual themselves, knew that that had happened, because they had absolutely no broader healthcare information about the person. Of course, there are important circumstances in which we need to create firewalls to protect privacy, and we would want people to have only the information that they needed to do their job properly, but in this case the clinician felt like they were flying blind and unable to provide the very best care for this person as a whole person rather than caring just for the teeth of the person.
As an Opposition, we want to see data used well, wisely and in an integrated manner, and if there has really been only token integration in part 1 of the Bill, why not see the real thing in part 2? As I have said, the history here for the Government is chequered. Only this summer, through the General Practice Data for Planning and Research programme, the Government sought, with a characteristic, I might say, lack of touch, to grab all the data from England’s GPs without explaining to patients why they wanted it, what they would do with it, who would use it and who would not use it. Again, it feels as if it is more than a three-word slogan: not enough time was taken to explain this, and the result was entirely predictable.
According to a survey done by Which?, 55% of people had heard of the scheme and, of those who had, 71% felt that the NHS had not publicised the scheme well. Of those unaware of the scheme, nearly 40% stated that they would now be likely to opt out of it. Fifty per cent. of the respondents who were aware of the plans said that they had heard about them through news or social media rather than official sources. Forty-two per cent. said that hearing about the scheme made them trust the NHS less—that was a particularly startling finding. And nearly one third of those who knew of the scheme and had opted out of it had found the opt-out process overly complicated. What a mess. In the end, we saw 1.4 million people opt out, despite how hard it had been made to do so, and the plans were soon punted into the long grass, to return at a date not specified.
This is a real hammer blow for the confidence in how the state and the country handle data. These were the headlines on 13 and 14 October alone. The Bracknell News had, “Thousands of people in Bracknell Forest have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Somerset County Gazette had, “MORE than 10,000 people in Somerset West and Taunton have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Lancashire Evening Post had, “Thousands in Preston block bid to share medical records”. The Wirral Globe had, “Tens of thousands of people in Wirral have opted out of sharing their medical records”. The Bolton News had, “Nearly 20,000 Bolton patients opt out of sharing their medical records for research.” There were similar headlines in the Shields Gazette, Hemel Hempstead Gazette, the Hartlepool Mail and more. If it were not so serious, it would be funny.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is important that we recognise the different types of data. The clause is talking about anonymised data, from which we are looking at performance standards, outcome standards and the percentage of patients who had a certain treatment. It is not talking specifically about identifiable data. We also have fully identifiable data with patient details, and in between those we have what is called pseudonymised data, which is like a blurry picture. However, the public are also concerned about that data because they fear that when it is triangulated with other sources somebody can be identified.
It is important that clinical data—the basis of communication between a GP, a breast surgeon like me and an oncologist in a centre—moves around and can be used. However, we must recognise that, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North clarified with the survey that he quoted, the public are concerned about their data. Beyond someone’s biological self, the most important thing that relates to them is their personal data, and after the care.data scandal of seven years ago and Google DeepMind, the public do not trust programmes that suddenly appear with little discussion and consultation and that talk about taking data. There is a huge public education process to be carried out, but equally, in the end, confidence is undermined by the talk about sharing data, whether identifiable or pseudonymised, with commercial companies.
Anonymised data is not an issue. For example, of the patients who took a drug, 10% got a side effect and, of those, 3% had previous heart disease. That is useful information; it does not identify patients. The public’s concern is that commercial companies, including pharmaceutical companies, could access pseudonymised or full data that would identify them. It is important that the Government explain the three types of data and how they are used for utterly different things. The public have no issue with Public Health England or academics working to recognise what is happening with heart disease or cancer in the UK and learning from data. However, they are concerned about the potential commercial use and potential revelation of their personal data.
The Government have a long job to do to convince the public. The danger is that the baby goes out with the bathwater and we lose not just research but integrated functioning in NHS England. It is important to recognise that the data held in the devolved health services is completely separate. I will come to that on clause 85.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Unfortunately, Mr Bone, you missed our last sitting, in which I relayed to other Members my long career in the NHS and my experience on these matters, but I will start in the spirit in which I left off. Having worked at a clinical commissioning group at the time of the care.data episode, I absolutely concur with the comments made by the Labour and SNP Front Benchers, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
We have had a lost decade, which is a great shame because the use of such data—we have learned much more about data and science during the pandemic—can save lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North mentioned meeting a patient who could perhaps have been helped better. At the end of the day, that is what we want to make happen.
My experience inside the health service will not be everybody’s, but on information governance the attitude to data is very well developed and sophisticated, and people take it incredibly seriously. When we started on the care.data episode, the value of that really seemed self-evident in the system.
We need to bear in mind, as we look at the issue as legislators, that the people who deal with it day to day to effect what they see as positive change may be operating on one track and be completely taken by surprise by the public reaction. I remember trying to understand it myself; I am not a data specialist, but I tried to understand the different channels of what was being tried at the time. I explained to more senior managers that it did not sit right with me—I did not understand where it was going or what it meant for me. If I did not understand it, I knew that if it were not explained carefully, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says, the general public would not either.
There is a missed opportunity. I ask the Minister to consider our very helpful Opposition amendment, not just in his role as a political leader in the Government, but by thinking about the rest of the system and how we can support it to do what it needs to. We absolutely need to bring the general public with us. Because of the mistakes of the past, I would argue that that we now require quite a mammoth exercise: not just differentiating between types of data, but considering who owns it, how we give it and what powers we will have in future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, the opt-out was really quite an incredible exercise over the summer. I think that has gone below the political radar in terms of the numbers of people who have taken that really quite difficult step. Part of this, as we will come to later, is about trust in GPs and GP data, which is where so much of our individual source data goes. The role of GPs also has to be brought very carefully along the path, because that data is of course very valuable for them.
The commercialisation concerns people, but beyond that, this is about our very essence—our trust in the system and the clinicians we see, who most of the time are our GPs. The Government need to step back—although not for too long, because they have already stepped back for a decade—and consider what is the best public exercise that they could embark on to resolve this problem, as the system and all of us really need.
Accepting our amendment in the spirit in which it was moved would be a step in the right direction. If the Government do not accept it, at the very least we should understand what they propose in its place.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for tabling amendment 109. I appreciate where he is coming from; as I understand it, his amendment is intended to ensure that the clause does not require health and care organisations to provide information that they could already be required to provide under existing powers. He talked about consistency and a single approach, and he is right.
The hon. Member for Bristol South is absolutely right, as is the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, about the need for us—the Government, the system and indeed all of us—to better explain and reassure people about the fact that data saves lives and about how it is used. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was right to draw a distinction between pseudonymised and anonymised data. She was equally right to highlight that pseudonymised data is not relevant under the power, which is about anonymised data. In a sense, the reassurance is there, but it is incumbent on us to make it clear to people.
Alex Norris
I thank colleagues for their contributions, which I thought were really good. This is an important area, and it is important that we give it a proper look. The points that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about the different types of data were important, and the run-through of their benefits and disbenefits was well made. I know that we will get to them again when we debate future amendments, so I will not prejudge that conversation. I still feel strongly—this relates to what the Minister said—that we have reached a point in the public conversation where there is no differentiation left, and that is the point that Simon Madden made. Because the temperature of the discussion has been elevated, they will be seen as one. That is what I have sought to address in my amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South was right to say that we have had a lost decade. That is, sad because it means that there have been healthcare improvements that we have not made. Over that time, extraordinary workforce gaps have emerged, and we would perhaps have been able better to plan around them if we had had a greater sense of the growing healthcare needs in our population. She is right that getting public trust back will be a “mammoth exercise”. That is why we have advocated for getting everything under one roof, in a single process.
The Minister mentioned that we all have a responsibility to explain data, and that it is important to make the arguments that we make in here out in our communities. I agree, but I feel I have much less of a responsibility to do that when the process is snuck out over the summer at short notice, without our ever having had a conversation about it. There could have been some effort to build consensus. I would have been willing to have difficult conversations with colleagues and constituents about it on that basis, but the way the process was handled made it impossible to defend. It left right hon. and hon. Members in the very strange circumstance of helping people to opt out of a system while thinking that that was not a good decision for them, or for anybody. As local representatives, we have a responsibility to people who ask for help.
I still do not get the sense from what has been said since then, publicly or in these proceedings, that the Government really understand the public message that they have sent, and I fear that that means we will keep repeating this conversation. In the amendment I simply ask that before the powers in the clause are turned on, a statement is made about how we seek to use these processes, and any other data processes, and handle them as one piece. That feels like a very modest ask.
I am going back and forth on whether to press the amendment to a Division. The Minister’s offer was a kind one, and I am conscious that I am putting a lot of this at his door. He did not create this process, but he is here speaking to part 2, so it is at least half him. Perhaps, when the dust has settled from what happened over the summer, we can have a conversation soon between Government and Opposition Members about how to do such things differently in future.
Edward Argar
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that either I or the relevant portfolio-holding Minister will happily have that conversation with him.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 121, in clause 80, page 71, line 20, leave out “250(7)” and insert “251C(6A)”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 120.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
As we alluded to in our discussion on amendment 109, the clause inserts a new section into the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It has the sole objective of increasing the sharing of anonymous data for the benefit of the health and adult social care sector. The provision applies only to information that is in a form that does not identify any individual or enable the identity of any individual to be ascertained. It allows health and social care public bodies to require such information from other health and social care public bodies and from others who are commissioned by public bodies to provide health and adult social care services. As we discussed in relation to amendment 109, the provision requires those bodies to share only information that they already hold in anonymous form; they are not required to process information held in order to render it anonymous.
The use of “anonymised” in the title of the inserted chapter is a typographical error to be corrected. It does not reflect a change in the policy intention, nor does it have any practical impact on the clause. Anonymous information—information that does not identify any individual or enable the identity of any individual to be ascertained—can already be shared without the need for safeguards to ensure privacy and confidentiality. The provision will mean that public bodies will be able to require such information to be provided to them for the benefit of the health and adult social care sector.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North made an important point about understanding the message from the public on data. He may have a different interpretation, but I think the message was, “Data saves lives, but it is our data. We want to know and approve of how our data is used and have control over it.” People recognise that data can improve care and treatment, but it is their data and they want to be reassured and comfortable about how it is used and the safeguards that are in place, and that it is their choice rather than something that is done to them.
The new power to require sharing of anonymous information will complement section 251B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which places a duty on certain health or social care organisations to share information about an individual with certain persons where that will facilitate the provision of care to the individual and it is in the individual’s best interests. Both measures underline the importance of sharing data proportionately and appropriately to improve services and care.
The clause will also complement key provisions in the Bill, supporting those that strengthen the duty to co-operate across the health and care system. Regulations will provide for exceptions. Issues such as minimising the burden on providers and protecting commercially sensitive information may be taken into account when introducing exceptions. It is intended that proposed new section 251D(1), which allows for anonymous information to be required, will not be commenced until the regulations are made and the exceptions are clear. Given the extensive debate that we have had on amendment 109, I will stop there and commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 81
General duties of the Health and Social Care Information Centre etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause amends the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and requires NHS Digital, when exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to promote the effective and efficient planning, development and provision of health services and of adult social care in England. NHS Digital must have regard to that alongside various other duties, and the clause requires it to have regard to the need to balance those duties.
In addition, subsection (3) makes clear that NHS Digital may share information for purposes connected with the provision of healthcare or adult social care, or the promotion of health. That is intended to address previous confusion about when NHS Digital can share data by clarifying that it can share data for purposes such as planning the delivery of services and medical research. This will ensure that NHS Digital has the right powers and duties to collect, share and otherwise process data proportionately, appropriately and with due regard to protecting privacy.
Alex Norris
As the Minister says, the clause deals with the Health and Social Care Information Centre, known to its friends as NHS Digital. This is a crucial body, and everything we have heard in debate so far, and in part 1 of the Bill, makes NHS Digital’s role even more central. The provisions in the Bill are modest; to use the Minister’s preferred language, they are de minimis. NHS Digital will be crucial as the body that can bring together, under one roof, information held by various organisations, and that can make sense of multiple systems in order to get the right information out, which is difficult. As we have heard, the history is chequered.
I hope that when the Minister sums up, we will at least hear a commitment that goes beyond what is in the Bill, and that NHS Digital is empowered to get a grip on our data across the entire piece. This is very much in the spirit of what I just talked about; there are multiple processes, all of which will at some point go through NHS Digital, which makes it an important clearing house. I hope Ministers will have a keen eye on its resources, and technical expertise. There is a real need for the organisation to demonstrate leadership, politically and at official level, and to pull the system together. I hope that we will hear a little about that, and about the outlook for NHS Digital. I am grateful for the point about private companies’ data; I will not reiterate that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his remarks and their tone. I hope that I can reassure him, in the few brief moments that I will take to sum up, that we recognise entirely NHS Digital’s current and potential role in helping to pull the piece together, adopting an holistic approach to data, and making sure that there is a coherent data strategy that works. I am confident and reassured that it has the technical expertise and resources to continue to develop its work and deliver for people in this country. I also reassure him that it continues to be a key priority of Ministers and the Secretary of State to ensure that NHS Digital has the tools it needs to do the job, so that, to go back to the thread that has run through our debate this morning, it uses its data to save more lives and provide more treatment, and does so in a way brings the public and our electors along with it. I hope that reassures him, and I am grateful for his remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Collection of information from private health care providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 82 enables NHS Digital to require private healthcare providers to provide data, where this is necessary or expedient in order to comply with a direction by the Secretary of State to collect information. It does this by amending section 259 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
This provision will enable a consistent approach to the use of data, supporting improved safety and quality across private and NHS health services. The need for this was underlined by the Paterson inquiry, which examined the case of Mr Paterson, a breast surgeon who worked both privately and for the NHS and was found guilty of wounding with intent in relation to unnecessary surgery. NHS Digital has been working with the Private Healthcare Information Network to develop the acute data alignment programme. These provisions will support that work and enable data to be required from private providers where it is needed.
This provision is needed to ensure that the system has the information it needs to better understand the quality and safety of services across private healthcare and the NHS. NHS Digital will be able to exercise this power only where it has been directed to establish an information system by the Secretary of State, and information from private providers is necessary or expedient for that system to be established or to operate. That means we can ensure that demands on private providers are proportionate and necessary, and that they do not duplicate other requirements.
Clause 82 will provide NHS Digital with the powers it needs to contribute to the work that is being done to address issues of patient safety and quality identified through the shocking case of Ian Paterson. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
We think that this measure is particularly important. Private companies must play their role in the process and share their information, just as we would expect the NHS and local authority bodies to do. However, we want clarity that there will be no refuge to be had from hiding behind bogus confidentiality on commercial grounds. That is not explicitly recognised in the Bill, but I am hoping that I have read this right and the Minister can confirm that that is because proposed new section 251ZA, which clause 79(3) will insert into to the 2012 Act, allows the Secretary of State to compel the provision of that information if they judge it to be necessary.
Edward Argar
That is my understanding. If I have misunderstood, I will, of course, correct the record for the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Collection of information about adult social care
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 83, page 73, line 23, after “assistance” insert
“or any form of reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support”.
This amendment is consequential on NC47.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47—Registration of tertiary prevention activities in respect of provision of social care—
“(1) Section 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In subsection (3), at end insert ‘or any form of reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support’.”
This new clause would bring reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support into the purview of the Care Quality Commission.
Alex Norris
These measures would bring reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014, for the purpose of reducing the need for care and support, into the purview of the Care Quality Commission. Unlike other adult social care functions, rehabilitation and reablement services are not currently part of regulated adult social care activities. There is no reporting, guidance on service standards, monitoring or inspection. That is despite the fact that rehab activities carry a level of risk similar to that of other adult social care interventions. This is particularly pertinent because rehabilitation services will be critical for those who are recovering from long covid.
One example that would fit into this category is vision rehabilitation. There is evidence from the Royal National Institute of Blind People that there are individuals who have been waiting since 2018 for their vision rehab. That will, of course, have been affected by the pandemic. However, those waiting more than two years, who have had this very profound change in their lives, need to develop new skills that they previously would have relied on their sight to achieve. The sooner that can be done, the better, because there are going to be so many other obstacles to adapt to.
The pandemic alone is not reason enough to offer comfort there. In the RNIB’s research, an inquiry made to lead councillors for adult social care in England last year found that about four in 10 did not know that vision rehabilitation formed part of that portfolio. An element of that will be because it is an unregulated function. Having been such a portfolio holder, I remember that you are very conscious of regulated provision in your area, because of the seriousness that comes with that, and I want to explore this gap a little.
Of course, the past 18 months have been extraordinary circumstances. Being a regulated activity on the same level of other adult social care activities would not fix the problems on its own, but it would have made a difference. It would certainly have given those gaps greater prominence. That might have been the beginning of addressing them. Indeed, there is a sense in the sector that this level of regulation would improve the visibility and priority of these services to senior managers and lead members by allowing for better data collection, for guidance, for quality standards to be developed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and for inspection services by the Care Quality Commission.
I will not say much more on that. It may well be that this is not the best mechanism to do those things, but I would be keen to understand why this particular element of adult social care is unregulated when so much effort is put into regulating other elements of it. Rehabilitation and reablement are particularly important.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minster for tabling the amendment and enabling us to have this discussion and air this issue. I understand his intentions in the amendment and new clause 47. It is right that social care services are appropriately and effectively regulated, and this includes rehabilitation and reablement. However, I do not believe that the amendment and the new clause are the right way of achieving the intended outcome.
Where providers carry out regulated activities as defined under schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, rehabilitation and reablement services are already within the scope of the CQC’s activities. As such, most rehabilitation and reablement services are CQC registered and are usually carrying on the regulated activities of accommodation, personal care, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
The definition of social care in section 9 of the 2008 Act is already sufficiently broad to cover reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014. If there are concerns about the scope of CQC regulatory activities in relation to these services, they would perhaps be more appropriately picked up as part of the ongoing review of the 2014 Regulations. That work would probably sit better there. We intend to publish the response to that public consultation on the review in due course. For that reason, I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and perhaps seek to use that process and that review as the mechanism by which to further air these issues.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that reassurance. That does provide comfort, certainly on the CQC aspect. The driver behind the amendment was as much that the CQC sharpens its focus for local authorities. I am not quite sure that we have got to the point where this will close that gap. However, there is a good mechanism by which to do so, so I might pursue this later, rather than pushing it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
This clause inserts a new chapter 3 into the Health and Social Care Act 2012, relating to information about adult social care. It introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to require regulated adult social care providers to provide information relating to themselves, their activities or individuals they have provided care to. The information may be sought only for purposes connected with the health or adult social care system in England, and its processing will need to comply with the UK general data protection regulation. Disclosure of commercially sensitive information is restricted under new section 277B(2).
As the shadow Minister set out, the clause enables the Secretary of State to delegate this function to the Health and Social Care Information Centre—known to its friends as NHS Digital—or to a special health authority, or to arrange for other persons to exercise them. Any such person would be subject to the restrictions on onward disclosure set out in new section 277B in the same way as the Secretary of State.
The clause is crucial for helping us to fill data gaps, understand more about self-funders and better manage emergency situations. Data from local authorities can show only part of the picture, as individuals who privately fund care have little or no contact with a local authority. That needs to be addressed to support local authorities to manage provider markets and secure improved outcomes for all receiving care and support.
The provisions will support a consistent and transparent approach to the processing of data across privately and publicly funded care to enable improved safety and quality of provision. Without that data, our ability to effectively identify and manage emerging risks and issues and to take appropriate action will be restricted.
The clause will enable us to collect higher-quality and more timely information, fill data gaps, support high-quality provision of services, and manage risks at local, regional and national levels. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Alex Norris
To date we have discussed 83 clauses, and we might finally have found a little note of integration. Local authorities not only want to share their data, but they want a greater sense of the data that they do not have, as the Minister said. They are desperate to do this. They want the all the needs of their service users to be met, but they are frustrated by a system that is atomised and hard to navigate. We know that that is also exhausting for patients and their families. I know that local authorities will jump at the chance to use the provisions effectively, but I have a couple of questions.
First, is there an expectation and obligation that the data sharing will be a two-way street? There are times when local authorities are frustrated about their ability to get information either out from the centre or from local health services. I would not want that opportunity to be missed. Secondly, to reiterate a point I made earlier, it is a pain getting systems to talk to each other. Will the Minister and his officials look at what support and time may be needed to implement the measures?
Edward Argar
I am, as ever, grateful to the shadow Minister. On his final question, about the burden of the additional data that we want to collect, which is a fair one, the aim is to reach a point where we can collect and share data across the sector in a way that minimises those collection burdens. That will include giving careful consideration to the frequency and nature of data collection. We will seek feedback from those engaged in the process and carry out appropriate assessments of it.
The capacity tracker, which is a web-based digital insight tool that we used to collect provider data in near-real time to help manage the pandemic, currently has a very high completion rate. We do not anticipate that any further mandated collection will create a significant burden in addition to that tracker. We learned during the pandemic that it is one of the things that will have beneficial applications in future. The capacity tracker currently operates on a voluntary basis, but it has high sectoral coverage—about 95% of adult social care providers are voluntarily using it. That, I suspect, is motivated by the infection control fund incentives, but our intention is to make it as simple and as easy as possible for people to continue using the tracker without imposing a burden on them. We recognise, however, that if those incentives are not there, the balance of burden and compliance changes, so we are looking at longer-term collections, which would likely be required far less frequently than the frequent iterations involved in managing a pandemic.
We therefore believe that we have struck the right balance, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to keep the matter under review and seek to strike the appropriate balance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Enforcement of duties against private providers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause inserts a new chapter into the Health and Social Care Act 2012 dealing with the enforcement of information provisions. It enables regulations to be made to impose financial penalties on private providers that, without reasonable excuse, fail to comply with an information standard or a requirement to provide information, or that provide false or misleading information. I am sure that you, Mr Bone, and members of the Committee will be pleased to hear that the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. This allows us to provide for enforcement in respect of private organisations, which are not subject to usual accountability mechanisms and judicial review in the same way as public bodies. The clause also provides for the regulations to set out details such as the amount of the penalty, as well as safeguards such as notice of the penalty and an opportunity for the person to make representations and to appeal to the first tier tribunal.
Clause 84 enables the Secretary of State to direct a special health authority to exercise the enforcement functions under regulations made under these new provisions and to give directions to the special health authority about the exercise of those functions. That provision and the related information provisions in the Bill are part of the wider strategy for health and care data, which aims to ensure more effective use of data across health and adult social care to deliver better treatment for patients, better health results for people who need care and support, and better decision making, research and support for those on the frontline. Our expectation is that those aims will be delivered through the commitments in that data strategy, including the legislative changes that we are making. The use of fines or, in the case of public bodies, judicial review is—as always—a mechanism of last resort but an important part of achieving those aims. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
The clause is an important counterpart to clause 82. If private organisations do not comply with their duties, enforcement will be necessary, although we hope it will not prove to be so very often.
As the Minister said, much of this has been left to regulations, so we are flying a little blind, but his point about the affirmative procedure is welcome as we will have a chance to revisit the issue. Ahead of that, however, we suggest that the Government consider two things in formulating regulations. First, a private company should not be able to pay its way out of its responsibilities. The fine alone should not discharge the notice, and instead the information should still be forthcoming.
Secondly, in pursuit of that, under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 the Secretary of State has the power to injunct a company and stop it trading if it does not comply with its responsibilities to publish a statement on modern slavery and its supply chain. A similar provision in the Bill would be highly effective. I hope that the Minister and his officials will consider that when they formulate the regulations. We will have a further debate on this at that juncture.
Edward Argar
I am happy to bear in mind those sensible points as we look to the formulation of regulations. I am grateful to the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Medicine information systems
Dr Whitford
I beg to move amendment 65, page 77, line 3, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (3A),”
This amendment, together with Amendment 66, would allow specified people and organisations who are required to provide information for a registry or information system to provide information to NHS Digital in pseudonymised form.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 66, page 77, line 12, at end insert—
“(3A) The provision mentioned in subsection (2)(b) must enable those required to provide information to provide information in pseudonymised form.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 65.
Amendment 64, in clause 85, page 77, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) The Scottish Ministers may exempt persons to whom subsection (5) applies and who are in Scotland from any requirements imposed by regulations under this section.”
This amendment would allow Scottish Ministers to exempt providers in Scotland from participating in any particular registry or medical devices information system.
Amendment 61, in clause 85, page 77, line 34, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6A),”
Amendment 62, in clause 85, page 77, line 47, at end insert—
“(6A) Provision under subsection (6)(c) and (d) may only provide for the disclosure, use or (as the case may be) further disclosure of information for purposes of public health analysis, and must prohibit disclosure, use or further disclosure of information for commercial use.”
This amendment would require that the disclosure of information will only be for the purposes of public health analysis and not for commercial use.
Amendment 63, in clause 85, page 78, line 1, leave out
“includes power to vary or revoke the directions by a subsequent direction”
and insert “—
(a) includes power to vary or revoke the directions by a subsequent direction, and
(b) is subject to the consent of—
(i) the Scottish Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament,
(ii) the Welsh Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, and
(iii) the Northern Ireland Ministers insofar as the direction makes provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would require the appropriate authority to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers under this clause are exercised.
Amendment 60, in clause 85, page 78, line 9, at end insert—
“(8A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made without the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Ministers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.
Amendment 67, in clause 85, page 79, line 8, at end insert—
“(4) Provision under subsection (3) which changes the territorial extent of provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (constitution and functions etc of the Health and Social Care Information Centre) and—
(a) relates to Scotland may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers,
(b) relates to Wales may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) relates to Northern Ireland may only be made with the consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before regulations under this provision are made.
Dr Whitford
I should like to speak to the whole group of amendments because they all relate to one another—amendments 65, 66 and 64 are very much about the form of data, which I discussed earlier.
The principle of the clause relates to the powers that are going to be given to the Health and Social Care Information Centre. It is given a power to require, so it can demand data. As a Scottish MP I am aware that data handling under NHS Scotland is different. Our data systems are different. We have a real concern that there is no mention of consultation, let alone legislative consent. For the public across the UK, the way in which their data is handled, who owns and controls their data and what is done with it are critical. We did not take part in the care.data project or Google DeepMind. There has not been any attempt within NHS Scotland to commercialise data, but we have very innovative working from Public Health Scotland and the academic universities. We do not want to see that undermined.
It is disappointing that there is no recognition in the clause that there should be both consultation and consent from the devolved Health Ministers. Proposed new section 7A(2) and 7A(4) give the power to require, and amendments 61 and 62 relate to proposed new section 7A(6) on how data is used and to whom it is disclosed, which we discussed earlier.
On proposed new section 7A(3) relating to the form of data, I totally support registries, particularly of devices. We are all aware of vaginal meshes. I remember wading through case sheets at the time of the PIP breast implant scandal, even though I knew we had never used them, because the only way to prove that none of my patients had had them was to go through literally every single operation note and sign it off.
Amendments 65, 66 and 64 relate to the form of data and specify that the Health and Social Care Information Centre would have power to decide what kind of information would be included in individual patient information. Amendments 61 and 62 relate to what we talked about earlier: disclosure to third parties, which is of public concern.
Amendments 63, 60 and 67 relate to proposed new section 7B(5)(b), which is the power to change the territorial extent. Although most of these provisions talk about getting data on social care from local government in England, it is completely within this Bill that the information centre would be able to demand data from devolved health centres and that the Bill’s territorial extent could be changed later by regulation, and without consultation, let alone legislative consent. All my amendments relate to the same basic principle: the four health services run separately, use different data systems and have different principles for sharing, using and analysing data, and whether they feel that sharing that with commercial companies is actually in the best interests of research, of patients and of clinical communication.
It is not necessary for pharmaceutical companies to have access to pseudonymised or individual data to study the functioning of their drugs. They require analysed, anonymised data that has been handled by trusted academics and researchers, whether from Public Health England or working in collaboration with universities. The amendments call for both consultation and legislative consent, without which the devolved health services and their principles of keeping data within the NHS and the public health system will be undermined. The Government need to talk to the devolved nations about that. They saw this Bill the day before it was launched. That is not consultation. That is not collaboration. That is not involvement.
It may well be that Ministers feel that a central registry of individual, identifiable details makes sense, or they may feel that it should be pseudonymised and brokered by the individual health services, because it will be those services that will have to contact patients if devices are found to be unsafe or need reviewing or if people need further surgery. This is about the lack even of consultation. As we have talked about all morning, data is so important to the public and to patients that legislative consent should be put into all those clauses of the Bill. I am disappointed that none of the devolved Ministers got to see the Bill when it was being put together, and as we heard from the Welsh Health Minister during the evidence sessions, her concerns are exactly the same as those of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.
That is what I call for the Government to do, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire on her amendments and the case she made for them. I remember with fondness that during proceedings on the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 we were able to offer constructive ways in which information regarding medical devices could be collected and used. We managed to move the Government on that. I hope we have similar success on these proposals too, because those were arguments well made.
Amendments 65 and 66 get to the heart of building confidence regarding data among the general public. There is widespread understanding about anonymised data and about datasets so big that individuals cannot be recognised, but we know that sometimes, if we want more detail, and particularly around rarer conditions or in rural and more isolated communities, we risk identification. Giving our information leaders the tools with which to protect individuals while still delivering the desired outcome is a sound principle and is part of hearing the message that was sent from our constituents, so we can start to rebuild trust. Providing such extra tools would be proportionate.
Turning to amendment 64, devolution is at its best when the four nations can exercise the advantage of local knowledge and leadership but collectively harness separate oversight to tackle collective challenges. That is important, particularly for the use of data. I strongly believe it will be in the interests of people across the United Kingdom for all four nations to have similar systems of standards and alignment on data. I am conscious that the challenges in north Nottingham will be similar to the challenges in north Cardiff, but devolution may well mean that services in Cardiff are different from those in Nottingham; that is part of the process. It can also mean that the outcomes are different, and we may want to know that, so that one community can, if it wants to, change to replicate what another is doing. I am not arguing against common usage; I think it is important, but we do not want a situation where the Secretary of State seeks to act with overbearing control as a first among equals. The mutual benefits of sharing data are so clear to all parties that they ought to be able to be agreed on a good-faith and negotiated basis. It should not need compulsion from the Secretary of State; in fact, that would be a significant failure. Therefore, the opt-out specified would be proportionate in this case.
Amendments 61 and 62 are crucial. The general practice data for planning and research process fell over because a significant part of the population did not trust the Government to handle their data appropriately. There is widespread concern about the Government’s relationship with big commercial entities, whether in the planning process, political donations or covid contracts. They are not scare stories or political fluff; they are real issues, they are in the public consciousness, and there is a sense that that relationship and the balance with the commercial sector is not one where the calibration is right.
On data, we must at every opportunity send the loudest possible signal that there are irremovable firewalls between people’s data and commercial usage. That works on two levels. First, as mentioned there is a lack of trust that the data will not be handed over to big commercial companies. We know that the mega-giants in social media have an insatiable desire for our data, and the old adage that social media is only free because our data is the product rings true. The NHS is not like a social media platform, though; it is free at the point of use, but we have paid for it through our taxes. It is not a free service we get in return for sharing our data, and there is no mandate to simply pass on the information collected as a result of our healthcare.
Let us be honest: what confidence would we have in sending the Government to negotiate with these companies? We have seen the painstaking process involved in just getting them to pay tax in this country; I would not, with full confidence, send a Prime Minister to negotiate a fee for our data, because I suspect we would end up paying the companies. This is an opportunity to be absolutely, immovably and irreversibly clear that we do not think that they should be near this data.
Secondly, it is worth reiterating that it is not as simple as just not handing data over. Even through legitimate and beneficial use of data, we are still at risk of getting a bad deal. For example, we no doubt want to use population-level healthcare to work out what conditions we may need new treatments for in the future. For that reason, we want researchers to use this data, and from that new treatments and drugs will emerge. Big pharmaceutical companies stand to gain from this, so how is it to be accounted for? We have a stake and have played a part in that process, so we ought to have a share of the benefits. How will the premium that we pay for the new treatments reflect the contribution that we have made—bluntly, where is our dividend? Those are the reasons that the GPDPR process fell apart, and why there is so much suspicion about the Government’s handling of data more generally. If we keep repeating the same approaches we will get the same outcomes. This is a moment to change that and to send a signal that our data will be protected from commercial interests; I hope the Minister will meet this moment.
Finally, on amendments 60 to 63 and 67, I will not rehearse the arguments I have previously made. I can conceive of times when NHS bodies, local authorities, community and voluntary sector providers or private sector providers might fall short of the expectations we have of them on data sharing, and exceptions where the Secretary of State may need to step in. That is why the Opposition have supported earlier clauses in part 2. That is a reasonable and proportionate way of ensuring that the data sharing regime is an enabling regime. I cannot think that applies to the devolved nations. All four nations are partners in the common pursuit of improving health outcomes; we may diverge in approach, but the common goal is the same. I cannot conceive that there will be such a divergence on data that it would be legitimate and wise to resolve it by working without shared consent. I hope, in the light of the arguments made, that the Minister will revisit that point.
Edward Argar
To the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire about the relationship with Edinburgh, while it is correct that a number of these clauses, and a large part of the Bill, were not finalised in their drafting until a day or two before publication, it is important to say that since the beginning of this year Scottish Government officials have had sight of the intentions and have been discussing with UK Government officials the wording and content of these clauses. I appreciate that this is not necessarily the same as a Minister seeing the exact wording, but that relationship and transparency has been there at that level.
I also put on record my gratitude to Humza Yousaf, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. I spoke to him a week or two ago, and with tragic timing, in that conversation he asked me to pass on his best wishes to James Brokenshire for his recovery. I know that they got on well, and I hope that I have a similar relationship with Humza, who is pragmatic, and I appreciate the work that he is doing on this. We continue to talk, because I am keen that we have that healthy relationship and it is my intention that we respect the Sewel convention and work together to come to an agreed position. It is challenging because there are genuine differences of principle on how things should be interpreted, but I am committed to working with him, as he is with me, to find a way to reach a common position that respects everyone’s principles and approach.
The medicine information systems clauses give us an important opportunity to ensure we have the highest quality evidence on which to base critical regulatory decisions. If we get this right, there is real potential, which has been alluded to by all Members, to take a step forward in the way medicines are monitored, risks are identified and action is taken to protect patients. We need to provide for the most effective operation of this system to realise the full benefits for patients across the UK.
The detailed operation of the system will need to be carefully considered further as we develop the regulations under the clause. It will probably be important that the systems are able to receive information that is fully identifiable to ensure accurate linkage and deduplication of data. That is necessary to ensure that the information system is able to capture a comprehensive picture of a patient’s treatment to generate robust evidence, and that if a patient moves from one area of the UK to another, they are not lost from the registry.
Robust decision making on patient safety must be made using accurate data, which can only be achieved by processing identifiable data from the four nations to create the UK-wide information system. That necessitates precise data linkage due to the nature and potential rarity of harmful events based on multiple identifiable data points. It is proportionate to use identifiable data to understand potentially adverse patterns early.
Patient-identifiable information is also necessary where inclusion in a registry is to be used as a risk minimisation tool, where a patient needs to be identifiable in the registry to their healthcare providers, or if information systems are linked with wider safety monitoring mechanisms already in place, such as the yellow card scheme, through which the public and healthcare professionals can report adverse incidents experienced with a medicine to MHRA, to further strengthen the data it collates.
It is not necessary to make provision in the Bill, because the powers in clause 85 give the ability to follow the most appropriate approach on the collection and disclosure of data, following discussion with stakeholders on the detail of the future regulations. The confidentiality and security of patient data and the reassurance that offers to patients is paramount. I hope I can assure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and other Members that all data held in a medicines information system will be processed in compliance with data protection legislation, which places crucial safeguards on the use of that information. That includes data principles such as lawfulness, fairness and transparency, purpose limitation and data minimisation—meaning that the minimum necessary information will be collected to meet the required purpose.
I recognise the importance of ensuring the appropriate and proportionate use and access to information in a medicine information system. As part of our consultation on the regulations to establish and operate a medicine information system, we will engage with patient groups and other stakeholders across the UK, as well as the devolved Administrations, on the content and scope of the system to ensure we do what is right for patients.
On amendment 64, at official level we have been in discussions with the devolved Administrations since February about the provisions in the Bill, particularly those for which at an early stage we identified a shared agreement that legislative consent was required. Clause 85 is one of those. I would like to put on record my gratitude to those officials—we often talk at ministerial level, but they worked very hard for some time in the spirit of finding a way forward that works for everyone. Let me say the same in respect of the devolved Administrations, who have spent considerable time working with us.
Without going into too many details, because those discussions are continuing, I have had constructive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in Edinburgh. I am keen, as he is, to do what we can to move those discussions forward. I hope we will be able to provide further reassurance over any outstanding areas of concern to the DAs, and where necessary and agreed, to table amendments ahead of Report. I hope that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance that I am directly engaged with the Cabinet Secretary and I will continue to be so. I am due to have another conversation with him in the coming days, and I have in my bundle another draft letter I am due to send him addressing some of the details of the granular points we are now looking at. I hope we will be able to make progress.
For medicine information systems to be truly effective as a tool, they need to cover all patients using the medicine across the UK. The regulatory decisions taken on the basis of the data collected will apply to the licensing of that medicine across the whole of the UK. My concern about Scottish Ministers choosing whether Scottish providers should or should not participate in the information system is that it could risk a fragmented approach, which is why we are having those discussions at policy level.
Dr Whitford
I welcome the Minister’s constructive comments. Obviously, I am not party to the consultations that are going on. I am still disappointed that there was not provision for both consultation and, where necessary, legislative consent. As the Minister clarified, those registries will absolutely contain individual patient data. As a surgeon, of course I support the principle of registries and how they are put together, but the responsibility for data in NHS Scotland and in the other devolved nations lies with the Health Ministers of those nations. It is disappointing that there was nothing put in these provisions.
I hope that the consultation goes forward. I will therefore not push the amendments. Obviously, I reserve the right to table amendments at a later stage. However, it is important that the Government recognise that the same concerns that we have heard around GP data in England would then apply in Scotland, where we have not taken any kind of commercial approach in the past, and that there will be a recognition of the role of those health Ministers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
As we have discussed in the context of the various amendments, clause 85 inserts a new chapter, 1A, into the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021. It introduces a new power to make regulations that would provide for one or more medicines information systems to be established and operated by NHS Digital. The power may be exercised only for the specified purposes set out in the provision: namely, purposes relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of human medicines and the improvement of clinical decision making in relation to human medicines. The clause sets out the types of provisions that could be made by the regulations and, to ensure full engagement, includes a mandatory public consultation requirement that must be fulfilled before any regulations are made.
Medicines information systems will enhance the capture and collation of information on the uses and effects of specific medicines across all four nations, including medicines prescribed to patients by the NHS and private healthcare providers. That information will be used by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enhance post-market surveillance of medicines by enabling the development of comprehensive UK-wide medicines registries, which will be used to drive improvements to patient safety. The evidence generated through medicines registries can be used to inform regulatory decision making, support local clinical practice and provide prescribers with the evidence needed to make better-informed decisions. For example, where safety concerns have led to the introduction of measures to minimise risk to patients, comprehensive medicines registries will enable early identification and investigation of cases where those measures are not being followed, so that additional action can be taken to improve safety at national, local or individual patient level.
The clause also ensures that we have the right powers to promptly modify what data is collected by NHS Digital as the need for new or different information about a medicine emerges in the light of changing or developing public health needs. That will provide the ability to rapidly respond to emerging risks to patient safety if and when they develop.
Given the overarching aims of the clause, it makes sense that the provisions will ultimately sit within the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which has a similar power for establishing information systems for medical devices in section 19. To ensure the effective operation of both the medicines information systems and the medical devices information systems, the clause also introduces necessary technical amendments to the MMD Act.
The clause drives forward improvements to the safety measures that protect patients in the UK against avoidable harm from medicines, and supports the need for the establishment of registries as recommended in the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, published last year. The clause directly supports putting patient safety at the heart of regulatory decision making. It will ensure that we have robust and comprehensive evidence to address public health concerns, and enable mechanisms to track the use and effects of medicines, based on public health needs. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I had intended to go the entire period that I am in this place, however long that might be, at least trying to be a young Member, if not a new Member, but clause 85 amends a piece of legislation that I was on the Bill Committee for previously, so I feel that I cannot do that now. That is really startling. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, I and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire argued strongly for this in Committee on that Bill, and I certainly would want to see this used properly and developed. With all the daily treatments that there are—and certainly when it comes to the medical devices that are inserted into people on any given day and on every day of the year every year—we really ought to know what those things are and, when there is a problem, be able to deal with it quite quickly.
I will make one final point. The Minister references, quite rightly, the independent review—the Cumberlege review. We will be revisiting the matter in the new clauses, because the Government have not done the job properly on that review. Although there are elements in this clause that make good on some of the commitments, there are very significant things that have been left out and that the Government do not intend to do, and they have really let down the families by not doing them, so we will be returning to that point, and I hope to find the Government in listening mode when we do.
Edward Argar
I have nothing further to add to what we have said, save that I am always in listening mode when the shadow Minister is making his points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 19th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2021 - (19 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 69, in clause 87, page 80, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under this section which make provision affecting the functions of Scottish Ministers may not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Scottish Ministers on that provision.”
This amendment would put a duty on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers on regulations making provisions on conferring of functions on the Scottish Ministers or amending or removing functions from them in reserved areas before these regulation making powers are exercised.
Amendment 68, in clause 87, page 80, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under this section to which subsection (5) applies may not be made without the consent of—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Scotland,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Wales, or
(c) the Northern Ireland Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.
Clause 87 stand part.
Amendment 70, in clause 88, page 81, line 17, at end insert—
‘(4A) Regulations under this section to which subsection (4) applies may not be made without the consent of the—
(a) Scottish Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Scotland,
(b) Welsh Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Wales, or
(c) Northern Ireland Ministers, if they contain provision for a body to exercise a function that is exercisable in relation to Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.
Clause 88 stand part.
Amendment 71, in clause 89, page 82, line 13, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6A),”
This amendment, together with Amendment 72, would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the legislative consent of the devolved governments before powers in this clause are exercised.
Amendment 72, in clause 89, page 82, line 19, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations under section 87 or 88 containing provision by virtue of section 131(1)(a) and repealing, revoking or amending provision made by or under—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers,
(b) a Measure or Act of Senedd Cymru may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) Northern Ireland legislation may only be made with the consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers.”
See explanatory statement to Amendment 71.
Clauses 89 to 92 stand part.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. The existing arm’s length body landscape has remained largely unchanged since the Health and Social Care Act 2012 reforms. As the health service has evolved, this structure has led to a fragmentation of roles between different organisations, and sometimes competing priorities being disseminated to providers. We have seen ALBs, with all their differing functions and operations, responding as rapidly as possible during the pandemic. Building on this recent energy and innovation, and the value of working flexibly, this power provides a mechanism to support a more responsive and adaptive system than the current structure allows. Using these powers—to transfer functions to and from ALBs—the system will be able to respond to differing challenges more swiftly.
Clause 86 sets out the definition of “relevant bodies” that is used in part 3 of the Bill. This definition is relevant to clause 87, which provides the Secretary of State with a power to transfer functions between relevant bodies, and to clause 88, which provides a power to delegate functions of the Secretary of State to relevant bodies. The bodies covered by this definition are all public, sponsored by the Department and operating in the health sector. In many instances they have complementary functions where there could be material benefit to elements of joint delivery.
This definition does not include a number of health and care-related bodies, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Care Quality Commission, which we have determined should not be covered by the powers in part 3 of the Bill due to the nature of their advisory, regulatory and/or public health functions. The clause therefore establishes the non-departmental public bodies in scope of the power to transfer functions set out in clauses 87 to 92.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for tabling amendment 69, which seeks to ensure that Scottish Ministers are consulted before a transfer of functions in reserved areas is carried out. Clause 92 sets out the Secretary of State’s duty to consult any body to which the proposed change relates, as well as the devolved Administrations if the draft regulations apply in their jurisdictions and relate to matters that are within the legislative competence of their legislatures, or in respect of which their Ministers exercise functions.
If functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers are impacted, Scottish Ministers would, in our view, already be consulted under the current wording. We do not consider it appropriate, therefore, to consult a devolved Administration on reserved issues where it can be shown that they do not impact on it in any way. We have committed to setting out further detail in the memorandum of understanding, both in terms of early engagement and the formal consultation process, when it is appropriate.
Amendment 68 seeks to introduce a requirement for devolved Administration ministerial consent if a proposed transfer of a function includes a function exercisable in relation to a devolved Administration and involves a body with a requirement for representation of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland on its board. Clause 87 confers a power on the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to transfer functions between the relevant bodies listed in clause 86.
That is not a power to take away services that are currently provided by the relevant arm’s length bodies that are in scope; the power allows only for moving the existing functions around within the current landscape in order to provide greater flexibility. If it is used, it will be to make necessary and helpful changes to the ALB landscape, such as enabling professionals with complementary expertise to work more closely together, as they have in many areas in response to the ongoing pandemic.
Many functions relate to England only, and when bodies do operate in devolved areas it is often through mutual agreement. We fear that it would be disproportionate to require consent each time the power is used. We consider this to be primarily about improving administrative effectiveness.
We recognise that there are arrangements to ensure that devolved Administrations’ interests are recognised and represented at board level. Clause 87 makes explicit provision for the continuation of any existing board representation for devolved Administrations on the body to which relevant functions are transferred. We believe that that provision, alongside the current commitment to consult that is set out in the Bill, and underpinned by a detailed memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, provides the opportunity to engage in a thorough and meaningful way throughout the entire process. However, as I alluded in my response to the hon. Lady’s previous amendments, I will continue to engage with Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations to further explore whether—to build on what I have already said—there is anything more we can do to provide reassurance ahead of Report.
Clause 87 confers on the Secretary of State the power to transfer functions between the relevant bodies listed in clause 86 using secondary legislation. Clause 87 sets out the conditions that would need to be met for the Secretary of State to use that power—namely, to improve the exercise of those functions with regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy and securing appropriate accountability to Ministers, with the aim of improving patient outcomes.
The Secretary of State can, through regulations, modify the functions and constitutional or funding arrangements of the affected bodies, and, with the exception of NHS England, abolish a body if it has become redundant as a consequence of the transfer of functions. That will be done by way of a statutory instrument laid before the House under the affirmative procedure. The Secretary of State must also make provision for maintaining representation of the interests of the devolved nations where there is the pre-existing requirement in the constitution of the body from which the function is transferred. That provision, together with clause 88, ensures a more agile and flexible framework for key health bodies that can adapt over time.
Our arm’s length bodies want to work together more closely, and the covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the value of working flexibly. Building on that recent energy and innovation, the clause provides a mechanism to support a more responsive and adaptive system than the current structure allows. Amendment 70 would introduce a requirement for devolved Administration ministerial consent if a proposal to transfer a function involves the transfer of a function exercisable in a devolved Administration and a transferring body with devolved representation on its board.
Clause 88 confers a power on the Secretary of State, through secondary legislation, to delegate functions that may be delegated to special health authorities to any of the relevant non-departmental public bodies listed in clause 86 instead. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power only to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions. It does not create any power for him or her to do anything in respect of the functions that devolved Administration Ministers direct those special health authorities to perform in the devolved nations. As with clause 87, clause 88 makes explicit provision for the continuation of any existing board representation for DAs on the body to which its functions are transferred.
I set out in our debate on amendment 68 the Government’s reasons for opposing the imposition of a consent requirement on the use of the power in clause 87. We oppose a consent requirement in clause 88 for the same reasons. A further reason for opposing a requirement for the consent of the devolved Administrations to the power in clause 88 is that the clause simply allows the delegation of functions of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State already has the power, in effect, to move any of his or her functions between different special health authorities. That does not require the consent of the DAs. Clause 88 merely extends that provision, so that the Secretary of State may delegate their functions to one of the NDPBs. For that reason, I encourage the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire not to press her amendments, but I will wait to hear what she says when she speaks to them shortly.
As we have already discussed, clause 88 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations providing for a relevant body to exercise some of their functions. As with clause 87, that would be done by way of a statutory instrument laid under the affirmative procedure. Since special health authorities exercise functions of, and are subject to, direction by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State already has the power to provide for a function currently exercised by one special health authority to be exercised instead by another. The special health authorities that currently exercise functions on behalf of the Secretary of State are the NHS Business Services Authority, NHS Blood and Transplant, the NHS Litigation Authority, now known as NHS Resolution, the NHS Counter Fraud Authority and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which is merging with NHS England as part of this Bill.
As outlined in clause 87, this clause sets out that, by virtue of clause 131, the Secretary of State can use that power to make consequential, transitional or saving provision to modify the functions, constitution or funding of either affected body. The Secretary of State must also make provision for maintaining representation of the interests of the devolved Administrations where there is the pre-existing requirement in the constitution of the body from which the function is transferred. This clause, together with clause 87, provides vitally needed flexibility for the health system.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for tabling amendments 71 and 72 and thereby bringing these issues before the Committee for debate. These amendments seek to ensure that devolved Administrations have the power of veto over any consequential changes that may be needed to devolved legislation. I note that in her evidence to the Committee Baroness Morgan, the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services, also expressed concern about this power, as well as the general power to make consequential amendments in clause 130, which she linked it to.
During my discussions with Lady Morgan about the Bill, I have set out why I believe these powers are necessary and appropriate. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance to this Committee; it is my intention to provide further reassurances on this matter throughout the Bill’s passage, and I continue to talk to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations.
The power to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation provided for by clause 89(6) is entirely limited to matters that are genuinely consequential upon regulations and will be largely technical in nature, such as name changes post transfer. The substantive power is to make the transfer of functions, and the consequential amendments flow directly from that. For the statute to work, those consequential changes should not be subject to consent requirements in their own right.
There are precedents for this type of power to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation in many other Acts, and indeed reciprocal powers for devolved Administrations to make consequential amendments to UK Acts of Parliament. It is worth noting, in the context of the ALBs that we are concerned with in these clauses, that Welsh legislation in 2013 made consequential amendments to the Human Tissue Act 2004 of this place. We fear that seeking to introduce new consent requirements on consequential amendments to devolved legislation would be unnecessary and could risk unbalancing current delicate constitutional relationships.
Clause 89 details the scope of those powers referenced in clauses 87 and 88, namely the powers for the Secretary of State to transfer functions to and from relevant bodies and to delegate the Secretary of State’s functions to them. Clause 89 sets out the detail of what may be done when using these powers, which gives useful clarity as to the powers’ scope. Subsections (1) to (3) set out what may be included in regulations when modifying the functions of a body, the constitutional arrangements or the funding arrangements.
The clause also sets out certain types of powers that may be repealed and re-enacted, but not created, at subsection (4). For example, the power cannot be used to create a new criminal offence, but can be used to repeal or re-enact an existing one so that it moves with a relevant function if appropriate.
As the functions of the relevant bodies are set out in primary legislation, it will be necessary to amend, repeal or revoke such primary legislation when providing for a transfer of functions. The power to do this is provided at subsection (5). Future legislation that relates or refers to the relevant bodies in question may also need to be amended.
It is also necessary for there to be powers to amend devolved legislation—I suspect this is where the hon. Lady and I may have a slight divergence of interpretation or of view, but we will see. There are references to the relevant bodies in devolved legislation, which may need to be amended in order to refer to a new body to which a function is transferred to ensure the effective operation in law of that transfer.
Regulations made under these powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That ensures that Parliament can scrutinise the use of the power, including any necessary amendments made to primary legislation, following consultation with the relevant parties, as set out in clause 92. It is an important provision that will allow transfers and delegations of functions to be made effectively.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
A lot of this covers the issues that we discussed in relation to data, consultation and consent. I respect that these are UK-wide bodies, whereas data is within the devolved systems, so that was an even bigger issue, but there must be recognition that although health is devolved, the regulation, licensing and registration of staff for bodies of this sort affect the devolved health services. There should at the very least be proper, genuine consultation, rather than changes simply being made.
As we discussed this morning, we saw how NHS Digital—in essence, an England-only service within NHS England—is now being turned into the Health and Social Care Information Centre, which is UK-wide. We already have the information and statistics division in Scotland, so changing the ability of the Secretary of State to change arm’s length bodies may indeed affect what happens in the devolved health systems. Reference is made to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority simply to respect that those health services are under the control of the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments and the Northern Ireland Executive, but decisions made here will have an impact on them.
I welcome the Minister saying that NICE would not be forced on Scotland—we have the Scottish Medicines Consortium, and the Care Inspectorate rather than the Care Quality Commission. However, that is people’s fear because it is not explicit here—either through consultation or consent—that bodies that have been set up for almost two decades, that are integrated with our health system and functioning well, could suddenly be rolled over. It is important that the Minister points out that clause 89(6) is merely consequential. It increases anxiety that the Minister here can, simply through regulations, revoke, repeal and amend Acts of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments without consent or even consultation.
I do not see an issue with a name change, but there is an issue with a Bill of this size and complexity being published and Ministers in the devolved Administrations seeing it only the day before. That does not show respect between the Governments. That is something that I hope, as the provision is taken into regulations, will change. I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote because the Minister said that he is consulting the Scottish and Welsh Cabinet Secretaries, but it should not have come to this. Respect for devolution should have been implicit in the Bill from the start.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott, and to move on to part 3. Of the various parts, it has possibly had the least impact on my mailbag, but it is important. I am a little troubled by some of the provisions and want to probe them a bit.
The Minister gave a good and characteristically cogent explanation of what is in the Bill, but not of why it is there. That explanation was much shorter, so I want to come back to that because I do not think it is clear what problem the Government are seeking to solve. Has a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of the nation been caused by the Secretary of Secretary’s inability to remove functions from one organisation to another more quickly? I do not think that is the case. The Minister made the point about a rather fractured service and the need to be able to act more swiftly. I will revisit those points shortly.
Clause 86 specifies the organisations that the Secretary of State can delegate or transfer functions to: Health Education England, the Health and Social Care Information Centre, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Human Tissue Authority and NHS England. I was surprised not to see the UK Health Security Agency in that list and I hope the Minister will come back to that.
Clause 87 allows the Secretary of State to move functions between the organisations, and clause 88 provides for the Secretary of State to permit them to exercise functions on the Secretary of State’s behalf. Are we really saying that there are not decent, appropriate and effective ways to do that already? For example, the UK Health Security Agency is a relatively new body and it will take time for it to settle in and find its level. Do we really believe that there are no mechanisms to ensure that it can exercise functions on the Department’s behalf, or that there might be a public health information function currently exercised by NHS England that the agency might be better able to deliver in the future, but cannot because it is not covered by this legislation? I find that hard to believe. Are we saying that there will be an alternative route for that? I cannot understand why there would be a different way of doing that.
If that is really necessary, why is the Government’s instinct to do it by regulation? If there are problems today that perhaps the past challenging 18 months have revealed, we have got primary legislation here, so we could make whatever changes the Secretary of State wishes to make to the organisations on the face of the Bill. Obviously, that would not help with new and emerging problems, but what are they? What examples have happened recently? It feels as though we have a solution in search of a problem to solve.
Clause 87(3) basically prevents the Secretary of State from abolishing NHS England. Well, we would hope so—that seems wise—but what of the other agencies? The Health and Social Care Information Centre was formed by the Health and Social Care Act 2012; the Health Research Authority and Health Education England were created by the Care Act 2014; the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was formed by its own Act in 1990; and the Human Tissue Authority was created by the Human Tissue Act 2004. Are we really saying that we need a more direct ministerial route to dissolve or amend these bodies?
We have recent precedent for this: over the course of the past couple of weeks, or certainly over the past few months, the Government have taken Public Health England apart, taking some functions for themselves and creating a new organisation with the remaining ones. They were perfectly able to do it in that case, which would seem to me to be a very drastic case. Now, we think that was a very bad thing to do—I will continue to make that argument—but what I cannot understand is why, if the Government were able to do that then, they would not pursue the same routes in the future.
I would not argue the case against clauses 88 to 91, which form the blueprint for these powers, but I would argue against the rationale for them existing at all. Amendments 68 to 72 again seek to protect the devolved settlement: as the Minister has said, clause 92 provides for devolved nations to be consulted on changes that are within their legislative competence, but I am concerned that that consultation might not go far enough. If we consider a policy area as a devolved matter, that surely requires consent. I have heard some response to that point from the Minister, but we may well hear a little bit more.
Clause 92 lists who the Secretary of State “must consult”. As well as devolved nations, it includes the organisation in question and then anyone else the Secretary of State wishes to consult. That list does not expressly include the public or experts in the relevant discipline, for example, and I do not think that is sufficient. In reality, the decision over Public Health England was a rash one, made in its early stages by individuals who are not really involved anymore. In all honesty, nobody would have made the decision that was made: it was a situation in which, despite our desperate attempts to give the Government room to do so, they never quite managed to climb down. However, talking to the public and to experts would have helped the Government make a much better decision in that case, and I am surprised not to see those groups included on the face of the Bill. I hope that we will get an assurance that at least in the Minister’s mind, “anyone else the Secretary of State wishes to consult” would involve some experts, if not the public. I very much hope it would.
To conclude, we have gone back and forth on this topic in recent days, and we cannot support the provisions in this part of the Bill. They are Executive overreach, and there are recent examples of why these powers are unnecessary, because the Government can already do these things. During the proceedings on the Bill, the Minister has frequently told us that our amendments are not necessary because they are already covered elsewhere. I am going to gently turn the tables and suggest that these powers exist elsewhere, and therefore these provisions are not necessary.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to colleagues for their comments and contributions. The short answer to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, is that comparing the UK Health Security Agency, for example, to what we are discussing here is in a sense comparing apples with pears. This is about non-departmental public bodies. UKHSA is an Executive agency, so it is already directly under the power of the Secretary of State, hence why the Secretary of State was able to make those changes. This is about the different categorisation of two subordinate bodies of the Department—NDPB versus Executive agency—which is why this section of the Bill deals with NDPBs, for which that power is currently not the same as it is for an Executive agency such as UKHSA. It is a technical point, but hopefully that gives the hon. Gentleman some explanation of the difference in approach.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am grateful for that clarification, but I believe—perhaps the Minister will comment—that that makes the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North about Executive overreach even more pertinent and well made than they were in the first place. The fact that these are public bodies that are subject to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which is something the Minister might come on to later, means that their quasi-independence is more significant, not less, and that they are governed accordingly.
Edward Argar
I will turn to that issue, but before I do I will address the question of why I think this is a proportionate and necessary change in the powers. As we have seen during the pandemic, there can be rapid changes and moves in the functions of those NDPBs, and we therefore cannot have a process that preserves in aspic a particular set of functions in primary legislation. I believe this is a proportionate measure that allows for flexibility around those functions around NDPBs, although in my view it does not encroach on the way they operate, hence the non-departmental public body point that the hon. Lady made. It strikes an appropriate balance.
The other point the hon. Member for Nottingham North made, which shades into the points from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, is that where a policy area is devolved, it should be that devolution settlement that takes primacy. The challenge is that, in a number of areas here, we see almost a hybrid of reserve powers and devolved powers.
We will come on to this after we have debated the Health Service Safety Investigations Body part, but it is a good illustration, so I will use it as an example here: if we look at reciprocal healthcare arrangements, which we will come to, the implementation or impact on the ground is to a degree devolved; it is about the organisation of health services in a particular area. However, the power to make international agreements is reserved.
Therefore, in spaces such as this, we come across complex challenges where there is no clear delineation for how to respect the devolution settlement and not intervene in aspects that are clearly devolved, while also striking a balance such that the devolved Administrations do not have a power of veto over a reserved matter. Those are the complexities we are wrestling with in a number of areas here, and I think that goes to the heart of the issues that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has been raising.
Dr Whitford
The Minister mentions the UK Health Security Agency, which was suddenly created in the middle of the pandemic—supposedly out of Public Health England, so I am not quite sure whether Public Health England still exists. There were comments made at the time by the then Secretary of State that this would now be a UK-wide body and would therefore override Public Health Scotland. Since the Minister raised this matter, I would be grateful if he could clarify, because that is exactly the nub of the issue, whether they are executive agencies or arm’s length bodies: it is suddenly enforcing a change in structure on the devolved Governments, when our Public Health Scotland is totally integrated with our health service.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes a couple of points there. First, on the transition with Public Health England, to avoid a cliff edge—in the context of some of my conversations with the hon. Member for Nottingham North about different aspects of policy, that is perhaps not the best word—in the transition between two organisations, we have had for some months parallel running of the two. I believe, relying on my memory, that Public Health England finally transfers all its functions and ceases at the end of this month, and then we will see that transition. We have both in being for the time being, to ensure smooth operation of the actual functions they perform.
My understanding of the hon. Lady’s specific point about the public health arrangements that work in Scotland and that are a matter for the Scottish Government is that those relationships and that way of working will be able to continue. However, we saw in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the withdrawal agreement a way of working regarding the health security provisions that has a UK approach to working but fully involves each of the devolved Administrations, because we recognise that the threats are national—as in four nations—and we have seen that diseases and public health threats do not stop just before they get to Berwick, and vice versa. Therefore, we are keen to look at this in a four-nations way, and we have just been looking with the Scottish Government at the public health framework and how we work with it.
I am trying to reassure the hon. Lady that there is no intention to undo what works, but there is a recognition of the need for us to continue to work as four nations together on this. I hope she will be reassured that that helps to respect the devolution settlement; I suspect she may wish to probe me further in future debates, but that, of course, is what we are here for. I encourage hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to the Question that clause 89 stand part of the Bill, which has already been debated. With the leave of the Committee, I will put the question on clause 89 as a single question with clauses 90 to 92, which have also already been debated. The question is that clauses 89 to 92 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 127, in schedule 13, page 204, line 7, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Chief Executive of NHS England”.
This amendment would give the Chief Executive of NHS England the power to appoint members and the chair of HSSIB.
Amendment 128, in schedule 13, page 204, line 18, leave out
“with the consent of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 129, in schedule 13, page 204, line 21, after “HSSIB” insert
“, one of whom is to be the Chief Finance Officer,”.
Amendment 130, in schedule 13, page 204, line 32, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert
“A majority of non-executive members following a vote”.
This amendment would give a majority of non-executive members the power to remove a person from office following a vote.
Amendment 131, in schedule 13, page 204, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment would remove sub-paragraph 4 from schedule 13 of the Bill, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to remove a person from office in HSSIB.
Amendment 132, in schedule 13, page 206, line 12, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.
This amendment, together with amendments 133, 134, 135 and 136, would give the Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB power over remuneration for non-executive members of HSSIB.
Amendment 133, in schedule 13, page 206, line 14, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.
Amendment 134, in schedule 13, page 206, line 16, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.
Amendment 135, in schedule 13, page 206, line 19, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert
“Chief Finance Officer of HSSIB”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 132.
That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will endeavour to make progress before the Division in the House. Clause 93 is the first clause in part 4, which establishes the health services safety investigations body. This new body will build on the work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which became operational in 2017 as part of NHS Improvement. Part 4 makes provision to establish an independent statutory body to investigate qualifying incidents that occur in England during the provision of healthcare services that have or may have patient safety implications.
Crucially, HSSIB’s investigations and reports are about learning from incidents across the healthcare landscape and will help to foster a strong learning culture. We want to ensure that we learn from what has gone wrong before, which ultimately will ensure that patients get the best care, which they rightly deserve. HSSIB’s investigations will not assess or determine blame, civil or criminal liability, or whether action needs to be taken in respect of an individual by a regulatory body. Instead, its investigations will identify risks to the safety of patients and address these by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of healthcare services in England.
There have been calls for some time to put the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch on an independent statutory footing. We previously introduced proposals to do that in the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which was introduced in the other place in October 2019. Unfortunately, that Bill did not progress past Second Reading because Parliament was dissolved for the general election. However, the Government are committed to reducing patient harm by improving the quality of health investigations and developing a culture of real learning. We are using this Bill to deliver that world-leading innovation in patient safety. I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) for all the work she did on this when she was Minister of State for patient safety.
Clause 93 specifically establishes HSSIB as the body to take forward systemic patient safety investigations. It also gives effect to schedule 13, which sets out arrangements for HSSIB’s constitution and governance, and provides details of its membership and its financial and reporting obligations. I am proud that this will be one of the first independent healthcare bodies of its kind in the world carrying out systemic investigations. The independence of the new body’s investigations will give the public full confidence in its investigation processes and its ability to deliver impartial conclusions and recommendations. The aim will be to learn and not to blame.
On the practical side, schedule 13 also allows the making of transfer schemes to ensure a smooth transition when HSSIB is set up. The intention is that following the NHS England and NHS Improvement merger, which we have discussed earlier, the functions of the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch will sit with NHS England until such time as HSSIB is established as a separate statutory body, so the transfer scheme provisions in the schedule provide for a transition from NHS England to HSSIB.
The amendments that have been tabled focus largely on the membership and responsibilities of, and the appointments process relating to, HSSIB’s board. Amendment 127 would remove the responsibility of the Secretary of State to appoint the chair and non-executive members to the board, and would instead give that responsibility to the chief executive of NHS England.
HSSIB will be a non-departmental public body and will therefore meet the criteria to be added to the Public Appointments Order in Council, which lists those bodies whereby the non-executive member appointments are bound by the Cabinet Office’s governance code on public appointments, which are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. It is standard practice to have the Secretary of State appoint non-executive board members to a public body. Making that the responsibility of the chief executive of NHS England could bring into question HSSIB’s independence, especially when it is investigating issues that might involve or lead to recommendations for NHS England. That would risk reducing public trust in HSSIB, which I think we all agree will be paramount in gaining public support for the work it does, and it could undermine the acceptance of its recommendations.
The Chair
We are now going to go backwards, because it has come to our attention that some of the clauses were not actually voted on. We are going to vote on clauses 90, 91 and 92.
Clause 90
Transfer schemes in connection with regulations
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind hon. Members that with this we are considering amendments 127 to 135 and schedule 13. I call the Minister to carry on from where he left off.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to you, Ms Elliott, and I challenge colleagues to remember what I was saying just before the Division.
On amendment 130, having the non-executive members remove one of their own members—essentially, their colleague—could very likely create a conflict between board members, because I would not expect that to be an easy decision for any of them. Of course, we want an effective, cohesive and united board with the Secretary of State stepping in only when a real issue needs to be addressed.
We would not expect those powers to be used very often, and ideally they would never need to be used. However, it is important to have those safeguards, which would allow action to be taken quickly should there be concerns about a non-executive member of the board.
Finally, I will speak about amendments 129 and 132 to 135, which look to mandate the creation and role of a chief finance officer for HSSIB. If I have understood the wording of amendment 129 correctly, the intention is to ensure that the chief finance officer of HSSIB is one of the executive members. As HSSIB is an independent NDPB, the recruitment of the executive members will be led by the non-executive members. It will be for them to take decisions about the composition of the executive members of the board, taking into account the balance of skills and experience required to lead the organisation in its vital work.
If the non-executive members were of the view that a chief financial officer’s skills would help the board’s work and complement the knowledge, skills and experience held by the existing non-executive and executive members, this would be a board role. There is nothing in the Bill, as it is currently drafted, to prevent the non-executive members from doing that.
It will be important for HSSIB, as an independent body, to be fully on top of finance and accounting decisions, and that is already reflected in the Bill. The constitution, which is set out in part 1 of schedule 13, includes a number of requirements in relation to funding and finance to ensure that that is managed correctly by HSSIB. For example, paragraph 12(1) of schedule 13 expressly states that HSSIB must exercise its functions economically, as well as effectively and efficiently. Paragraph 16 relates to the use of income from charges, and paragraphs 18 and 19 relate to the accounts of HSSIB. It is for HSSIB to decide how best to ensure it fulfils these duties, but I hope it is reassuring that the constitution underlines the importance of running HSSIB economically and the requirements for annual accounts, as would be expected of a public body.
Amendments 132 to 135 look to remove from the Secretary of State the responsibility to set the remuneration for non-executive members of HSSIB, and to give that power to the chief finance officer instead. The amendments present some challenges, which I will outline here.
In respect of public appointments, the governance code for public appointments states that
“Ministers must be consulted before a competition opens to agree the job description for the role, the length of tenure and remuneration.”
A number of non-departmental public bodies follow this code, such as the Care Quality Commission, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to name a few. There is no reason why the arrangements for HSSIB should differ from those of other non-departmental public bodies.
We wish to ensure the independence of HSSIB’s board, and I know that hon. Members feel strongly about that, too. Giving a chief finance officer control over the remuneration of non-executive members means that the Secretary of State and, via the Secretary of State, Parliament would not have full oversight of how public money is spent. Although I am sure that the non-executive board members would act with the utmost integrity, we must ensure that the legislation supports them to do so as far as possible, and that we do not deviate from standard practice in public appointments. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments, and I commend this clause and schedule to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Elliot. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Department’s position on the clause and the accompanying schedule. The proposed amendments relate to the establishment of HSSIB. As he has said, it builds on the work carried out by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which was established without statutory basis in 2016 and became operational in April 2017.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee identified in April 2016—more than five and a half years ago—that this legislation was necessary, and I am pleased to see that it is finally being brought forward. The Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords in 2019, did not proceed because of the calling of a general election, on which the Opposition do not wish to linger.
As other members of the Committee may have done, I have raised with the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch both system-wide issues and individual matters on behalf of constituents. My experience has suggested that there are wider issues that need investigating, so we welcome this opportunity to discuss and set out in legislation the powers and remit of the body.
Unfortunately, some details are lacking from part 4 of the Bill, which we think represents a missed opportunity to set them out a bit more precisely. We should not miss the opportunity to ensure that this body can truly improve healthcare, as we will demonstrate with our amendments, notwithstanding what the Minster has said. We are trying to do our utmost to ensure that HSSIB has the independence, the resources and the influence it requires to operate at its maximum potential. Lessons must be learned from the experience of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which has undoubtedly had some impact. However, in many ways, its work has not had the impact it might have had, because its reach has been limited for a variety of reasons that are entirely out of its control.
Keith Conradi, the chief investigator of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, touched on that during the second sitting of this Committee, when he commented on how the branch had been operating in shadow form, without any real powers. We have discussed the powers of HSSIB, especially in terms of access to information and compelling people to co-operate with investigations. However, it is what happens after the final report, and ensuring that those recommendations are acted on, that will have the largest impact on patient safety and driving through improvements.
A recent example of the work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch is its investigation into wrong site surgery, through the wrong patients being identified in outpatient departments. The reference for the investigation was evidence from the NHS national reporting and learning system that the incorrect identification of patients is a contributing factor in patients receiving the wrong procedure. The safety recommendation to NHS England was to lead a review of risks relating to patient identification in out-patient settings, and to assess the feasibility to enhance or implement systematic controls such as technological options or the use of the NHS unique identification number. NHS England responded by stating that the work would require an understanding of the true scale and impact of the risks through observational study, which would be resource heavy. It said that, without evidence of the risk, that would did not justify the cost. Hence, the recommendation was considered but not acted on.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I would like to address some comments to schedule 13, following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. It is not an interest, but I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and much of the appointment issue is within our purview.
HSSIB is a really important new body and, as the Minister outlined, it must be of the highest integrity. It must absolutely be built on the highest standards of trust when it comes to the wider system and the general public. We will discuss how that will happen over the forthcoming clauses.
As the Committee knows, the issue of accountability is close to my heart. HSSIB being a public body, and I am afraid to say that the Government’s record in the last couple of years does not fill me and many others with great confidence in terms of how this body is being set up. Its leadership merits due consideration both by the Committee and when the Bill goes to the Lords and then returns to the Commons.
Edward Argar
We have had the opportunity in this clause and these amendments to range more broadly in setting out the landscape and issues relevant to our debates on the forthcoming clauses. A number of questions were raised in the context of this debate, and I will aim to answer as many as I can.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, talked about budgets and resourcing in his opening remarks. As he will be aware, schedule 13 provides for funding to be given as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate. We are clear that we want HSSIB to be adequately resourced to exercise its functions, but it is right that when a public body is spending public money, there is democratic oversight, because that money comes from the public purse. We are determined to ensure that it has adequate resourcing, but I believe it is right that the Secretary of State plays a key role.
The hon. Gentleman also asked, I think—he can shake his head if I misunderstood what he said—about the impact of any recommendations or decisions on individual trusts or the NHS, and their ability to act on them without it disproportionately affecting their resourcing and their plans. We are confident that, as we have seen with previously identified failings—not necessarily through this process, but in the past—trusts are able to address those recommendations. However, in cases where there is a major incident leading to significant reform, as has happened—I suspect we all hope that it does not happen again—resources can be made available to address a particular systemic failing across a much broader landscape. I cannot pre-empt decisions made by the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those circumstances, but I hope that the principle of adequate resourcing is established, as we all want.
The shadow Minister also expressed concerns that, at their heart, were about the organisation either not being, or being perceived to not be, sufficiently independent of the Secretary of State, because of the nature of the governance arrangements put in place around it. I do not think that is the case. We are adopting a standard approach to managing public appointments to a body of this sort. I would be more concerned if the NHS were responsible for appointments or funding, because although I do not want to pre-judge its work, I expect that HSSIB will more frequently be looking into and reporting on NHS bodies.
On some of the specific points on the role of the Secretary of State and the appointment of non-executive members and the chair of the board, I can give reassurance that that will be managed in line with the Government’s code for public appointments, regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I hear what the hon. Member for Bristol South says; she will not be surprised that I will avoid being drawn on individuals, but she made her point and made it clearly.
Regarding the chief investigator particularly, it would be normal for boards to have more non-executive than executive members—we see that in both the private and public sectors—and that ensures that one-step removal from the executive operation the ability to challenge within that board. That is reasonable. The chief investigator is a key figure in this body, and I do not believe that the approval by the Secretary of State can call into question the independence of the HSSIB. The Secretary of State will not appoint the chief investigator—that is the responsibility of the non-executive board—but it is right that the Secretary of State approves that appointment, ensuring the route of accountability. I can go a little further and offer some reassurance to the shadow Minister, in that I envisage the chief investigator appearing before the Health and Social Care Committee—the most appropriate Select Committee—before the appointment is made.
The Chair
We now come to amendments 127 to 135, which have just been debated. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to move any of these amendments?
Justin Madders
The Committee will be relieved to know that I will not move every single one of them. What the Minister said about the pre-appointment process is helpful. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, it is not a perfect solution—
The Chair
Mr Madders, the opportunity to debate was before. You just need to indicate which amendments you wish to move.
Justin Madders
I wish to move amendments 130 and 131, and I will not press amendments 127 to 129 and amendments 132 to 135.
Amendment proposed: 130, page 204, line 32, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert
“A majority of non-executive members following a vote”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would give a majority of non-executive members the power to remove a person from office following a vote.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 131, in schedule 13, page 204, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would remove sub-paragraph 4 from schedule 13 of the Bill, which confers powers on the Secretary of State to remove a person from office in HSSIB.
Edward Argar
This clause sets out what HSSIB will be doing. Its remit will be to investigate qualifying incidents in England occurring in the NHS and also in the independent sector. Its aim is to improve learning from events of harm and reduce the risk of reoccurrence for future patients across the whole health system. The Bill defines qualifying incidents as incidents that occur in England during the provision of healthcare services and that have or may have implications for the safety of patients. Based on its findings, it will be for HSSIB to recommend improvements to systems and practices.
I want to come on to an important point about the role of investigations. The aim of the investigations will not be to apportion blame but to foster a strong learning culture and make sure that, ultimately, patients get the best care they rightly deserve, wherever they are patients. For that reason, we have specified that HSSIB’s investigative function is not for the purposes of assessing or determining blame, civil or criminal liability or action to be taken by a professional regulator in respect of an individual. That important point is reflected throughout the HSSIB provisions, including in respect of the requirements and admissibility of HSSIB reports. I will expand on those points when we reach those specific provisions. I hope that being clear on those points in legislation will foster a culture of openness and continuous improvement and learning, so that the whole of society benefits.
Justin Madders
As we have heard, the clause covers investigations of incidents with safety implications, confirming that qualifying incidents must take place in England during the provision of healthcare services, with the investigations identifying and addressing risks by
“facilitating the improvement of systems and practices”.
I do not know whether the Minister can neatly sum up what “facilitating” actually means in this context, but as we will cover in other clauses, there are certainly some concerns about how exactly improvements will be delivered—some have been touched on already.
Keith Conradi confirmed during his appearance before the Committee that currently, recommendations are monitored “informally” by NHS Improvement, and he suggested that a “pan-regulation-type body” might be needed to consider
“whether the outcome…mitigated the patient safety risk.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 61, Q79.]
That sounds like a suggestion that needs consideration, because it would ensure that recommendations made by HSSIB and the responses from NHS England, or whichever appropriate body is required to respond, are acted on and assessed.
If we are to improve patient safety, it seems unusual not to have any provision or mechanism to follow up on recommendations. Earlier, I referred to the recent investigation into the identification of outpatients, where, sadly, the recommendation was not acted on, largely because of the cost of complying with it. The Bill does nothing to clarify how funding will be made available to act on recommendations from HSSIB on improving patient safety. What mechanism will be in place for when recommendations are not followed, or for when they are followed but do not have the desired effect?
We must avoid the scenario in which HSSIB is essentially a toothless body whose well-intentioned recommendations are simply kicked into the long grass. In response to the Select Committee’s investigation into the safety of maternity services in England, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch stated that
“for various reasons, some trusts have struggled to recognise the information we are presenting to them or to prioritise the actions necessary to address the risks. We understand the many pressures on trusts and that maternity services are a product of systems not all within the full control of individual organisations; sometimes solutions do not appear easily achievable.”
In a nutshell, the Bill fails to set out how that very real problem will be addressed under HSSIB, which demonstrates why we have been arguing for further consideration of how monitoring and assessment of recommendations is to be delivered.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments, at the heart of which was the question of who is responsible for implementing HSSIB’s recommendations, and how we can ensure that the wish for learning and improvement, which is the fundamental reason why we are doing this, has the desired effect.
We are clear that taking on the recommendations and implementing the recommended changes will be the responsibility of the organisation to which they are addressed. The Bill sets out what should happen when a report from HSSIB makes recommendations for future action. The addressees of the report must generally provide a response to the recommendations within the timeframe specified by HSSIB. That is not dissimilar to the way we are required to respond to reports by Select Committees, although occasionally we probably need to be a little bit more timely with one or two of those. The principle is the same: the recommendations are there and the body to which they apply will respond to them.
That response should set out the action that the addressee will take in relation to the recommendations. HSSIB may publish the responses to its recommendations. It is it right that HSSIB, as the independent body, may make that decision, because there may be reasons why it determines not to in a particular case. Without wishing to influence HSSIB, I hope that there will be transparency, where possible, in the recommendations and in the responses to them. I think that will foster learning across the system, rather than simply in the organisation within the scope of the recommendations.
I believe that is the appropriate approach and that it will see improvements, not least because I think those public bodies wish to improve. I hope that the culture created around HSSIB will continue to foster a willingness to learn and improve. I hope that offers some reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95
Deciding which incidents to investigate
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 95, page 86, line 37, at end insert—
“(10) Following any direction under subsection (2) the HSSIB may—
(a) request additional funding in order to carry out the investigation; and
(b) at the discretion of the chief investigator, decline to carry out the investigation.
(11) Following any direction under subsection (2) the Secretary of State—
(a) must have no further involvement with how the investigation is pursued;
(b) may not give a direction which directs the outcome of an investigation; and
(c) must have no involvement in the formulation of the investigation’s recommendations.”.
This amendment would ensure that HSSIB would maintain its independence following any direction from the Secretary of State to carry out an investigation and can request additional funding in order to carry out the investigation.
I hope my voice holds out, although I hope I will not be speaking for quite as long on this amendment. It addresses a familiar theme. It seeks to preserve the independence of HSSIB’s decision making, with particular reference to clause 95 (2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct HSSIB to carry out investigations.
The Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill raised concerns about the role of the Secretary of State in making representations about investigating an incident. The Government agreed to remove the mention of the Secretary of State to make it clear that the role would not amount to a direction by a Minister. In that light, it is difficult to understand why the Government have now decided to install a power on the Secretary of State to direct investigations. It is questionable whether such a power is even needed, if HSSIB falls into line with the practice of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which can accept referrals from anyone. If the Secretary of State has concerns relating to patients, he should surely be able to put those matters to HSSIB anyway, as anyone who has safety concerns can. HSSIB can then reach a decision based on the criteria that it has set out on whether to investigate, which we will return to later.
If HSSIB becomes the investigatory body for the Secretary of State, depending on how often the power is used, that could downgrade other safety concerns and also erode public, patient and staff confidence that HSSIB is a truly independent body. The Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill commented:
“Our witnesses were united in stating that HSSIB will be neither trusted nor effective unless it is, and is seen to be, independent of both health service bodies…and the Department of Health and Social Care. Only this will provide confidence that HSSIB will neither cover up failures by clinicians and trusts nor conceal issues that might cause political embarrassment.”
By allowing the Secretary of State the power to direct the investigations, trust in HSSIB is brought into question. The amendment would make it clear that if the power is needed—the Minister can try to convince us that it is—HSSIB could request additional funding in order to carry out that investigation, and the chief investigator would have the power to decline to carry out the investigation. It would also ensure that if the investigation does proceed, the Secretary of State has no further role once it has started. If this power is needed, we think the amendment would create sufficient safeguards to ensure the independence of HSSIB, by ensuring that the chief investigator cannot have its own judgment and decisions superseded by the Secretary of State.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. [Interruption.] I will talk for a little while to allow him enough time to have a glass of water to try to preserve his voice and mine for another few hours at least. As he set out, the amendment seeks to ensure that HSSIB would be able to make its own decision on whether to pursue an investigation requested by the Secretary of State and ask for funding; it would also ensure that if an investigation went ahead, the Secretary of State would have no influence on the detail of that investigation.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as I said earlier, we remain fully committed to the independence of HSSIB, which is of course the reason why we want to establish it as a non-departmental public body with its own statutory powers. Under our approach, the Secretary of State would be able to direct HSSIB to carry out an investigation, but only if there has been an incident that has caused particular concern. The power to direct at subsection (2) is only in relation to carrying out an investigation; it is not about directing the outcome for an individual. That is an important distinction—we can ask them to do it, but it is not about directing the outcome. I believe that is right for the Secretary of State with responsibility for the health of the nation to have a power to direct the carrying-out of an investigation, so that he is able to respond to emergent or ongoing safety priorities or issues of concern, asking that they be considered.
The measure will ensure effective and proportionate accountability between the Department and its arm’s-length bodies, and between the Department and the House and the other place. However, while the Secretary of State may request an investigation, as I have said, he cannot direct the body on how to conduct any particular investigation and will have no role in it, as he does not have any such power. I hope that offers some reassurance to the shadow Minister. The measure therefore does not encroach on the independence of HSSIB’s findings, which are one of the key concerns that the amendments seek to draw out or shine a light on, so I hope I have provided some reassurance.
In addition, should HSSIB wish to discontinue an investigation, it may determine to do so, setting out the reason why it will not be investigating an incident. That would include any investigation, including one requested by the Secretary of State. HSSIB could discontinue an investigation, but would have to explain its thinking, which is not an unreasonable balance to seek to strike.
To turn to the question of funding, the amendment seeks to ensure that, in the case of a request by the Secretary of State to carry out an investigation, HSSIB may ask for additional funding. We have estimated, in our current analysis of workloads, HSSIB is likely to carry out up to 30 investigations a year, which allows sufficient flexibility to ensure that in the event that an investigation requested by the Secretary of State goes ahead, adequate resources remain.
On the process for the Secretary of State requesting an investigation, the limitations on the Secretary of State’s ability to be involved in the investigation, and the ability of HSSIB to determine whether it will pursue an investigation further, I hope that I have offered sufficient reassurance to the Committee. Therefore, I hope that the shadow Minister will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Dr Whitford
I want to raise with the Minister subsection (5), which calls on HSSIB to put out a statement on the issues that it is investigating with regards to an incident. However, that is right at the start of an investigation. Is he not concerned that, putting out a public statement of what the issue is at a point when no one has yet got to the bottom of that issue might be putting the cart before the horse? HSSIB might therefore twist the whole investigation into what its initial preconceptions are, instead of finding out the underlying cause.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. That is not the intention, to prejudge or predetermine. It is what is sought with the investigation. I take the point about the language, which is important. The measure in essence requires HSSIB to notify the public that it is looking into a particular circumstance or complaint. I think “issues” still works, but I take her point that we cannot prejudge, and nor should HSSIB, where its investigation is going, which rabbit hole it will take it down, what it might find, but that is a point of language. I hope that I have reassured her, but I accept that we always need to be careful about the language.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s investigation, but I am still not clear why an additional power needs to be set out in the Bill. My understanding is that anyone can make a referral anyway, so why this has to be set out in black and white is a mystery to me. Despite what the Minister has said, it is important to have the amendment in the Bill, because it will give patients and the public confidence that there will not be interference or challenges that undermine the notion of independence. We will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 122, in clause 95, page 86, line 37, at end insert—
‘(10) The Secretary of State must by regulations lay out a process to challenge a decision made by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to put in place a mechanism through which any decision by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident could be challenged.
We have had some discussion about the matters that may be chosen by HSSIB to be investigated, but it is probably more pertinent for the purposes of considering this amendment that we discuss what happens when HSSIB decides not to investigate. Amendment 122 would require a mechanism to be put in place so that any decision by HSSIB not to investigate a qualifying incident could be challenged. If the independence of the body and faith in its purpose are to be protected, it is essential that there is a mechanism whereby HSSIB decision making can be challenged. That is especially true when we consider the role of families in the investigation process.
My experience with HSSIB came when a patient safety concern was raised by a constituent, and after that concern was not investigated it brought home to me the distress and feeling of being let down by a refusal to investigate. Without a mechanism to challenge such a refusal, faith in HSSIB could be damaged by effectively creating a dead end to further inquiries.
I should point out that in the particular circumstances that I have just referred to HSSIB agreed to a meeting and it set out in more detail its reasons for not investigating, but that might not be possible in all situations. That meeting aided my constituent’s understanding of why their request was refused, but it did not actually mean that they agreed with HSSIB’s decision. Consequently, our view is that there needs to be some sort of process—we do not intend to set out today what it should be—set out in regulations to ensure that those who make a referral have the opportunity to articulate their concerns if that referral should not go on to be investigated. In conclusion, if the purpose of HSSIB is to improve patient safety, we should ensure that collaborative approaches are enshrined in legislation, and we believe that a mechanism along the lines of what we have set out in the amendment would go some way towards achieving that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting out the background to his amendment, with which he seeks to ensure that a process is set out in regulations to allow the challenging of a decision by HSSIB when it has decided not to investigate a qualifying incident. However, I have to say that I do not think that this measure would necessarily be proportionate. The Bill already sets out, in clause 95 (8) and (9), that where HSSIB makes a decision not to pursue an investigation, it may explain the reasons behind that decision and communicate those reasons to those people with an interest.
It may be that the Government or others want to understand more about how HSSIB reached a decision, but setting out within regulations a fixed process to challenge HSSIB’s decisions would again risk being disproportionate. If HSSIB discontinues an investigation that it has started, then it must publish a statement that reports that it has discontinued the investigation and give its reasons for doing so. I believe that gives a high level of transparency in that circumstance.
I do not believe that it would be proportionate to take the same approach when an investigation has not even been commenced. The key theme running through these discussions, which we have heard about in our consideration of previous clauses, is the independence of HSSIB, and its ability to determine these matters and make its decisions in an independent way. I fear that this amendment sits slightly uneasily with that principle.
As I said, we intend HSSIB to carry out an estimated 30 investigations a year, so there is not the intention, even at the outset, that HSSIB should investigate all qualifying incidents. It is for HSSIB to determine that, so I do not think it would be the best use of HSSIB and its expertise to go through a formal process to explain why it has determined not to investigate incidents. We want HSSIB’s resource to go into investigating the qualifying incidents that it has determined to investigate.
I suspect we will return to this theme again in the course of our discussions, but I believe it is important that, as the expert body, HSSIB is given the autonomy to make its own decisions about what to investigate. Any such decision would of course need to stand up to scrutiny, and of course, as part of our own arrangements, we will need to ensure consistency, while at the same time ensuring that HSSIB’s autonomy is respected as it should be. That is a difficult balance, but it is one we need to ensure we strike. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister to not press his amendment to a Division.
Justin Madders
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
During our debate on amendments 101 and 122, we discussed a number of the key themes that run through clause 95. This clause sets out that, as an independent body, HSSIB will be able to decide its own priorities and determine which qualifying incidents it investigates. We would expect this to be the result of referrals it receives, but also its own intelligence. The clause also gives the Secretary of State powers to direct HSSIB to carry out an investigation when, for example, there has been an incident that has caused a particular concern, and it allows the Secretary of State to request a report to be produced by a specified date.
I appreciate that, as we have heard today, some could argue that the clause could be perceived to encroach on the independence of HSSIB. I hope I set out in my earlier remarks why I do not take that view, and why I believe it is right that the Secretary of State, who has responsibility for the health of the nation, has such a power and is able to respond to emerging, ongoing safety priorities or issues of concern. I believe that this measure strikes the right balance, providing the Secretary of State with that flexibility while ensuring effective and proportionate accountability. HSSIB is not bound to follow the instruction, but it is bound to explain why it deems it unnecessary, or why it has determined it should not pursue a particular investigation request.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
As a point of clarification, I notice that clause 95(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to direct both an individual investigation and
“qualifying incidents that have occurred and are of a particular description”,
but I wonder whether HSSIB, off its own bat and as part of its independent investigation, is able—as we were when I chaired the national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel—to look at a number of incidents in which there is a theme that it would want to investigate. For example, we looked at a number of cases of co-sleeping with babies, which gave us an opportunity to look at that issue in the round, rather than individual cases. Is that something that HSSIB will also be able to do?
Edward Argar
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I put on record my gratitude—our gratitude—to him for his work, which he alluded to. He is right: one of the key things we would hope HSSIB would seek to do, where it was supported by the evidence, is to join the dots where there is a systemic issue—not just in an individual trust, for example, but an underlying issue for the Department or the NHS as a whole—and be able to reflect that in its decisions on what to work on and how to broaden the scope if it deemed that to be necessary.
Clause 95 provides that whenever HSSIB decides to undertake an investigation, it is required to make a public announcement, setting out briefly what it will be investigating and what it expects to consider during the investigation. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire: that announcement should give the public an indication of the fact that something is being looked at, but it should not limit which leads—for want of a better way of putting it—HSSIB decides are worthy of investigation and of following. HSSIB will also be able to get in contact in advance with anyone who it thinks may be affected by the investigation. This may, for example, include patients, families or any individual who has referred the incidents to HSSIB, a trust or other healthcare provider.
Finally, there may be occasions when HSSIB decides not to investigate an issue or to discontinue with an investigation. Clause 95 covers those scenarios. If HSSIB decides to discontinue the investigation of an issue, we have set out that it should make a public statement explaining the reasons for doing so. If HSSIB decides not to investigate a qualifying incident, it will be able to give notice of the decision to those who it considers might be affected by it and to explain the reasons to those who have an interest in it.
I hope colleagues on the Committee will agree that the provisions are necessary for HSSIB to be in control of the qualifying incidents and to investigate and to ensure transparency about what investigations are being carried out or discontinued by the agency. We expect that the Secretary of State’s power of direction will be exercised extremely sparingly but it can ensure that crucial patient safety issues can always be focused on where appropriate. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
These processes will be critical if HSSIB is to function properly. The Minister has had three or four attempts to explain why the Secretary the State needs the power to direct when he can make referrals anyway, but we are still to understand why that power needs to be there. If the Secretary of State asked HSSIB to undertake an investigation, it would jolly well get on and do it. That aside, we will not be voting against the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Criteria, Principles and Processes
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 96, page 87, line 22, after “State,” insert—
“(aa) trade unions,
(ab) patients,”
This returns to the issue of the criteria for investigations. If they were set out in the Bill, that would perhaps allow the power to direct to be mitigated in some way. We would then at least know whether the directions given by the Secretary of State were reasonable, judged against HSSIB’s own criteria. There is a void in the clause because it should set out unambiguously what criteria are applied when decisions are made. It is silent on that, and the response might be that that is deliberately so in order that HSSIB be truly independent. That might be a slightly stronger argument if the Secretary of State were not hand-picking most of the main positions in the body.
We have been asked to give HSSIB a blank cheque, but clause 96 says:
“The HSSIB must determine and publish—
(a) the criteria it will use in determining which incidents it investigates,
(b) the principles which are to govern investigations,
(c) the processes to be followed in carrying out investigations”.
We think it not inconsistent with the body’s independence for Parliament to have a role in setting out what those processes will be, particularly if they result from consultations with stakeholders, patient groups, trade unions and so on.
Although I appreciate that subsection (7) requires consultation with the Secretary of State and
“any other persons the HSSIB considers appropriate”
for there to be any revision to criteria, principles and processes, it does not set out a statutory requirement for wider involvement to take place. During consideration of the draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, the Royal College of Nursing recommended that consultation on criteria take place with healthcare professionals, patients and families to ensure that any investigation remained patient focused. Given the importance of the criteria in HSSIB’s function and the reach it will actually have, establishing the body without any such framework does not allow it to be scrutinised in the way that we would like.
To return to the point made by the RCN on investigations being patient focused, subsection (1)(d) does allow some limited focus to ensure that patients’ families are involved in investigations
“so far as reasonable and practical”
and that anything published is easily accessible and understood. That is welcome, and it enshrines the recommendations made by individuals, Healthwatch and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill. Matthew McClelland, the NMC’s director of fitness to practise, said it was critical to do that to
“put patient voices right at the centre of investigations”.
We wholeheartedly agree. That position is also supported by Healthwatch England, which commented that
“you can learn only if you really engage people properly in that process.”
However, we can see no set role for patient groups in establishing criteria, principles and processes. The Opposition think that side-lining such groups in the legislation sets the wrong precedent for their future involvement. Our amendment would change subsection (7) to create a safety net, ensuring that the patient voice and staff views are at the heart of any further consultations on changes considered by the branch.
Edward Argar
Clause 96 outlines that HSSIB must determine and publish certain criteria, principles and processes, including the criteria that it will use when deciding which qualifying incidents to investigate. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment would require HSSIB specifically to consult trade unions and patients when considering or reviewing criteria, principles and processes. I am not convinced that that is the most appropriate approach.
The clause, which I suspect we will turn to immediately after the debate, includes a number of references to “patients and their families”. HSSIB will need to set out how it will involve them in investigations as far as is reasonably practicable. It will also need to ensure that such processes are easily accessible and understood by families and patients.
I am sure that families and patients will be very much part of HSSIB’s considerations, as they are for the current Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. However, the decision about who is consulted is best left to HSSIB, which will be best placed to determine who is appropriate. Again, that goes to the point of independence and flexibility to follow the evidence and determine where it thinks is the most appropriate place to go.
Similarly, on trade unions, as I have said in the Committee, while on occasion I suspect I may not agree with them, I recognise the vital role that they play in our country’s democracy. Again, it is important that HSSIB can judge when or whether to consult with them, depending on the issue involved. An approach where some groups are specified in legislation as needing to be consulted but not others may give the impression that some organisations or groups carry greater weight. It is important that, as HSSIB looks at each qualifying incident, it can judge what is the most appropriate balance for consultation.
The amendment would also mean that specific groups would always need to be consulted when it may not be appropriate in each case, dependent on the circumstances under consideration. I therefore think it is right that it will be for HSSIB to make decisions as to who it considers appropriate to consult. I hope that, in the spirit of striking the right balance in preserving HSSIB’s independence, the hon. Gentleman might consider withdrawing his amendment.
Justin Madders
The Minister is right; it should be up to HSSIB to decide who it consults. That is why it is seems superfluous to have a requirement in the clause that it must consult the Secretary of State. However, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which HSSIB would not want to consult him or her. Indeed, I cannot imagine patient groups and trade unions not being part of the conversation in most circumstances. We think we will need to keep an eye on this as matters progress. However, we have made our point and will not press the amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 96 provides that HSSIB determines and publishes the criteria it will use when deciding which qualifying incidents to investigate, as well as the timescales by which investigations will be completed. The clause therefore ensures that HSSIB will be transparent in how it will work and will have the flexibility to determine the most appropriate investigation methods depending on the type of inquiry. The current body, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, has a wealth of experience and has been conducting investigations since 2017, so it already has a solid base to build on to inform the criteria, principles and processes for its future investigations.
Justin Madders
As the Minister said, this is an important clause as it will ensure some transparency in HSSIB’s operation. Like him, Opposition Members welcome the emphasis on patients and their families and on making sure that the body’s processes are accessible and easily understood by them, because that is at the heart of making sure that HSSIB is a success. It will not be successful unless people can see and understand exactly how things have changed. As we know from many tragic cases in the NHS, one of the most important things that families want is to know that things have changed, so that whatever terrible incident happened to them and their loved ones does not happen to someone else in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Final reports
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 124, in clause 97, page 88, line 15, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7) The final report must be sent to the Secretary of State.
(8) Within 12 months of each final report being sent to the Secretary of State under subsection (7), a report must be laid before Parliament setting out the steps the Secretary of State has taken as a result.”.
The amendment seeks to ensure that each investigation report produced by the HSSIB is sent to the Secretary of State, who must report to Parliament on what steps have been taken as a result.
The clause deals with the final reports of HSSIB, which essentially will be about the manner in which improvements to systems and practices can be facilitated by the body. While the provision requires a final report to be published, only in subsection (7) is there a requirement for the report to be sent to the Secretary of State, and only in those cases where a direction has been given by the Secretary of State to investigate. Given the role of HSSIB, and to ensure that its functions are met, the amendment would require all final reports to be sent to the Secretary of State, who must present them to Parliament within 12 months outlining what steps had been taken. That would offer a safeguard and ensure some oversight from Parliament in considering HSSIB’s effectiveness and the improvements being made on patient safety.
As the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill commented:
“There was widespread agreement among our witnesses that there would be more confidence in HSSIB’s independence were it to be accountable to Parliament rather than to the Secretary of State. When asked whether accountability to Parliament might not also be seen as political influence, Professor Toft responded that accountability through a cross-party committee was more likely to inspire confidence than to a single Minister, and that a committee was more likely to scrutinise and not to give directions.”
If there is to be faith in HSSIB, we must heed the Joint Committee’s warnings and ensure that the reporting mechanism is sufficient to ensure confidence in the body and to prevent reports from simply being filed away without scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will agree that confidence in HSSIB and its effectiveness to improve patient safety are integral and that he will support the amendment. There has been a little concern about placing requirements on the Secretary of State throughout proceedings on the Bill, so I hope that a requirement for him to present a report once every 12 months would not be too onerous but will be considered an appropriate and acceptable measure.
Edward Argar
Clause 97 deals with HSSIB’s final report following an investigation and sets out what a report should include, such as the overall findings, with analysis of what has happened. If the report concerns an investigation that the Secretary of State directed HSSIB to undertake, HSSIB will be required to send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State. I understand that the purpose of amendment 124 is to require the Secretary of State to consider the report and then report to Parliament within 12 months on what action has been taken as a result. Although I can certainly see that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure transparency, accountability and follow-up, I am not convinced that it is the right way to achieve that understandable and legitimate aim.
We expect HSSIB to conduct about 30 investigations a year, which means that the Secretary of State would need to report on 30 separate reports. I worry that that would be unnecessarily burdensome without delivering significant improvements in patient safety. The final HSSIB report will be published, and we expect that the recommendations will most likely be directed at and actioned by others. Organisations are required to respond to HSSIB’s recommendations, and HSSIB may publish those responses. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an additional report, particularly if there is no action for the Secretary of State to take following HSSIB’s recommendations.
Parliament will be able to use its normal routes to hold Ministers to account and ask what progress has been made following these reports, which of course will be published by HSSIB and open to public scrutiny. I do not consider it necessary for HSSIB to send the Secretary of State a copy of the report, as this will be available to everybody without that additional step. I will therefore encourage the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Justin Madders
The Minister makes some fair points, and we are aware that there are other channels to pursue these matters. However, it did seem a bit incongruous that the Secretary of State would have certain requirements on him if he directed a report but not otherwise. Again, we will see, as the body moves forward over the next few years, whether the scrutiny arrangements in place are indeed effective, so we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 97 deals with HSSIB’s final report following an investigation. It sets out that a report should include the overall findings, with analysis of what has happened. It is important that the emphasis of any such report is put on identifying risks to the safety of patients and addressing those risks by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of NHS services or other healthcare services in England. Therefore, HSSIB should include recommendations about how any risks should be addressed. If an investigation has been commissioned by the Secretary of State, HSSIB will be required to send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
As I have mentioned previously, we are clear that the purpose of any investigation is to address issues so that we improve patient safety. We want to ensure that the NHS gains as much as it can from all investigations, even if they may not always relate to the NHS. The clause therefore sets out that if the investigation relates to an incident that has not occurred during the provision of NHS services, HSSIB must consider whether the systems and practices in the provision of NHS services could be improved.
The clause also sets out that there should be no assessment of blame, civil or criminal liability, or whether regulatory action should be taken against an individual in the report. That is not the role of HSSIB investigations, and any such assessment would discourage individuals from speaking candidly to HSSIB and could result in lessons not being learned. HSSIB plays a complementary but very different role from the police and regulators. Finally, the clause allows HSSIB to release protected material as part of the report if certain criteria are met.
The purpose of this clause is to set out the expectations on reporting from HSSIB following an investigation. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Interim reports
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
These clauses continue on the same theme as clause 97 and focus on HSSIB’s reports. I turn first to clause 98, which essentially allows HSSIB to publish an interim report with findings, recommendations and conclusions before the final report. The aim of the interim report is to address urgent risks to the safety of patients or issues that are known early in an investigation, so that swift action can be taken and lessons can be learned across healthcare systems as findings emerge.
Clause 99 requires HSSIB to share a draft of an interim report or a final report with those who are likely to be adversely affected by it, and to seek their comments—that might be NHS staff or other participants. HSSIB may also share a draft report with any other person who they believe should be sent a copy, which might include patients and families. That is to ensure that the interim and final reports are robust and an accurate reflection of what has happened, adding to the rigour of the investigation. It also gives individuals an opportunity to respond to adverse findings in advance of publication of the report.
Clause 100 describes what needs to happen once an interim report or a final report is published by HSSIB. It requires the addressees of the report to provide a response to the recommendations within the timeframe specified by HSSIB, and HSSIB may publish the response. The clause will ensure that it is clear and transparent what actions will be taken to address the recommendations. The clause is drafted to ensure that it does not encroach on the devolved competence of Wales. For example, the duty to respond to recommendations would not apply to any body that is or could be established by the Welsh Parliament. HSSIB may still make recommendations to persons in Wales, and certain types of organisations would be required to respond—for example, a private sector organisation in the health sector. The clause will ensure that there is follow-up to the recommendations in the report from HSSIB.
Finally, clause 101 sets out that unless the High Court makes an order to the contrary, final and interim reports prepared by HSSIB following an investigation, including drafts of the reports, are not admissible in proceedings to determine civil or criminal liability, proceedings before any employment tribunal, proceedings before a regulatory body—including proceedings for the purpose of investigating an allegation—and proceedings to determine an appeal against a decision made in any of the above types of proceedings. That is a demonstration of our commitment, as mentioned before, that we want the investigations to provide useful learning and foster a continuous improvement mindset for the benefit of all patients, rather than apportion blame.
There may be circumstances whereby a person involved in the above proceedings applies to the High Court for the report to be admissible. In that case, it will be for the High Court to determine whether it is in the interests of justice for such information to be made admissible, using the test set out in the Bill: whether the interests of justice are served by admitting the report and outweigh any adverse impact on investigations by deterring people from giving information to inform an investigation and any adverse impact on securing the improvement of the safety of healthcare services provided to patients in England. I suspect this is a theme that we will explore when we debate subsequent clauses and amendments. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will wish to explore it further when we reach those clauses.
Clause 101 clarifies the circumstances under which a report can be used in legal proceedings. It is an important element of ensuring that safe space works in the way we intend, strikes an appropriate balance and encourages individuals to speak to HSSIB in a candid way. However, we rightly also provide the High Court order safeguard, so that the interests of justice can also be taken into account where appropriate. We believe that strikes an appropriate balance in this particular context, and that these clauses set out important provisions regarding HSSIB’s reports. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the provisions here, and the ability to produce interim reports under clause 98 is welcome. We can all envisage circumstances in which such action would be of benefit. I note that the requirement to circulate the report to all interested parties in draft form also applies to interim reports. On clause 99, which is about draft reports, I agree that it is right that HSSIB should be able to judge for itself to whom it is appropriate for the draft report to be made available. Under clause 99(4), however, is there a need for comments that are not accepted in the draft stage to be published alongside HSSIB’s response, explaining why those comments have not been accepted at the same time as the final report is published? I do not think that is something that needs to be prescribed in legislation, but it may be something that HSSIB considers doing in some form, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on the desirability or otherwise of such a move.
Dr Whitford
In clause 100 there is discussion about the response to the report, and that is crucial. If this ends up just being a job creation scheme within HSSIB, it will have failed utterly. Having spent more than three decades in the NHS and been involved in multiple designs, redesigns, stakeholder events and so on, a lot of things get filed in that little round filing cabinet in the corner. Therefore, the response to recommendations and their coming into effect is critical.
I was on the Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill under the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and we went through this in detail over months. In Scotland, our approach is the opposite. We start at the other end, which is trying to prevent. The Scottish patient safety programme has been working on that since 2007— reducing not just hospital deaths, cutting post-op mortality by 37% within two years of introduction, but expensive morbidity such as pressure sores or wound infections that have an impact on patients and on the NHS.
HSSIB is looking at the other end. Obviously, it does not apply in Scotland, but it is something that I really welcome, and that we will watch with interest. I will not go into disclosure now. That will come later, but not seeing action, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to, with recommendations that have already been made, simply demotivates people to engage in it all. It is critical that we see a response, and that there is a mechanism to see an answer.
The admissibility of the report is also critical if we want staff to be candid, particularly where they may be admitting an error or something that they regret, and there has been a systematic failure of its being prevented. It is often said that we can design safety nets so that an error that someone makes at 2 o’clock in the morning because they are tired can be prevented. We therefore need people to be willing to admit that, and we need those reports not to result in action against them. As we will see when we come on to disclosure, that does not pertain if illegal action has been taken, but I think the two clauses are critical. I do not see in clause 100, or anywhere, what will happen after the reports come out, and how we ensure that it results in an increase in patient safety.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. As I set out in response to earlier amendments and preceding clauses, I believe that we have struck the right balance on the obligation to respond and act, but I acknowledge, as I frequently do in these Committees, her expertise, particularly in this area, having sat on the Committee that previously considered the matter. I think that we have struck the right balance, but I am always happy to reflect further.
I can give the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, within bounds, the reassurance, or agreement with what he is saying, that he seeks, with a caveat: I would hope that transparency and publication should be at the fore, but in doing that, and determining the other points that he raised, as he acknowledged that is for HSSIB to reflect on and consider within the context of its independence. I would hope, and expect, that it would consider extremely carefully exactly such points as those that he made, because they sounded like sensible points, as is often the case with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Powers of entry, inspection and seizure
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 102, page 90, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 103 to 105 stand part.
Justin Madders
Clause 102 deals with power of entry, which amendment 125 seeks to qualify somewhat. There is no doubt that these powers are necessary. The evidence that Keith Conradi gave to the Committee was that HSIB would have liked to have had the powers already, so it welcomes their inclusion in the Bill. One would hope that the need for compulsion and the use of force, as set out in the clause, will be rarely needed, but time will tell. Of course, we would expect such powers to be exercised proportionately and reasonably in any event.
Our amendment would delete clause 102(6), which once again appears to place significant powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, effectively enabling them to block any investigations or inspections that HSSIB might want to undertake under the clause on the grounds of national security. Of course, we are not suggesting for a minute that national security issues are not a legitimate issue for the Secretary of State to be concerned about, but I really am struggling to think of a situation where investigations in the NHS on issues of patient safety could also properly be considered matters of national security. If the Minister can provide me with a list of patient safety incidents in recent times in which investigations have not been concluded because national security implications have intervened, we will reconsider our objections to subsection (6). On the face of it, however, it just looks like another unnecessary power grab by the Secretary of State that again risks compromising the independence of HSSIB.
It is also a concern that there appears to be only one person who can decide whether something is a matter of national security. That person is the Secretary of State. He and he alone decides what is a national security issue and members of the Committee will see how that means that we have to place a lot of trust in someone who should not really get involved in these investigations. Why is it this Secretary of State and not the Home Secretary or the Defence Secretary who might be better placed to judge matters of national security? Why have this power at all? We are asking what the real or imaginary problem is that this power is attempting to solve.
Clauses 103 to 105 provide a power to compel individuals to co-operate. We hope that, as time moves on, we see the need for that power to be used less and less. I hope that we all want to see over time a shift away from the defensive culture that sometimes pervades the NHS. The adage that one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men applies here. Some of the softer issues that may arise around the organisation may come out more easily in the context of someone being able to talk candidly and voluntarily about their experiences. I accept that not everyone will feel comfortable doing that, which is why the powers may be necessary, but the key is not the power to compel people to give evidence but the power to instil confidence that there is a safe space for discussions on patient safety.
Dr Whitford
Does the shadow Minister agree that this relates to the whole issue, which we will come on to shortly, of protecting the safe space and the protective materials that go along with that? Some of the discussions may involve someone revealing their own errors or weaknesses or talking about interpersonal relationships. They are very sensitive issues that we cannot compel someone to talk about. We can make someone turn up, but we simply cannot compel them to discuss things that make them feel more vulnerable.
Justin Madders
The Scottish National party spokesperson sets out very well why we do not want the power to have to be used any more than is necessary. The quality of the investigations would not be as good as we would want and lessons may not be learned that could otherwise have been learned.
I have a few questions for the Minister on some of the specifics in the clause. Under clause 103(1)(a), the requirement is that a person must attend
“at a specified time and place”.
I would expect such a request to be given with reasonable notice and to take place at a reasonable time. It does not state that in the Bill, but one would hope that that is a given. Anything that the Minister can say on that would be helpful. It also raises the question about whether such a request could be blocked by an employer requiring a person to be in work at the same time. Clearly in those circumstances, the employer may have an interest in the investigation as well. Will the Minister say something about guidance being issued on the importance of ensuring that individuals who receive such requests are in fact supported by their employers to comply with them?
If someone attends an interview, do they do so alone or do they have the right to be accompanied by a work colleague, a trade union rep or even a lawyer? They may not want any of those people there but, given that one of the grounds for refusing to comply with a request under subsection (3)(c) is that documents are protected by legal professional privilege, I suggest there might be a role for the legal profession. I am not trying to generate more work for my former colleagues when I say that.
Is there a reason to challenge such a request? If we are in the realms of compulsion, the person will probably be not the most useful person from which to obtain information. They may have health issues or other legitimate grounds for declining the request, so what do they do in such circumstances? If the Minister could provide any insight on that, it would be useful.
Finally, I want to ask questions about the criminal offences set out in clause 105. It is probably right that there should be a sanction on those who obstruct and those who refuse to comply or, indeed, provide false or misleading information. Subsection (5) says there will be a fine, but what level of fine does the Minister envisage it will be? Does he have a view on whether an act that leads to a fine might also constitute professional misconduct if the individual were a member of a royal college, for example? A referral to the regulator might have a more powerful effect than a fine. Those are a few matters for the Minister to consider and I hope that he will address them in his response.
Edward Argar
Clauses 102 to 105 all relate to HSSIB’s powers when conducting investigations. Clause 102 sets out HSSIB’s powers of entry, inspection and seizure. They are important powers for any investigatory body. It is expected, however, that in most cases staff and organisations will co-operate willingly with the HSSIB investigators, and that includes giving consent to the investigators to enter premises and providing them with the relevant documents. Where consent is not given, clause 102(1)(a) gives HSSIB the powers to enter and inspect premises in England. They are similar powers to those held by other investigatory bodies in safety-critical industries, such as the air accidents investigation branch. To use a phrase that I have used far too many times in these debates with the hon. Member for Nottingham North, they could almost be described as a backstop for the body when that is deemed necessary. If the investigator considers it necessary for the purpose of furthering the investigation, it may enter and inspect premises in England, inspect and take copies of the documents at the premises, inspect equipment or other items at the premises, and seize and remove documents, equipment or items unless doing so would put patient safety at risk. The current investigation branch has no power of entry or ability to seize or require information from individuals or other bodies. It has, in some situations, therefore been hampered in its ability to investigate incidents, so we want to ensure that the new body has such powers that it will be able to use in a proportionate manner were it to need them.
The clause also sets out that the power of entry does not apply to premises that are used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling. An investigator can therefore enter a private dwelling only with consent. This could apply, for example, where domiciliary care is provided to a patient and would mean that an investigator would need to obtain consent from the resident before entering their home. It is an important and proportionate limitation of the power. The Government are committed to ensuring that private and family life is respected, including in relation to the exercise of the powers of entry, by ensuring that premises consisting wholly or mainly of private dwellings are protected from unnecessary intrusion. The power of entry contained in the Bill aligns with that important principle.
The Secretary of State can also restrict the powers if he or she believes that it is appropriate and, as the shadow Minister alluded to, in the interests of national security. On this point, I will deal briefly with amendment 125. As discussed, the powers in clause 102 allow HSSIB to enter premises in which there is a Crown interest. This is to ensure that the new body can inspect premises where NHS services may be provided on Crown land, such as in a prison or on land owned by the Ministry of Defence. To ensure that this power of entry does not interfere with the safe running of such premises, HSSIB must give reasonable notice to the occupier of the premises of its intention to enter and inspect the premises. As discussed, that ensures that the national security elements of any provision at those premises—whether a Ministry of Defence facility or base—are not compromised. This provision allows the Secretary of State to issue a certificate that may limit HSSIB’s powers of entry, inspection and seizure. Such a certificate may also cover premises in which there is not a Crown interest.
We do not envisage that such certificate would often be issued. Indeed, they would be issued very rarely, but they may be necessary to restrict entry in certain circumstances and we think it might be appropriate in the context of a high-security prison or laboratory. Here restrictions could be placed on HSSIB, such as preventing it from taking copies of sensitive or restricted documents if their reproduction or removal could pose a national security risk. We believe we have struck an appropriate balance and that it is right to do this, so it can be debated by parliamentarians during the passage of the Bill. It is not a new approach. Section 96(5) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 introduced similar provisions in relation to the Care Quality Commission’s powers of entry and inspection. If the amendment were accepted, it could cause significant operational difficulties and risks to HSSIB staff and potentially, in very narrow circumstances, to national security more widely. We do not envisage the power being used frequently, but it is important that the there is no concomitant risk to national security from the powers being used. It is important that we keep the provision in the Bill as drafted.
What clause 102 sets out by way of powers of entry, inspection and seizure can only benefit HSSIB as the current investigation branch is hampered by the lack of such powers. These powers will greatly improve the way investigations are conducted, but we also consider them to be proportionate and justified, given the aim of improving patient safety. Importantly, HSSIB investigators will operate in accordance with the Home Office code of practice on powers of entry under section 48 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
As I have said, while we expect most organisations and staff in most cases to co-operative voluntarily with HSSIB, it is important that in the course of its investigations, it collects all the information that it needs. Clause 103 sets out its powers to require such information. Specifically, it gives powers to HSSIB to require a person to attend an interview and to provide, by a specified deadline, documents, equipment or other information needed to help with the investigation. HSSIB must also give an explanation of the consequences of failure to comply with the notice. For example, it could be a criminal offence as set out in clause 105. On receipt of the information, HSSIB may retain information and if the safety of the patient is at risk, it can share this information. The clause specifies, however, that the person is not required to provide anything on the risk to the safety of the patient if that would incriminate them or if the information is normally covered by legal professional privilege.
Clause 104 is a short clause that allows a person to disclose information, documents, equipment or other items to HSSIB without being asked if they reasonably believe disclosure is necessary to enable HSSIB to carry out its investigation function. This could, for example, enable a member of hospital staff to provide information to the new body when they had concerns about a patient safety incident. It is exactly the kind of co-operative behaviour that we would want to encourage so that improvements can be made promptly. As such, it is important that the clause is included in the Bill.
Finally, clause 105 sets out offences relating to investigations. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised a couple of specific points and I will deal with them before I conclude. First, my understanding is that the fines are potentially unlimited in scale. He asked about the process in carrying out investigations and whether the person could be accompanied by a legal or trade union representative or someone of that ilk. The Bill does not preclude an individual from being accompanied at an interview. Although it is important to note that HSSIB will set out in more detail what its processes will be to ensure that they are transparent, the aim of the interviews will be to encourage free and open discussion. Therefore, I would be cautious about individuals feeling that they always have a need to be accompanied by a legal or trade union representative. The Bill does not specifically prohibit that, but I hope that HSSIB will develop its processes and will be transparent about how they will work.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about reasonableness, I very much hope that were the powers to be needed, we would see all that all avenues of co-operation had been exhausted and that they were, to coin a phrase, the backstop. I hope that meetings, conversations and interviews would be by consent and co-operation at a mutually agreed time that reflects the individual’s circumstances.
Clause 105 sets out that it would be an offence intentionally to obstruct an investigator when exercising their powers of entry, inspection and seizure or for someone to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with a notice to provide information. It would also be an offence to provide false or misleading information to an investigator. While we very much hope that the powers and the associated offences will never need to be used—as I have said, we expect voluntary co-operation to occur in most cases—it is important that the Bill includes such powers and sanctions. That will ensure that HSSIB can fully carry out its important investigation functions with the full co-operation from the necessary parties at all times. The clauses are all important to ensure that HSSIB can effectively conduct its investigations. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s comments and his expectation that the powers will rarely be used—we will hold him to that—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Chair
I understand that the Government wish to move a motion to amend the programme order, which was agreed by the Committee on 7 September, to cancel this afternoon’s meeting.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Order of the Committee of Tuesday 7 September be amended, in paragraph 1(h), by leaving out “and 2.00 pm”.
As Committee Members know, the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood, is today attending the funeral of our dear friend James Brokenshire. My hon. Friend is grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers for their support and willingness to be flexible in that regard. In the light of this, we will not seek to make any further progress on the Bill today.
The Chair
Because this motion has not been agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, it may be proceeded with only if everyone is content.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 26th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
On a point of order, Mrs Murray. I put on record through you my gratitude to the Committee, and particularly to the usual channels and the shadow Ministers, for facilitating the adjournment of the Committee last Thursday in order to allow me to attend the funeral of my friend James Brokenshire.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. I am sure the Committee has taken note of your point of order.
Clause 106
Prohibition on disclosure of HSSIB material
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 106, page 92, line 26, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) In this Part ‘protected material’ means—
(a) all statements taken from persons by the HSSIB during a safety investigation or in the course of deciding whether an incident is going to be subject to an HSSIB investigation,
(b) records revealing the identity of persons who have given evidence in the context of the safety investigation,
(c) information that has been collected by the HSSIB which is of a particularly sensitive and personal nature, such as (but not limited to) copies taken by the HSSIB of health records, care records, clinical notes, or personnel records,
(d) material subsequently produced during the course of an HSSIB investigation such as (but not limited to) notes, drafts and opinions written by the investigators, or opinions expressed in the analysis of information obtained through the investigation,
(e) drafts of preliminary or final reports or interim reports, information that would be subject to legally enforceable commercial privileges.”
This amendment would define more closely the materials covered by the “safe space” protection provided for by the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 87, in clause 106, page 93, line 6, leave out
“information, document, equipment or other item held by that individual”
and insert “protected material”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 86.
Clause 106 stand part.
Amendment 91, in schedule 14, page 212, line 14, leave out paragraph 6.
This amendment would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.
Amendment 136, in schedule 14, page 213, line 3, at end insert—
“Disclosure to families
6A The Chief Investigator may disclose findings to any patient involved in any incident which HSSIB is investigating, or the family of any such patient, on the condition of confidentiality and any other condition the Chief Investigator sees fit.”
This amendment would give the Chief Investigator the discretion to disclose information about an investigation to a patient/family involved if they deem this appropriate, on the condition that the information remains confidential.
That Schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 88, in clause 107, page 93, line 17, leave out from “Part” to the end of line 41.
This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising disclosure of protected material beyond that provided for in the Bill.
Clause 107 stand part.
Amendment 89, in clause 108, page 94, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 88.
Clause 108 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 109, page 95, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 91.
Clause 109 stand part.
Clause 117 stand part.
Dr Whitford
We are now discussing the health services safety investigation body, and I rise to speak to amendments 86, 91 and 88, which are the main substantial amendments, with amendments 87, 89 and 90 being consequential on those three. HSSIB will not apply in Scotland, but having been a surgeon for over three decades and having been involved in quality improvement and the Scottish patient safety programme, I will be watching it with interest. We want it to succeed, and I am sure the other nations in the UK will want to learn from it, so it is important that it is not simply drowned at birth and that we get it right at this stage.
HSSIB is based on the principles of the air accidents investigation branch, and we on the prelegislative Committee felt that the most central and important part was the safe space protected materials. The main priority is learning from incidents, mistakes and errors and looking at how to prevent them from happening in future; it is not about blaming individuals. That is because most incidents in the NHS are system-related, rather than individual-related. Errors and mistakes will happen, particularly when NHS staff face workforce shortages and are covering more patients than normal. The pandemic might mean that they are working outside their comfort zone. They also work long hours, and sometimes the system will cause a mistake. We should be designing a system that prevents a simple mistake or error from delivering harm to a patient. That is the critical aim, and that has been the focus of the Scottish patient safety programme, which was introduced in operating theatres in 2007, when I was still working as a surgeon.
That programme made the World Health Organisation checklist compulsory. It involved a discussion at the beginning of operation lists and time out with the whole theatre team before the operation started, so that patient safety and the responsibility to prevent wrong site surgery, which the shadow Minister raised previously, is made everyone’s responsibility. The whole team stops and is quiet, and everyone goes through that final check before the operation starts. A former Health Minister from this place visited Scotland but never made that checklist compulsory in England. I do not understand why not.
This issue is not in need of investigation by HSSIB, but it does demonstrate that it is necessary for someone learning from an incident to recognise and admit candidly that they have made a mistake. Such mistakes could include putting the wrong mark on a patient, putting the wrong side on the consent form, or putting the X-ray up the wrong way around. Whatever led to the error, we need people to be willing to completely admit to their mistakes, and to then create systems to prevent that mistake from resulting in harm to the patient. That is why the safe space is so critical—otherwise NHS staff, clinicians, and anyone else involved will not be candid—and it is why the prelegislative Committee felt it was important to be absolutely focused on protecting it. The aim is to design safety nets to protect the patient.
Amendment 86 seeks to change the orientation of the Bill. The Bill defines protected materials very widely and creates exceptions. It implies that other organisations cannot get on with their investigations because HSSIB is getting in the way. The amendment seeks to define protected safe space materials very narrowly. HSSIB would only hold copies of records. That means that the originals—the safe space testimony of witnesses or others —would still be held by the NHS. Patients and families could still give permission for their testimony to be disclosed, thereby avoiding the need to repeat it to another agency, but evidence could not be forcibly disclosed. Other bodies could not use HSSIB as a substitute and say, “Oh well, if you’ve investigated it, we won’t bother. We’ll simply copy what you’ve found.”
Amendment 88 to clause 107 would remove the potential for the Secretary of State to simply expand the disclosure exceptions later on. There is a big list in clause 107 of what could be changed. Schedule 14 lists the authorised reasons and persons who would access disclosure. Amendment 91 seeks to remove coroners from that list. If coroners are given access to testimony, other people do not understand why they should not be given access, too. We have probably all been lobbied about that by the ombudsman and the freedom of information bodies. If that happens—if more people access the safe space raw testimony—it will no longer be a safe space and the system will simply not match the achievements of the air accident investigation branch in getting such frank and candid evidence. People can be summoned and made to respond to factual questions, but will they discuss poor interpersonal relationships in a team, people not working together and all the things that could contribute to a bad atmosphere or system?
In the prelegislative Committee we felt that there were two key reasons for disclosure to go ahead regardless. The first obvious one is if there is an ongoing significant risk to patient or public safety, and the other is if there is a criminal prosecution because of someone’s actions or because they have breached the disclosure rules. The Bill states that access can be granted to safe space materials via the High Court. That is how it is for air accident investigations. It is felt that the High Court will weigh up the importance of admitting the disclosed materials versus the chilling effect that could have on future investigations and people giving evidence to them. It is important to keep the High Court provision in place and to trust it as the main route for other bodies or individuals seeking access to safe space testimony or records.
It is important to recognise that aviation is among the safest industries because of the safe space provided when investigating air accidents. It is not always a matter of investigating catastrophes; it is also about investigating near misses and working out why an accident did not happen. Was it by the grace of God, or did something kick in, and should processes and procedures be changed?
The amendments would strengthen the safe space, help ensure the willingness of NHS staff to come forward to give honest testimony, and protect that testimony so that it could be used to reduce any future harm to patients.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I will speak to amendment 136, as well as the other clauses and amendments in the group. I will not repeat the points made by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, in her excellent introduction, but I will draw the Committee’s attention to a few salient points.
First, amendments 86 and 87 seek to create a new definition of protected material. We support the amendments because, as the SNP spokesperson said, it is important to turn this around and try to create as much certainty as possible by defining protected materials as far as possible. I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the amendments are unnecessary, but we certainly feel that it is better to over-prescribe now than to undercook the Bill and find out in two or three years’ time that some loophole ends up having the chilling effect that we have discussed several times.
I am aware of the counter-argument that there should be no restrictions or protected material if an individual is not capable of being identified, but that is a rather risky strategy. It would not remove the risk of people being able to identify someone simply by working out who was doing what at a particular time and what evidence they gave. It also does not help to build the confidence necessary to deliver the safe space that the Bill is trying to achieve. Certainty and clarity are needed wherever possible, and defining materials that are to be considered a safe space and protected will assist in that aim.
Turning to clauses 106 to 108 on disclosure, it is appropriate to make clear in clause 106 that the disclosure of protected material is prohibited, but we think that clear statement is rather undermined by the ability of the Secretary of State in clause 107 to make regulations to change that. As I have said, the parameters of safe space should be clear, consistent and constant. That is why amendment 86 in particular ought to be supported. The Secretary of State is once again giving himself more powers—a theme we have picked up throughout the Bill—and that is of concern.
Let us not forget that this Bill has been floating around in various guises for about five years, so we do not think it is acceptable or, indeed, necessary for the Secretary of State to reserve for himself greater ability to move the goalposts at some later date. If we do not know now what protected material and safe space are, we are never going to know. Amendment 88 commends itself on those grounds alone. Any ability for the Secretary of State to change the boundaries risks undermining trust and confidence. If those taking part in investigations do not have trust in the safe space provided, it is likely that they will not feel confident enough to be as candid as we would like them to be. If the Minister feels that exceptions are needed, they should be on the face of the Bill; they should not be slipped in by regulations at a later date.
The independent advisory panel of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has also offered a view and stated that staff would not speak up if there was a risk of exposure of identity, and any issues regarding the limits of disclosure are best dealt with by the High Court, not by the Secretary of State in further regulatory procedures.
A related concern on disclosure is that an HSSIB employer who reveals information showing that the organisation itself is failing to properly discharge its responsibilities would commit an offence if he or she knew or suspected that what they were disclosing was protected information. Given the work that they are likely to undertake, I think we can all see that that is likely to be the case. It would not be needed to show that the disclosure had caused, or was likely to cause, harm, and there would be no reasonable excuse defence and no protection under whistleblower legislation. Yet under clause 108(4) a reasonable excuse defence is available to third parties that disclose information to them provided by HSSIB. Will the Minister explain that discrepancy and what protections might be available to whistleblowers who work for HSSIB?
Turning to amendment 91, it is right that considerable concern has been raised about the proposal to allow coroners to access protected material, because it could mean individual coroners routinely requesting material from HSSIB investigations. I hope it is clear to members of the Committee the ramifications that could have on healthcare professionals’ willingness to be fully engaged and open with HSSIB investigations.
Another consideration—and another reason why we think this is a bad idea—is that there is variation in coronial practice around the country. There is a risk that one coroner or region could be more proactive than others, and could undermine confidence in the system as a whole. It is right that coroners have their own discretion and powers, but the chilling effect would be obvious should only one coroner make a stand on a particular issue.
There is also the question of cost. If HSSIB needs to challenge these decisions, which I am sure it will want to from time to time, it will have to spend considerable amounts on legal fees to do so. Surely its resources would be better spent on delivering its core objectives, rather than on trotting off to the High Court every five minutes to deal with inquisitive coroners.
The Joint Committee on the Draft Health Service Safety Investigations Bill concluded:
“We recommend that the draft Bill be amended to put beyond any possible doubt that the ‘safe space’ cannot be compromised save in the most exceptional circumstances, and therefore that the prohibition on disclosure applies equally to disclosure to coroners.”
That is why we believe that amendment 91 should be supported.
I also refer to the evidence submitted by the independent advisory panel of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which said of the proposal that there is in fact no parallel in the transport sector—from which the idea for this body was originally conceived—and nor is there any evidence from its experience of the transport sector that such an approach would be necessary. Obviously, we are dealing with different orders of investigations. Certainly, the number of people who would die in an air accident is very different from an incident in the NHS, and we would also expect there to be a significant number of patient safety issues that do not apply to the air sector. However, HSSIB has been going for a considerable time and it has not had any circumstances or incidents where it thinks this power would have made any difference.
HSSIB’s approach to protective disclosures does not limit the powers of coroners to conduct investigations in their own way—there is nothing in there that takes away from their current situation. The independent advisory panel also said that areas of prohibited disclosure should be highly specific and as limited as possible, and expressed the view that disputes regarding the prohibition of disclosure should be determined through an independent judicial process in the High Court, which is already provided for in the Bill.
Finally, I will say a few words on our amendment 136, which is a probing amendment. We want to raise the concern articulated to us that, although it is important that any evidence gathered by HSSIB remains protected, for the reasons we have been discussing, there may be occasions when it would be appropriate for some information to be shared with a patient, or the family of a patient, who has been involved in any qualifying incident. I certainly would not envisage such a power being used routinely. Indeed, the amendment places the discretion entirely in the hands of the chief investigator, who may decide not to use that power at all. However, there may be occasions when certain information, handled correctly—and at the very least on condition of confidentiality, and quite possibly with the consent of the individual or organisation that has provided the evidence—could be passed on to those with a direct interest in the matter, whose knowledge and understanding of what had gone wrong would be improved by the disclosure of the information.
That would still not be considered to be admissible evidence for any proceedings. Given the chief investigator’s desire to keep the concept of safe spaces as secure as possible—which should always be the primary consideration—we can see why that might be put at risk, but I want to flag up this as an issue. Patient groups have long-running concerns that the defensive culture that so often pervades the NHS when something goes wrong does little to aid the ability of patients and their families to get to the bottom of what went wrong. There are always concerns about medical negligence or professional competence proceedings, but rarely do families go into these situations looking for compensation. They are far more likely to want an explanation and an assurance that measures are being put in place so that nobody else will have to go through what they have. In any event, the proposed powers are not too dissimilar to those set out in paragraph 2 of schedule 14.
Dr Whitford
I want to echo that. I have been involved as an external for significant adverse event reviews, and it has always been my experience that what the family wants to find is that it will not happen again. I therefore feel that we have to trust HSSIB that the duty of candour will mean that there is discussion with the family as we go. That should be the culture across the NHS. The problem is that the more threatened clinicians feel by litigation, the more defensive they become. If the whole orientation can be changed to be about learning and preventing rather than blaming, we will probably get better relationships with families and better, open duty of candour discussions.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, which articulates well what we are trying to highlight. It is a question of culture, which legislation can go only so far in addressing. As a Parliament, we need to address what more we can do to engender greater openness in the NHS. When things go wrong, there are better ways of handling that than what happens at the moment. When we have an £8 billion a year clinical negligence bill, it is incumbent on us all to look at ways that we can reduce that as well as assisting patients and their families to gain a better understanding of what has gone wrong.
Edward Argar
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire not just for her amendments but for the opportunity to debate the issue, which goes to the heart of the challenges we face. I think there is broad consensus on clauses up to clause 119, perhaps with a challenge or a tweak here and there, but the provisions that we are considering are the one bit, as I know from the hon. Lady’s work on pre-legislative scrutiny and when the Bill was previously considered, that remains challenging. It is a matter of striking the appropriate balance to ensure the proper functioning of judicial authorities at the same time as achieving the overall objective of what we are trying to do with HSSIB: foster that learning culture, understand what goes wrong and avoid a repetition of it. It ultimately comes down to a subjective view of where that balance is most appropriately struck.
Clauses 106, 107, 108, 109 and 117, and schedule 14, address how HSSIB will protect the material it holds and outline the concept of safe space. Before getting into the detail of the clauses, I want to acknowledge that there has of course been extremely good and well-informed debate outside the Committee about how broad or narrow safe space should be; whether it should be as defined in the Bill with exceptions, or, to use the suggestion of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, flipped around to be the converse of that; and the merits of HSSIB sharing or not sharing information with other organisations. I feel it is important to set out how we came to the balance we propose.
The hon. Lady mentioned a previous Minister who visited Scotland. I am very conscious that I have a kind, outstanding invitation to visit from her and I look forward to taking that up at some point soon, I hope. I also spoke to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, who endorsed that invitation. I therefore look forward to being able to come not only to Edinburgh, but possibly to Ayrshire, and finding a way to shoehorn that into the visit.
Key to our vision for a new model for investigations is that they are conducted in a safe space so that patients, families, NHS staff and other participants in an investigation are encouraged to speak freely and candidly and have the confidence that the information they provide will be protected, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
The objective is to encourage that open flow of information and get to the bottom of what may have happened with the best possible information available. Without guarantees that that information will not be shared—again, save in very limited circumstances, which I will come on to—we risk, as the hon. Lady said, eroding the confidence of all those who candidly trust HSSIB with that information.
We propose that information, documents, equipment or other items held by the new body in connection with an investigation will be considered protected material and must not be shared, apart from in certain limited circumstances, such as when necessary to address a serious and continuing risk to the safety of a patient or to the public, and then only to the extent necessary to allow a person to address the risk.
It is also important that people have certainty that the information they provide will not be used for the purposes of blame or liability. The current investigation branch does a good job under the current legislative framework but can only operate a weakened form of safe space. In addition, it has no powers to impose sanctions. We need to address that and put the HSSIB on a par with similar investigation bodies in the transport sector, as colleagues have said. Non-compliance with safe space protections may result in criminal sanctions.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I have listened to the reasoning behind the amendments, and I feel that they are based on an acknowledgement that people in the health service have perhaps so far not found themselves willing to come forward and speak up when they see something wrong. The scope is much wider with this proposed body because evidence can be taken not just from people who work in the health service, but more widely. It is hugely important that we get to that place, because when we look at evidence taken on civil aviation and what happens in the civil aircraft space, we see that people always behave with the best interests of their sector, their workplace and the public at heart. People want to do the same with this Bill, so I am grateful that HSSIB has been set up. Can more consideration be given to how we ensure that people can speak up without feeling that they will blame another person or that they could be singled out for speaking out? That is exactly what we hope to address with the safe space.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I should say that, even now, I am sure that many people in the health sector co-operate voluntarily, even when it is potentially challenging for them to do so. They do so because they want to foster that culture. This proposal will take that a step further forward and make it even easier for people to do so with confidence and to overcome any reticence that might exist because of, as she said, the fear of blame, the fear of opening up about something and the need to protect their sector and organisation, as they see it. She is absolutely right, and the key is to try to create a learning, rather than a blaming, culture. That is why the balance we strike in the definition of the safe space and exceptions to it is so important. We may or may not reach a consensus on where the balance should be struck, but this debate goes to the heart of the efficacy of the new body and how it will operate.
The Bill therefore sets out, on a statutory footing, a much stronger and more robust form of safe space. Clause 106 is the cornerstone of that. It is key to ensuring that all participants are completely candid with the information that they share, and it enables more thorough investigations and the development of meaningful recommendations. Investigations where protected material is held in the safe space should improve openness and co-operation between all participants and identify risks to the safety of patients, so that patients, families and the wider public can benefit from the experience of better investigations, and improvements can be made to the systems and practices in the provision of healthcare in England.
We believe that we have reached the right, balanced position after a lot of careful thought. In dealing with this legislation, my predecessors and I, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who is now Culture Secretary, wrestled a lot with the question of how to strike the right balance. I therefore turn to amendments 86 and 87. I am pleased that there is, I think, a consensus among all Members across the Committee that we need to protect materials, and about the value attached to protecting materials in the safe space, which is a key part of our approach to improving patient safety by allowing individuals to feel able to speak candidly.
Amendment 86 seeks to list in detail the types of material that will fall under the definition of protected material, while amendment 87, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire set out, is consequential on that. The definition given in clause 106(2) is intentionally broad. HSSIB will carry out a range of investigations, and it would be impossible to identify prospectively, in advance, all the material that will need to be gathered and should be protected by the safe space. By having a broad definition, we can give greater confidence to those who speak to HSSIB that all the material that it collects will be appropriately protected. There are very specific exceptions, which I will come on to.
As a future-proofing mechanism, the materials that are protected have not been listen in detail in the Bill. New technologies and ways of recording data are developing at a rapid pace. It is vital that HSSIB is able to adapt as these developments reach the frontline, rather than having to rely on returning to this House for further amendments to primary legislation. Listing the types of material in detail would have a number of practical implications. If we had a specified list, we could inadvertently leave out material that should be protected, when the vast majority of material the HSSIB will gather would be protected under the current definition. The Government endeavour to get everything right, but, as we all know, often do not.
Justin Madders
Does the Minister think that there is anything missing from the amendment that ought to be included?
Edward Argar
I will take the intervention from the hon. Lady, and I will address both together.
Dr Whitford
I want to point out that it is irrelevant whether records, statements or information, all of which are listed in amendment 86, are in a digital form or some different form in the future. We use the words “statements”, “information” and “records”, and the importance of having copies is that the originals will still be available to other investigatory bodies. I cannot see what the gap is. Whether we are talking about an audio recording or sheets of paper, the technology is irrelevant.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson, whose points are not dissimilar. I take the hon. Lady’s point that statements and information are recognised legal terms and would catch different mechanisms by which they are recorded. We still think it is prudent to allow not only for developments that we may not have anticipated, but for clarity. We believe that the blanket provision gives greater clarity and certainty without the assistance of the amendment, so we do not share the hon. Lady’s view. I suspect she may still wish to test the amendment with a Division to make the point, as she is entitled to do.
Moving on from these amendments, to illustrate the variety and breadth of debate on this subject—we have had a small taste of it this morning—I want to address the argument that keeping protected materials in the safe space would potentially undermine the role of other bodies, such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. This illustrates part of the challenge. There are, understandably, calls from colleagues on the Committee to further restrict the exceptions to the safe space. As has been alluded to, others outwith this place argue for an expansion of the list of those exceptions. Some have argued that the PHSO should be on that list. With all due respect to those who advocate that, I do not agree. I do not think it would be appropriate to add the Ombudsman to the list of exceptions. The PHSO will still be able to fulfil its important independent role. It will have direct access to the same sources as it does now when it needs to investigate a complaint. The HSSIB will not in any way limit its ability to conduct an investigation.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, which oversees the ombudsman. The Minister will be aware of correspondence between the Committee and the ombudsman. Could the Minister comment on the report from the Venice Commission about how far the United Kingdom will be outwith international consensus on this subject?
Edward Argar
I will do so now for the hon. Lady. I have great respect for the work of the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission around ombudsman services. The Venice Commission has looked at this, understandably, from the perspective of the ombudsman and uniformity of process. We have had to weigh that up—exactly as the Committee is doing in this debate—in balancing the impact of too many exceptions, or exceptions that are too wide, on the candour with which people can contribute their views to further the improvement of patient safety. There is no ideal line on this, hence this morning’s debate.
I respect the views that the Venice Commission has set out. I think it formally set out its conclusions a week or so ago, after a number of informal meetings among its members and with officials to gather evidence; I suspect it also took the views of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Venice Commission looked at the matter, quite rightly, from the perspective of the ombudsman and the uniformity of the services it provides. We had to strike a slightly different balance, hence why we reached a different conclusion.
Justin Madders
I appreciate the work that has gone into ensuring greater consistency among coroners. The fact remains, however, that, as the Minister said, these are independent judicial positions, and coroners are entitled to make decisions as they see fit. I do not think that that concern has been adequately addressed yet.
Edward Argar
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, because I suspect it is consequential on what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Dr Whitford
I would like to understand what coroners have now that they would lose by the protection of safe space. The provisions on granting disclosure apply to the High Court, not to all courts and not to all judicial positions. Why is the coroners’ court specifically being given the right to access, as opposed to applying for disclosure through the High Court? It will be the thin end of the wedge, and other groups will feel they ought to have a right to the same safe space. As clause 107 allows regulatory changes to be made later, this could continue to be eroded. I do not understand what part of what coroners do would be undermined by the introduction of HSSIB and the real safe space.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman, and I think the points they made are linked. The distinction we draw with other organisations and individuals is because of the key point that coroners are members of the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that gives them independence in the exercising of their functions, and I will turn in a minute to what the Chief Coroner is doing specifically with these clauses to seek achieve greater consistency.
Coroners are independent and that goes to the heart of their role, which is to determine the circumstances of a death. That is why we believe it is important that their independence, and their existing right to access papers and documents, is not in any way fettered by the legislation. I will try to make a little progress in explaining what we have done with the Chief Coroner, and that may assuage some of the hon. Lady’s fears. I fear it will not, but I will try.
As we know, coroners would not have wholesale access to the protected material. They would have access only when it was necessary for them to fulfil their judicial functions in a clear way—for example, in particular individual cases. We expect that the memorandum of understanding between HSSIB and the Chief Coroner, which will be in place, will set out how HSSIB and coroners will work together to minimise the occasions and the amount of material on those occasions that would need to be shared to meet the responsibilities of a coroner that are clearly set out in statute when investigating a particular death.
Although I hope I have provided a degree of reassurance, I fear that it may not be sufficient for the hon. Lady, who has studied the issue over many years in her work. Our aim is that, due to its sensitive nature, the information cannot be publicly disclosed or shared further without an order from the High Court, which is an important safeguard and something that we have considered carefully to balance the needs of coroners and HSSIB. We believe that we can trust our coroners as judicial office holders to behave appropriately.
Dr Whitford
If it is the case that it should be judicial officers, why is it only the High Court, and not other courts in the land that might have an interest in such a case?
Edward Argar
The role of the coroner is very specific, which is why we have singled out coroners, because their role is to investigate deaths. Hopefully, a large number of the investigations that HSSIB will be investigating will not be about deaths but, to use the hon. Lady’s analogy with air accident investigations, near misses or incidents that, thankfully, did not result in the death of the patient but may have resulted in injury or other concerns. In the vast majority of cases, therefore, I do not believe that coroners will be involved in HSSIB’s work, but they have a specific role in investigating and determining the circumstances and cause of a death. Therefore, we feel that their ability to access it in extremis is the right approach.
The hon. Lady talked about the High Court. For other circumstances, we think that that is the right bar, whether for the PHSO or others, because it is experienced in considering those very complex cases. I suspect, and I think there have been some cases in a similar vein, that the court will consider and debate them over many days because the balance is so delicate.
Because of coroners’ historical and defined-in-statute role, specifically around the investigation of deaths, we think that they are the single right exception in the judicial space. The hon. Lady may take a different view and I entirely respect that, as I respect pretty much all her views when it comes to health. We do not always agree on everything but, like the hon. Member for Bristol South, she knows of what she speaks even if sometimes we reach a different political conclusion.
As I have said, an order will be made only if the High Court is satisfied that the interests of justice served by allowing disclosure in those other cases outweigh the impact. As I touched on in my reply to the hon. Lady, I remind hon. Members that HSSIB will be looking at systemic learning rather than individual cases. As I said, thankfully, many instances do not involve deaths, and even if they do, they may not be ones that are scrutinised by a coroner save in a formalistic way. Therefore, we would not expect the power to be used frequently by coroners at all.
We have included the last limited exception because, as I say, we want to ensure that coroners have appropriate access to information to carry out their statutorily defined judicial functions while seeking to balance that with protecting the integrity of safe space by preventing onward disclosure, except by court order. As such, I hope that hon. Members, even if they do not necessarily agree, recognise the amount of thought that has gone into seeking to strike the appropriate balance.
Dr Whitford
I still do not understand from the Minister’s explanation what the coroner loses from where they are now. They can still investigate a death, exactly as now, and that was the argument for narrowing what is kept in safe space so that all the original materials are available to other bodies, including the coroner. The Bill adds something extra at the risk of undermining safe space.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I do not believe this very narrow exception does or will undermine safe space. What it does is enable coroners to continue to do their job, and if there is information available out there, it enables them to access it from that source. My personal perspective is that we have struck the right balance: if the information is there, we should make it easier for coroners to do their job and access information that facilitates it. I have sat through coroners’ court hearings, and I have seen how families cope with them—it is not the easiest experience for them. If there is information out there that would make it easier for a coroner to reach a swift conclusion, and would give them the information that they need about circumstances and cause of death and so on—the other key part, which is not necessarily pertinent here, is the identification of the deceased individual—I believe it appropriate that we give them access to that information.
Justin Madders
I understand what the Minister is saying: we need the ability to make regulations to give us some flexibility. Equally, the definition of protected material is broad, to give Ministers and HSSIB flexibility as well. It seems that there is a bit of cakeism going on here.
Edward Argar
I think I know what the shadow Minister means by cakeism. I see his point, but I think the Bill strikes the right balance by building in a further degree of flexibility, but with the safeguard of the affirmative procedure. As he knows, because he has debated such things with me in the past, the affirmative procedure is not always a friend to Ministers in obliging them to come to this House and debate and explain everything. It is, however, an important democratic safeguard when regulation-making powers are inserted into primary legislation, and that is why we have adopted the affirmative procedure in this context. I hope that that gives him a degree of reassurance that the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power is simply a future-proofing mechanism, with sufficient parliamentary and democratic safeguards attached to it.
It is crucial, of course, that the integrity of investigations is protected and that we take a careful approach to how information is protected, so that there is public confidence in the work of HSSIB. That goes to the heart of what we are seeking to achieve with this part of the legislation. To ensure that confidence, the Bill provides for the creation of offences for unlawful disclosure. That is the backbone to the creation of statutory safe space. Clause 108 creates three offences of unlawful disclosure. The offences extend to HSSIB and connected individuals, individuals who are no longer connected with HSSIB, and persons who are not connected with HSSIB but receive certain protected material. It is important that we send a robust message that there will be consequences if protected information is disclosed unlawfully. It will be a criminal offence, and the person who commits an offence will be liable on summary conviction to a fine.
Clause 109 prevents a power in any other legislation from being used to require the disclosure of any protected material by HSSIB, or to seize protected material from HSSIB. That is, as we have debated, with the exception of certain parts of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which allows coroners to require disclosure in some circumstances due to provisions made in schedule 14 of the Bill. However, that provision respects the devolution settlement agreement and therefore does not apply to any provision that is within the legislative competence of the devolved Administrations. The clause will help to enhance HSSIB’s safe space protections by prohibiting the unauthorised disclosure of protected material. It is important to ensure that safe space cannot simply be breached by the use of a power elsewhere in another part of the statute book, and this provision makes that position entirely clear.
As we have debated, safe space encourages all participants to be completely candid with the information that they share with HSSIB, enabling more thorough investigations into what went wrong. That will also help more widely to protect the “learning, not blaming” culture that hon. Members have spoken about and that HSSIB is hoping to embed.
Mary Robinson
I am so pleased to see and hear this balanced argument, and the way that all the considerations have been taken into account. With regard to the penalties for disclosure of information, how does the Bill add to or improve the provisions in the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998? Does it improve on those provisions, or sit alongside it? Does it protect workers who disclose that there is an issue, not only from penalties such as losing their job, but also from the fine for disclosures put out there deliberately?
Edward Argar
I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this space, possibly involving the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing. I know she is very concerned to make sure that, while these protections are in place, the legitimate rights of whistleblowers seeking to disclose information are not inhibited. This provision sits alongside the 1998 Act, but it is a difficult balance to strike, as she rightly suggests. I pay tribute to her work in helping to foster a culture in which people feel able to speak up and bring matters to the attention of the appropriate body to address wrongdoing.
Finally, clause 117 ensures that the disclosure of information, documentation or other items that are authorised by the provisions I have just discussed does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure or any other restriction. The clause also confirms that part 4 does not authorise any form of disclosure that would contravene data protection legislation, which is intended to ensure that where an individual is required or authorised to disclose material, they are protected from violating restrictions on disclosure. A disclosure to HSSIB in those prescribed circumstances therefore does not contravene any restrictions on disclosure, removing barriers that individuals may face in disclosing information to the current investigations branch and helping to instil trust in the new HSSIB investigatory process.
Safe space is an exciting and important development of recent years. What we are seeking to do today is a first for a health body in this country. The clauses are of great importance to the new HSSIB and the vision we have for it. The novelty of what we are seeking to do here, building on what happens in the transport space, and the challenges that that poses, are demonstrated in the debate we have had on what the right balance is. It is an incredibly difficult and, to a degree, subjective judgment for Members of this House and others to make. While I have set out where we believe it should sit, I entirely respect the perspective of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who has a slightly different and entirely legitimate view. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitford
This is the nub of the entire debate on HSSIB. I welcome that the Minister is struggling with exactly how to achieve that balance. I think everyone on the Committee is trying to do their best to get a good outcome. The Minister talks about clarity, but then we hear about flexibility. It is important that we get this right in the Bill. I wish to press amendment 86 to a Division.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate that clauses 111 and 112 stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clauses address HSSIB’s relationships with other bodies, including with the devolved Administrations.
Clause 110 places a requirement on HSSIB and a number of listed bodies, including the Care Quality Commission, NHS England and the commissioner for patient safety, to co-operate with each other when they carry out investigations into the same or related incidents. The duty to co-operate relates to the practical arrangements for co-ordinating those investigations.
Clause 110 would not require the sharing of any protected material held under the safe space. It will also require HSSIB to publish guidance regarding when an incident may be considered related to another incident. That will ensure that there is the necessary clarity across all organisations as to when co-operation is required in often complex investigations. HSSIB will, of course, still be able to co-operate with bodies that are not listed in clause 110, and the current investigation branch has already established many strong relationships with bodies not covered in that list.
However, clause 110 is crucial if we are to ensure that there is a consistent and cohesive approach to investigations in the same area or related areas. It is important that we encourage organisations to co-operate in this way so as to ensure that multiple investigations touching on the same incident can be delivered in the most stream- lined way. For example, the clause would compel two organisations that wished to interview the same individual to co-ordinate. Similarly, if two organisations need to visit a clinical area, it is important that they co-operate to minimise the impact on the day-to-day running of that clinical area.
Clause 110 helps to ensure that information is accessed effectively and efficiently. It ensures that organisations can carry out the important but different roles that they have in an efficient manner and also minimises disruption to patients and to others involved.
Clause 111 places a requirement on HSSIB to comply with any request for assistance from a relevant NHS body. That assistance would be in connection to an investigation into any incident that may have occurred during the provision of NHS services or at premises at which NHS services are provided. NHS England or the Secretary of State may also request that HSSIB provides a relevant NHS body with assistance. Assistance can be provided to trusts, foundation trusts, NHS England and the newly formed integrated care boards. Such assistance may include advice, guidance and training for those organisations in connection with an investigation.
The purpose of HSSIB’s investigations is to identify risks to the safety of patients and to address those risks by facilitating the improvement of systems and practices in the provision of NHS services or other healthcare services in England. HSSIB is designed to encourage the spread of a culture of learning within the NHS, and clause 111 allows HSSIB to support others in undertaking investigations and to share knowledge gained from its own investigations. The clause will help HSSIB to promote better standards for local investigations and improve their quality and effectiveness. To this end, HSSIB will disseminate information about best practice and standards to be adopted.
Clause 111 will also enable HSSIB to provide assistance to bodies other than relevant NHS bodies if they request assistance in relation to any matter connected with the carrying out of investigations. That will help to encourage the spread of learning and enable HSSIB to share its expertise across the wider healthcare sector, both within the UK and abroad, if requested. It will be able to charge a fee for such activities. Of course, we would not expect HSSIB to provide such assistance should doing so significantly interfere with the exercise of any of its investigative functions, and protections are included in the clause to ensure this.
Finally, clause 112 enables HSSIB to enter into agreements to carry out certain investigations relating to Wales and Northern Ireland, a provision that the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive were keen to see included. Those investigations would identify risks to the safety of patients and help to facilitate improvement of systems and practices. Investigations would not assess blame or involve the determination of any civil or criminal liability. It is important that HSSIB has the opportunity to share its expertise and help facilitate greater learning and improvement outside England. The clause allows HSSIB to charge for such investigations in Wales and Northern Ireland but only to cover the costs incurred through the course of the investigation. Of course, we would not expect HSSIB to provide such assistance should it significantly interfere with the exercise of its core investigative functions and, again, protections are included in the clause to ensure that.
These clauses are crucial to ensure that HSSIB has strong working relationships with NHS bodies, as well as regulators and, where requested, the devolved Administrations. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
As we have heard, the clauses deal with the requirement to co-operate and I will not go over the ground that we have already trodden on in respect of degrees of co-operation and how that might make a material difference to ultimate success. We hope that the many organisations listed in clause 110 will respond not simply because of the legislation but because the no-blame culture to which this body aspires is just as relevant to them as it is to individuals.
Is the long list of organisations in clause 110(3) the totality of NHS bodies or bodies associated with the NHS, or with running NHS services? I think the Minister mentioned that there may be others that have been involved but that are not in this list. Has any of them been excluded from the list and, if so, why?
The power to levy charges on NHS bodies for assistance shows why our amendment requiring the creation of the post of chief finance officer would have been sensible. While there are sanctions for individuals who block investigations and there is a debate about where co-operation ends and obstruction starts, I am unclear whether there is a similar sanction that could be imposed on the bodies listed in clause 110. Has the Minister considered that? Is there a process whereby the buck will stop with a named individual in any of these organisations or is that dealt with later in the Bill?
Karin Smyth
My point concerns the practical implementation, given the examples where the organisations currently do not work together or share, and the issues about real accountability. I have a case that I have dealt with since 2016, which preceded me by some four years, involving an individual going through the complaints system. It resulted in the parliamentary ombudsman’s report wanting details to be shared between the trust, NHS Improvement and the Care Quality Commission. In August this year, the trust admitted that it had not provided any such details to NHS Improvement or the CQC. There seems to be no recourse in respect of that lack of communication and accountability between the existing organisations.
My concern on co-operation is about adding HSSIB to a system that does not work now in terms of ensuring that recommendations are shared and acted upon. The intent on co-operation in clause 110 is welcome, but what assurance can the Minister give that that wider culture of co-operation, delivery and implementation of recommendations will be improved by the addition of HSSIB? There is an opportunity for HSSIB to do that, but that would require all those other organisations, named and perhaps unnamed, to also look to their own house to make sure that in the interests of those patients the recommendations are acted upon.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I want to ask some questions about clause 112. I have practical questions that the Minister might answer today, or he might wish to write to me. I welcome the clause as a continuation and an improvement, hopefully, on current arrangements. Who might ask HSSIB to carry out an investigation in Wales? Would it be the individual health board or the Welsh Government? Has a mechanism been established yet? Secondly, how involved would the Welsh Government be in any investigation? Would the Senedd, for example, have access to information in an ongoing investigation?
Thirdly, in respect of challenging who would be responsible for paying, would it be the Welsh Government or the individual health board? Fourthly, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has noted that the Bill could be strengthened by the Secretary of State giving a clear mandate for HSSIB to monitor the progress of the response to recommendations. Does the Minister envisage the Welsh Government having a role in monitoring progress, or would it be a matter for HSSIB or the health board?
On clause 107, which has already been debated, I have reservations about extending further exemptions. Would the Welsh Government be able to request or even authorise exemptions where HSSIB carries out investigations in Wales, or is it a matter specifically for the Secretary of State, although health is almost entirely devolved, of course? Finally, will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government about these provisions? I appreciate that those are detailed questions and he might want to reply to me in writing.
Edward Argar
A number of questions were asked that I will seek to address. If I cannot answer the specific points raised, I will write to clarify them.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked about sanctions, and the hon. Member for Bristol South asked about a list of bodies and whether there are any not included—essentially, who was in and who was out. There are two, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, not included in the list of bodies: the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. I suspect that is the genesis of his asking the question. We recognise the strategically important role that both bodies play in patient safety. Not listing them does not mean that HSSIB cannot co-operate with them. Co-operation across different bodies is something that we encourage. In fact, we would expect HSSIB to develop memoranda of understanding with those organisations, but we focused on specific ones on the list where there is likely to be day-to-day co-operation, particularly with health trusts and others.
On sanctions, we focused on what HSSIB is doing and its being able to progress its investigations. Ultimately, as we have debated, it has the power to seize documents and require information. I very much hope that that will not be needed and that co-operation and memoranda of understanding will be an effective way of moving forward, as it appears to be at the moment, but we have those powers in the legislation, were they to be needed in extremis.
The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned several issues relating specifically to Wales and engagement with the Welsh Government. As I briefly alluded to in my speech, the inclusion of powers to allow the Welsh Government to request the involvement of HSSIB was done at the request of the Welsh Government. We have discussed the issue with them, and I think their request reflects their view that HSSIB involvement could add value in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman sought to understand how the arrangement would work in practice and asked a number of questions about what the fees would be, who would pay them and whether that would be the responsibility of a trust or the Welsh Government. We are still working through those practical matters with the Welsh Government, but we were keen to include the power while we had the opportunity, because the original request came from the Welsh Government. It is a similar case with the Northern Ireland Government. Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire alluded, has its own well established approach, which works, and therefore a different option was taken in its respect.
Conversations with the Welsh Government have not progressed to the extent that I can give the hon. Member Arfon detailed answers to all his questions, but I will write to him if there is any more that I can add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 111 and 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Failure to exercise functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clauses relate to the oversight of HSSIB’s functions. Clause 113 enables the Secretary of State to direct HSSIB to exercise its functions within a specified time period and in such a manner as the direction prescribes. That direction-making power, on which I suspect the shadow Minister the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will question me, will apply only in the event that the Secretary of State considers that HSSIB is failing or has failed to exercise any of its functions, and that that failure is significant. Directions must be in writing and will ensure that appropriate action can be taken by the Secretary of State in the event of any failure on the part of HSSIB to exercise its functions.
Independence as a concept is fundamentally important, and indeed at the heart of HSSIB, and will be a crucial way to ensure that patients, families and staff have trust in its processes and judgments. However, the clause serves to help to safeguard the trust placed in HSSIB by patients and families in the event of its significant failure to exercise its functions. We believe this is a sensible and proportionate provision, which ensures that HSSIB is performing its vital functions. To maintain the independence of the investigatory process, such directions made by the Secretary of State will not be able to influence the outcome of any HSSIB investigation.
We do not expect to use the power—in fact, I hope that we will never have to use it—but it is right that the Secretary of State has the power to act in the event of significant failure. That is consistent with similar existing powers available to the Secretary of State in relation to other non-departmental public bodies, including the Care Quality Commission. Should HSSIB fail to comply with such directions, the clause enables the Secretary of State to choose to make arrangements either to undertake the exercise of HSSIB’s functions themselves or for another body to undertake them. That will ensure that the important investigatory work is sustained and delivered at the appropriate high standard, should HSSIB have experienced significant failures in achieving that.
Clause 114 requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of and prepare a report on the effectiveness of HSSIB in undertaking its investigation function. That report must be prepared, published and laid before Parliament within four years of clause 94 coming into force, which sets out its investigation function. Given the trust that patients, families and staff will place in HSSIB’s processes and investigations, it is vital that Government is transparent to the public and parliamentarians regarding the performance of the new body. That report will be key to ensuring such transparency and to helping to facilitate learning and improvements within HSSIB. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Justin Madders
As the Minister has anticipated, clause 113 troubles me somewhat. We have talked extensively about the importance of independence and the need for HSSIB to have the confidence of those with whom it interacts so that it is fully effective. Once again, in common with much else in the Bill, we see that the Secretary of State gets to hand himself extensive powers to interfere with HSSIB. Subsection (1) basically places judgment about the exercise of that power in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is his opinion that counts, and no attempt is required to evidence-proof a failing. HSSIB is apparently unable to challenge that judgment. Subsection (5) states that that failure only has to be a failure to exercise its functions properly. That is qualified a little by subsection (1)(b), which says that the failure has to be significant, but unfortunately that is what the Secretary of State considers significant, nobody else. With all that together, the Secretary of State has pretty much a blank cheque to step in and interfere any time he likes, so long as he considers that there has been a significant failure.
However, it gets worse. Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to direct HSSIB in whatever manner he determines, which I would have said is about as far away from independence as we can get—until I read subsection (4), which allows the Secretary of State to step into HSSIB’s shoes and do its job himself. I am sure he has other things in his diary at the moment, but the idea that he can come in and undertake the functions of what is meant to be an independent body is simply unacceptable. I can do no better than refer to the evidence that Keith Conradi gave to the Committee:
“Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have that complete freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 60, Q78.]
The Secretary of State having the power to effectively step in and start running the body, either directly or indirectly, at a moment’s notice, will not help with that freedom. Why does that need to be in the Bill and hanging over the body the whole time?
There is a suggestion that the Health and Social Care Committee would be better placed to administer this function, or at the very least that the Secretary of State should require its agreement before exercising this function. I agree that that Committee might be better placed than one person to have oversight of HSSIB. Perhaps we should consider which group will be best placed to have oversight of HSSIB, to ensure that it is truly independent.
The Secretary of State is tasked with carrying out a review of HSSIB. I am pleased that any subsequent report would be laid before Parliament, but again it is the Secretary of State undertaking that review—his judgment alone. Clause 114 says that the report must be laid within four years of the Bill’s passage. Is there a particular reason why four years was chosen? I am sure the Minister anticipated that question, so I hope he will be able to answer. My reading of the clause is that a report is required after four years, and after that there is no further requirement. It seems rather remiss for there to be no ongoing commitment to review HSSIB.
On clause 113, there are concerns that the oversight of HSSIB will be carried out by the same person who appoints its members, can remove them at a whim, sets remuneration, directs investigations, sets the funding and consents to the criteria of processes. There appears to be a clear conflict of interest. While I accept that there is a role for the Secretary of State, it is not necessary for this role to be so far reaching and overbearing. HSSIB is meant to be an independent non-departmental public body, but the role given to the Secretary of State throughout the Bill suggests that that will not quite be the case. The Bill firmly situates its functions under the Health Secretary, which is far from the definition of a non-departmental public as separate body from the sponsoring Department. Non-departmental public bodies tend to be responsible to Parliament, rather than the Government. Placing scrutiny powers with Parliament and ensuring that a framework document is in place to inform the basis of performance monitoring, rather than placing all the power in the Secretary of State’s hands, would be the best way to achieve this.
I have to say that the fact that the Secretary of State can pretty much pick all the main players in HSSIB does not say much about his confidence in his own judgment about these decisions, if he needs these sweeping powers up his sleeve just in case. I suspect that he was not the person responsible for these appointments, but the point remains that there are still questions over whether this is needed. I know the Minister said that this power would hopefully not be used, but if that is the case, why does it need to be in the Bill?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his comments. I semi-predicted where I thought he might be going with his challenges, and I hope I can offer him reassurance.
First, at the heart of this is the fact that with an NDPB, an executive agency or any other public body, ultimately the Secretary of State is accountable, quite rightly, to this place for the operation of that—not for the operational decisions, but that it functions as an effective public body. Therefore, we never know, but I suspect that there may be a day—not necessarily in the immediate or near future—when the hon. Gentleman is sitting in my office or the Secretary of State’s office, and he would want, quite rightly, where there is a significant failure of an organisation, to be able to take action to address that. That is what the clause provides for.
Those powers would be used only in extremis, and only where
“HSSIB is failing or has failed to exercise any of its functions, and…the failure is significant.”
These are terms of which there is a legal understanding. It is not carte blanche for the Secretary of State, as I think the hon. Gentleman suggested in a debate on a previous clause, to get up one morning and say, “Do you know what I feel like doing? I feel like exercising these powers.” It is not possible to do it in that way. These are understood terms that set a very high bar for interventions.
Secondly, these powers are analogous to similar powers that the Secretary of State has over other NDPBs, or the CQC, as I said in my opening remarks, and other organisations in this space.
Justin Madders
I am not suggesting that anyone might wake up in the morning and decide on a whim to do this, but the fact of the matter is that, as the clause is drafted, if the Secretary of State was minded to do that, there is nothing that would stop them being able to do it, is there?
Edward Argar
I come back to the point that I have just made to the hon. Gentleman. Terms such as “the failure is significant” are understood terms, and of course public law principles would apply to decisions made by the Secretary of State, such as reasonableness and proportionality. I do think that this is both analogous to powers that the Secretary of State has over similar bodies and also proportionate.
Similarity, I do not believe that the clause questions or brings into question the independence of HSSIB. We recognise that that is fundamental to its success, and that is why it would be used only if the body
“is failing or has failed…and…the failure is significant.”
I come back to those understood terms, and that is a very high bar that would be subject to public law principles.
On the report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, why is it four years—why not three, two or five? We think that four years is an appropriate and reasonable length of time for the new body to become established and to show what is working and what is not, so that we can see a meaningful report on how it has functioned over a number of years. As he said, the House would have the ability to debate that report, if it chose to do so. The report would be laid before the House and he could call a debate, if he was still in the same role at that point. Given that he has served in his Front-Bench role even longer than I have served in mine, I suspect that, much though he enjoys doing so, he may be hoping for a change by then.
The other point is that, just because this is the only report that is formally specified, it does not mean that there would not be the opportunity for other reports or reviews to be undertaken regularly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do that with other public bodies from time to time. It is right that Governments of whichever complexion review the NDPB landscape. We talked about ALBs earlier in our consideration of the Bill, and about the ability to move functions around depending on whether they are best exercised by the existing body or elsewhere, which reflects the same point.
I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance that there is no desire on the part of the Secretary of State or me to add to our current workload, or indeed, should the day come, to add to the hon. Gentleman’s workload, were he to occupy this office—or indeed to that of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, whom I would not wish to exclude. The words used and the public law principles that apply would mean that the provisions would be commensurate with the powers over other bodies, and proportionate. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Clause 116 stand part.
Clause 118 stand part.
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 119 stand part.
Edward Argar
These clauses cover further detail regarding offences created in part 4 of the Bill and interpreting part 4 of the Bill more generally. Clause 115 specifies that when an offence created by part 4 is committed by a company, an officer of that company may also be liable for that offence. This would be the case where it could be proven that such an offence was committed with the consent or involvement of an officer of the company or that such an offence could be attributable to neglect by an officer of the company. Hence the officer and the company who commit the offence are both liable and can be punished accordingly. Company officers who are liable in such a way would include any person who would purport to act in that capacity, including any directors or managers in the company.
It is important that any offences set out in part 4 of the Bill are capable of being fully enforced, and this means ensuring that the right actors are held to account and are therefore also deterred from committing such offences in the first place. Ensuring that both an individual and an organisation can be held to account shows clearly the commitment to maintaining a high standard of investigation and information protection, and to protecting the principles of safe spaces more widely.
Clause 116 specifies that when an offence created by part 4 of the Bill is committed by a partnership, a partner may also be liable for that offence. This would be relevant in an instance where, for example, a GP partnership commits an offence. The clause allows proceedings to be brought in the name of the partnership as well as the individual partners. Similarly to clause 115, where an offence is committed by an partnership and it can be proven that such an offence was committed with the consent or involvement of a partner or could be attributable to neglect by a partner, the partner and the partnership that commit the offence are both liable and can be punished accordingly. The clause also provides that where a fine is imposed on the partnership, it must be paid out of partnership assets. However, should a fine be imposed on a partner, that fine would be paid by the partner as an individual.
The committing of offences set out in part 4 of the Bill would reduce trust in HSSIB’s investigatory processes, and therefore it is important that the right actors are held to account should such offences be committed. Ensuring that both the partnership and individual partners can be so held to account is important for the same reasons I have discussed in relation to company officers under clause 115. The corporate structure itself should not make any difference: we want to ensure that the investigatory process and the principles of safe space are always upheld and protected. Both clause 115 and 116 are common provisions in relation to offences. They ensure that the appropriate actors are covered, but also add a further deterrent effect that can help avoid offences being committed in the first place.
Clause 118 inserts schedule 15 into the Bill. Schedule 15 makes the relevant consequential amendments to other Acts of Parliament to ensure that HSSIB, as a new non-departmental public body, is referenced in relevant legislation. This includes relevant public body, health, employment and equalities legislation and means that HSSIB must comply with the relevant legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, clause 119 sets out the defined terms used in part 4 of the Bill. The clause is crucial to ensuring that the HSSIB provisions are correctly interpreted and provides the necessary clarity on key terms. I therefore commend these clauses and this schedule to the Committee.
Justin Madders
I am not going to spend an awful lot of time on these clauses and this schedule, because the Minister has set them out very well, but I want to come back to his reference to clause 110 and the obligations on those who hold senior positions in NHS bodies. Regarding offences committed, the Minister said that there would not be the same need for punishments to follow failure to co-operate. I wonder whether that is consistent. Could he set out how offences committed by officers of a body corporate could be equated to offences committed by those who are running NHS bodies, or whether there is any discrepancy there that he would like to address?
Edward Argar
I will also endeavour not to detain the Committee for too long. I do not believe there is any discrepancy; I believe there is consistency there. The shadow Minister has highlighted what is essentially a technical point in the read-across between the two, and over the next couple of hours I will quickly check on that to make sure that I am right. I do not think there is any inconsistency there, but he has raised an interesting technical point, and I will review it. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a technical answer right now, but I may shoehorn it in somehow this afternoon, keeping it in order by relating it to a clause that we will discuss subsequently. That will be a challenge, because we are about to finish the HSSIB clauses, but if there is anything to add to what I have just said, I will endeavour to work it in later this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 116 to 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Tuesday 26th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good afternoon. It is lovely to see everyone again. I must remind you of various things before we start. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink apart from water is permitted. Please wear masks when not speaking, as per the Government and House of Commons Commission guidance, unless there is some obvious reason not to do so. It would be helpful if any speaking notes could be e-mailed to hansardnotes @parliament.uk. I am also asked to remind people that they can have lateral flow tests twice a week if they are coming on to the estate.
Clause 120
International healthcare arrangements
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 120, page 101, line 15, at end insert
“but does not include a Scottish Minister, a Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister”.
This amendment removes devolved Ministers from the definition of a “public authority” on which the Secretary of State could confer functions, or to which the Secretary of State could delegate functions, under this section.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 111, in clause 120, page 101, line 22, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 5 (Requirement for consultation with devolved authorities) in subsection (1), for ‘consult’ substitute ‘gain the consent of’.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of devolved governments before regulations under section 2 of the renamed Healthcare (International Arrangements) Act 2019 could be made.
Amendment 146, in clause 120, page 101, line 22, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 7 (Regulations and directions)—
(a) in subsection (4), after ‘under’, insert ‘section 2 or’;
(b) after subsection (4), insert—
‘(4A) A draft instrument which contains regulations under section 2 may not be laid before Parliament under subsection (4) unless a document containing a proposal for such regulations and an impact assessment of the costs and the demand placed on the NHS have been laid before Parliament.’”
This amendment would make regulations giving effect to a healthcare agreement subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and would require a proposal for such regulations and an impact assessment to be laid before Parliament before any such regulations could be brought forward.
Clause stand part.
Dr Whitford
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.
The amendment brings us back to a knotty problem I have raised previously: although the Bill was brought forward as predominantly a Bill for England, it does have an impact on the devolved Governments, who saw it the day before it was launched. There is absolute support in Scotland, and I am sure across all the devolved nations, for strong healthcare agreements with other nations outwith the EU, particularly Switzerland and the European Free Trade Association countries, which are not currently covered, but it has to be remembered that the delivery of healthcare is a devolved issue. We are trying to ensure that that is recognised in the Bill, so that the UK Government, who absolutely have the right to negotiate international agreements, work much more closely than we have seen them do so far on how the technicalities should work in the devolved health services.
Amendments 110 and 111 relate to the same issue: the fact that the devolved nations, and certainly the Ministers concerned, were not involved in the development of these clauses. There is no mention of them, and no mention of how they will be involved in shaping any healthcare agreements or health insurance card. That is what we are now calling for.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I shall speak in support of amendment 146, which stands in my name and the name of other Opposition Members. There is a temptation to get teary-eyed and reminisce about the 2017-19 Parliament; it is almost overwhelming, but I will resist and battle on.
What we are discussing in this clause amounts to a significant amendment to the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, on which I had the pleasure of leading for my party, opposite not one but two of the Minister’s predecessors. I hope that the same fate will not befall this Minister as befell his predecessors who dealt with this legislation—although one of them actually got a promotion. Clause 120 renames that Act the perhaps more snappily titled Healthcare (International Arrangements) Act 2019, which is what the original Bill was called until Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that as this was a Brexit Bill, it was better to have it deal with matters associated purely with Brexit, and not to slip in wider powers almost wholly unrelated to our decision to leave the EU.
The clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to pay for healthcare provided outside the United Kingdom where the payments give effect to a healthcare agreement. In the context of what has come before, that is no surprise, and it is certainly something we would expect to be pursued. It also means that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations on the payment of healthcare provided in another country where the healthcare is outside the scope of healthcare agreements if he thinks that payment is justified by exceptional circumstances and the healthcare is provided in a country with which the UK already has a healthcare agreement. This discretionary power could, for example, be exercised to pay for a specific treatment that falls outside the scope of an existing healthcare agreement.
Not content with giving himself the power to enter into further healthcare agreements outside the EU, by doing this, the Secretary of State effectively gives himself another power to make further payments if he later discovers that there was another matter that he thinks we should have been paying for that had not been covered by those agreements. It may be that that situation would only arise in exceptional circumstances, but the whole genesis of the original Bill was that it was considered sensible to retain reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries in the EEA, whereas the clause implies that things may not be quite so reciprocal in future. I wonder what the dynamic will be in negotiations with third countries if, on our side at least, we can just authorise further payments outside any agreement anyway.
These are potentially extraordinarily wide powers, and the regulations would be subject only to the negative procedure. Our amendment is not only consistent with the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, but would ensure value for money. The original Bill contained a similar power to that in the clause and was considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. It set out clearly the power’s potential impact:
“If, without such amendment, the Secretary of State wished to fund wholly or entirely the cost of all mental health provision in the state of Arizona, or the cost of all hip replacements in Australia, the regulations would only be subject to the negative procedure.”
[Interruption.] The Minister is chuckling. He may well know that I have used that quote before, because it highlights the extreme examples that are possible under the Bill. The Committee continued:
“Of course, these examples will not be priorities for any Secretary of State in this country.”
We should hope not. While the Minister may be able to rule out those two specific examples today, we have to consider how the powers could be used, and not just how they might be expected to be used.
The concern that this is a very broad power has been further strengthened by the inclusion of the power to make payments outside healthcare arrangements. We have to ask what the Secretary of State is trying to solve by giving himself these additional powers. Let us look at what the powers do. There is no limit to the amount of payments he can make. There is no limit on who can be funded worldwide. There is no limit to the type of healthcare being funded. Such powers without qualification or any criteria being applied in the Bill are simply unacceptable, so a resolution of both Houses should be required, alongside an impact assessment of the costs and demands any regulations might place on the NHS.
On the costs, there is no limit on what the Secretary of State might pay. If we are to assume that this will come out of existing departmental budgets, who will receive less? I mention this not just in the context of extra payments that the Secretary of State may make for things not covered by agreements, but in terms of the burden on the NHS of delivering any new obligations, because, to be blunt, cost recovery has been suboptimal. As the Law Society of Scotland said:
“As the NHS has never been very effective in reclaiming the fees owed to it by overseas visitors to the UK, the UK may find itself substantially worse off financially when new arrangements for funding cross-national use of health services are put in place.”
The Government need to raise their game on cost recovery, and if there is an additional administrative burden on the NHS in setting up new systems of cost recovery because of new agreements reached, we need a commitment from the Minister to adequate resources to ensure that those services are delivered and the cost recovered.
We support the concept of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. They are a very good thing for our citizens and for visitors to the country, but it cannot be right to give the Secretary of State such a blank cheque. Amendment 146 will ensure transparency, accountability and a proper assessment of the obligations entered into by virtue of regulations under the clause.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
The hon. Gentleman alluded to being shadow Minister during the passage of the previous piece of legislation, and that reflects once again his longevity in his post. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for amendment 110, and for bringing the issue before the Committee. It is right that we debate and air it in this forum. I am aware of the concerns, which she expressed extremely clearly, about the Secretary of State’s ability potentially to confer functions on, or delegate functions under the 2019 Act to, Ministers from the devolved Administrations. She highlighted the perfect example: the challenge that we inevitably face with elements of the devolution settlement. Delivery may rest with the devolved Administration, and is therefore a devolved power; concluding international agreements is a reserved matter and therefore one for the UK Government.
Understandably, the point of principle on both sides is not to concede consent but, from our perspective, to consult. I will come on to that in a minute. I appreciate the perspective brought by the hon. Lady and her colleagues in the Scottish Government. Let me reiterate the UK Government’s strong commitment to meaningful and ongoing engagement with the DAs on reciprocal healthcare. There is already a statutory obligation under section 5 of the 2019 Act to consult the devolved Administrations before making any regulations under the Act in areas within the competence of the devolved legislatures.
We are working with officials in the devolved Administrations on the development of a memorandum of understanding setting out how we will fulfil that duty in practice. Indeed, the memorandum goes further in undertaking to engage and consult the devolved Administrations, not just at the end of the implementation stage but from a much earlier stage. I appreciate that the hon. Lady may say that, although that is progress, it does not go far enough. I believe that good progress is being made, but I suspect that on Report, I will have to report back on where we have got to, and whether we have managed to find a way forward. The work continues to be done.
Turning to amendment 110, the regulation-making powers in HEEASAA—I was going to say that was a shortened version of the Act’s title; I might just refer to “the aforementioned Act”, which may save us a little time—are important as they provide the UK Government with the ability to implement international reciprocal healthcare agreements. The Government fully support the devolution settlement and, as I say, we would not normally confer functions on the devolved Administrations under the Act without their agreement and consent.
To date, we have used the power only to ensure that Ministers in the devolved Administrations can have a role in authorising planned treatment applications if they wish, but we need to ensure that when negotiating agreements and committing to international obligations we can be confident that we can implement them. Further, we are keen to ensure that Ministers in the devolved Administrations can continue to have a role in devolved planned treatment applications. I reassure the hon. Lady that we continue to explore the issue with the DAs. I do not want to pre-empt what may emerge from that. For that reason, I encourage her not to press the amendment to a Division at this stage. She may reserve her right to do so at a subsequent stage in the passage of the legislation.
Amendment 111 would introduce a duty to seek the consent of the DAs before making regulations relating to international reciprocal healthcare agreements that contain a provision within a devolved competence. Reciprocal healthcare agreements benefit all our residents across the UK, providing safeguards and support for our most vulnerable, as well as greater opportunities to travel, for work or leisure. Where an agreement is in place, those living in the UK can access affordable healthcare when they need it when travelling abroad.
As I have said on multiple occasions, we recognise the need to work with our friends in the devolved Administrations, but we cannot include a statutory consent requirement. That would risk the UK Government not being able to comply with our international obligations, and it would, in a sense, give the devolved Administrations a veto over a reserved matter. I do not understate the complexity of the way the constitutional settlement works in this context.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I would like to live in the Minister’s world sometimes. What I am struggling to understand from him before he finishes—
Karin Smyth
It looked like he was finishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to the suboptimal collection of payments in the health service where they are due. When I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, it reported on this issue, generally in the context of treatment for overseas patients. I am struggling to understand how the Government expect the NHS to manage this operationally, given how suboptimal overseas payments have been—prescription charge recuperation, for example. This strikes me as an incredibly complicated issue. When we talk about impact assessments, perhaps the Minister could tell us what work has been done in the Department to understand the impact on the service, and how people who are providing treatment are to understand where we have reciprocal arrangements and where we do not, and who is entitled to that treatment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We have made significant strides forward in making this easier and clearer for the NHS in recent years, recouping money where appropriate to help fund our NHS. We regularly update the guidance to trusts, which—as the hon. Lady will appreciate—are responsible for recouping funds where a patient is chargeable. They are increasingly consistent in how they apply those rules.
I concede to the hon. Lady, quite reasonably, that there are occasions when trusts do not apply the rules in a fully consistent manner. That is why we have taken steps centrally with NHS England to ensure that we pass very clear guidance to them; we do not believe that this will impose any heavier burden on them than is currently the case. Similarly, in the implementation of the agreement with the EU—again, it would be churlish not to admit it—we have faced some challenges in making sure that other countries understand their obligations to British citizens abroad under that agreement. That is in the nature of the early days of a new agreement.
Anecdotally, I receive correspondence on this issue from right hon. and hon. Members, and there was an increase in that correspondence at the very start of the year: Members were either saying that they had constituents who went abroad and did not receive the free healthcare they should have received, or were taking up the cases of people who visited this country who were charged and did not think they should have been, or vice versa. That correspondence has significantly dropped off in recent months, so with that caveat about it being anecdotal, I suggest that the new agreement has bedded in fairly efficiently. I have not had any responses from trusts saying that the way in which the agreement works has imposed any additional burdens on them that they cannot cope with.
Of course, there are other countries with which we already have different bilateral agreements, so I am confident at the moment that the administrative processes will be an effective extension of current processes but, as with all these things, I keep the issue under review. The hon. Member for Bristol South will know from her time in the NHS that if a trust found that the burden was significant or increasing, it would not hesitate to tell me. Equally, we are looking at reciprocal healthcare agreements here—we are not looking at a whole load of agreements, but dealing with them bit by bit, as we negotiate them, and we are allowing them to bed in. That was a long answer, but she made an important point.
It is time for the Government to build on our significant success in negotiating the agreement with the European Union and our new relationship, and to turn our attention to the UK’s relationship with countries outside the EU, as another strand of our global Britain strategy. That is why we are extending the geographical scope of the 2019 Act beyond the EEA and Switzerland and renaming it, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Act 2019.
Outside Europe, we have limited healthcare agreements with a number of countries, which support people from the UK in accessing medically necessary healthcare. These agreements do not always provide comprehensive cover to those who need it; for example, a person suffering from kidney failure may be able to access emergency treatment if something happens to them while abroad, but they would likely have to pay for their ongoing dialysis needs privately.
The clause will enable the Government to implement comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements with other countries around the world by allowing for the reimbursement of healthcare costs and the exchange of data to facilitate this reimbursement. By implementing such agreements, we can better support people when they are abroad. Comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements can help people to access necessary healthcare services when they are travelling for leisure or business. Importantly, they can particularly benefit those with chronic health conditions, for whom travel insurance is very costly—or in some cases, sadly, completely unaffordable. Furthermore, agreements usually reduce the burden on NHS trusts, which would otherwise have to pursue individuals to recover overseas charges, as there is normally state-to-state reimbursement built into the agreement. Hopefully, the provisions will mean that we can reduce the debt owed to the NHS in an administratively unburdensome way.
Finally, reciprocal healthcare agreements can strengthen our relationships with countries around the world and foster greater healthcare co-operation, including on health security and research, the importance of which hon. Members on both sides of the House would acknowledge has been illustrated by the recent pandemic and the research around that.
The clause will enable the Government to implement more comprehensive agreements where that is to the benefit of the whole UK. We will also be able to improve arrangements to make them more effective. Our ambition is for new and improved agreements to be brought under the umbrella of the new UK global health insurance card, which will bring our EU and rest-of-the-world agreements together into a cohesive and visible service for UK citizens, and ensure that people can take advantage of their rights under these agreements.
During the 2019 Bill debates, which I confess to having read, the Government were asked to review the breadth of powers in that Bill after the conclusion of the EU exit negotiations. We have listened to the concerns expressed by the House, and our amendments to this Bill remove section 1 of the 2019 Act, which provided for a free-standing payment power and enabled the Secretary of State to make unilateral payments for healthcare in the EEA and Switzerland—a point to which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston alluded. This power is no longer needed now that the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement are in place to protect the healthcare rights of UK nationals living in EU member states.
We are replacing that broad payment power with regulation-making powers. These can provide for payments to be made in two circumstances: first, to implement healthcare agreements, and secondly in countries where there is a healthcare agreement in place but the healthcare falls outside the scope of the agreement, and the Secretary of State determines that there are exceptional circumstances that justify payment. This latter element prevents a cliff-edge loss of rights in marginal cases.
As demonstrated in recent months, healthcare co-operation between countries is vital in our globalised world. Reciprocal healthcare provides safeguards and support for those who might find themselves in a vulnerable position, and supports greater opportunity for travel for those with healthcare conditions. As we move into the post-EU-exit world, we are excited to seize these new opportunities for global Britain. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Dr Whitford
I welcome the drive to set up these reciprocal arrangements. One of the big losses of Brexit threatened to be the loss of the European health insurance card, and I am glad that arrangements have been reached with most European countries, although obviously not in some of the EFTA countries; that is still to be dealt with. I appreciate that the Minister recognises the particular importance of that for people on dialysis, who were unable travel under that scheme, as they require dialysis three times a week. The majority simply could not pay for it themselves, nor would insurance ever be likely to cover it, so I welcome the aim on that. It simply comes back to the need for genuine consultation with the devolved authorities, which would be delivering healthcare for those from the reciprocal countries arriving in the UK.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston wish to press amendment 146?
Justin Madders
I thought at one point that the Minister was going to accept the amendment, given the way he was talking about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and impact assessments. He will not need to be reminded that on a number of occasions in the past 18 months the Department has not produced those impact assessments when regulations have been produced. As he has clearly become a full-blooded Brexiteer, given his comments today, I am minded to press the amendment to a vote because it is about Parliament taking back control.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 121, page 102, line 40, at end insert—
“(11A) When conducting a review under subsection (1), the Commission must ensure the direct involvement of both users and providers of services.”
This amendment creates an explicit requirement for service users’ and providers’ involvement in the reviews and assessments that the new Part 46A creates.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 60—Default powers of Secretary of State in relation to adult social care.
Government new clause 61—Care Quality Commission’s powers in relation to local authority failings.
Clause stand part.
Alex Norris
We have been at this now for the best part of a couple of months. This is our 16th session. Some of the faces have changed but largely it is the same group of people. We have reached clause 121 of the Health and Care Bill and we have finally found the bit that is about care. It is amazing—you had to not blink or you might have missed it. But I would not get too excited; it is only two clauses, and neither comes anywhere near addressing the problems we face in our nation’s social care.
The national Government’s cuts to local authorities over the past decade have had a devastating impact, particularly around social care. They have led to rationed care and poor quality care. They have led to care being devalued as a profession and to providers being unable to retain their staff. As a result, we see short visits and a constant changing cast of carers, and we know that is bad for all those individuals receiving support. That is the story across all our communities, and it is worsening as we go.
Clause 121 proposes that the Care Quality Commission will now make a general assessment of the quality of a local authority’s offering for those needing care. Once those reports start coming back, I have no doubt they will make very difficult reading for many parts of the country, if not all, because they will lay bare the issues that I talk about. I do not have any problem with inspection and public assessment of the quality of care services. I do not have any problem understanding this at a local authority level rather than provider by provider. My constituents, and people across the country, deserve excellent services, and I can see how these things work in support of that goal. What I do worry about is that this will be just another way for the Government to passport blame to hard-pressed local authorities that are doing their best but are simply not adequately funded to do their job. That is the reality in this country today.
Amendment 145 seeks to improve clause 121 a little, in line with our broader efforts throughout the Bill, because we want to see service users at the heart of the health and care system as genuine shapers of what happens to them in their lives and their community. We want to make sure that those with the greatest stake and the greatest expertise by experience have the chance to be part of the process, as set out in clause 121, and to talk about their experiences in their community and about how things might be done better, because they hold so many of the answers to the challenges we face. That is a moderate but important ask and I hope the Minister will support it in the Bill or make a commitment that it will follow in the guidance that will be issued to the Care Quality Commission.
Similarly, we should seek the voice of providers, for a couple of reasons. First, they know what the successes and challenges are in their local system, and they know about the hard conversations they have with commissioners, which ought to be conversations about an individual’s needs but are, inevitably, rationing decisions. Secondly, and this them gives a special insight, many if not most—probably the vast majority—of these providers work across multiple local authorities, giving them a rich picture of the differences in approach, availability of care and similar. That is a rich contribution. We strongly think that those two voices should be heard, and the amendment is a good way of doing that.
Turning to Government new clauses 60 and 61, I express my gratitude to the Minister for his correspondence on them to give the Committee a sense of where the Government seek to go, but he was not quite able to provide comfort. New clause 60 is a mess constitutionally. It allows the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care greater powers over local authority social care functions, including giving him powers to talk about failures and directions. First, local authority accountability is to its public. We know that, every four years, we have elections. Beyond that, exceptionally and rarely, the Secretary of State who leads for local government—I know they have taken “local government” out of the name, but there is still one in whatever the Department is calling itself now—can take action in instances where the local authority is deemed to be failing in its duties to its population. The Secretary of State can put in directions, support and, as we have seen, even commissioners. That is a well-established process, but the clause inserts the Secretary of State for Health and Social and Care into this arrangement, which is a considerable overreach. It gives the Secretary of State a power to impose themselves on local authorities in a way that I do not think is welcome. At the bare minimum, it ought to be something that is exercised by the colleague of the Secretary of State who leads on local government in ways that are already well established, rather than creating another actor in the piece.
That leads us to the continued pattern that we have seen throughout the Bill. I am afraid that integration is a bit of a myth, but where there is any, it is largely that the health service ought to have more power and, more importantly, that the Secretary of State ought to have more power over telling local government what to do. There is no equivalent or supporting ability for local authorities to impact on the decisions taken by the Secretary of State. That creates a mismatch, which is really undesirable. I am keen to hear from the Minister why it was decided that the Secretary of State needed direct access to do that, when they could perhaps have worked better through their colleague, who does it more conventionally on a day-by-day basis.
New clause 61 dispenses with the Care Quality Commission’s ability to issue a notice of failure to a local authority in England. Again, when taken with new clause 60, my suspicion is that that is because the Secretary of State is in charge now. The commissioners and inspectors may be there to give some helpful evidence but, in reality, it is the Secretary of State who will command and control the system. That might be deemed adequate by the Government with regards to the health service, but I do not think it is adequate in local government, given the mandate that our councillors get from their population.
We cannot support the new clauses. We will not oppose clause 121, because there needs to be some oversight in the new environment that the Government are seeking to create, but I have no doubt that we will have to find a better way to do that in years to come. In the meantime, I hope that we can at least enhance that with amendment 145.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support amendment 145 but also to echo the comments of the Labour Front Bench about how far we have to go into the Bill, which is called a Health and Care Bill, before we hear anything about care. I think that all of us with any interest in social care have recognised the challenges within the sector over the past 18 months, which have been laid bare by the pandemic. What needs to come out is a much more radical approach to social care, including closing what is thought to be between a £6 billion and £8 billion funding gap in England every year.
In Scotland, we spend over 43% more per head on social care than in England, and that provides free personal care to people who are resident in Scotland. We fund the real living wage, which helps to begin to tackle the workforce issues, but the deeper issue facing all four nations is that we need a different approach to social care. The Feeley review, which the Scottish Government commissioned last autumn, highlighted the fact that we constantly talk about social care as a burden, and about how much it costs, instead of realising that almost half of those receiving care are people of working age. We must recognise the importance of social care for both younger and older people, recognise it as a human rights issue, and recognise it as funding to allow people to participate in the society in which they live. We need to turn that around, which means that we need to change the approach to the staff who deliver it.
Workforce is the biggest single problem. It is unfortunately much worse since we left the EU—certainly in parts of rural Scotland, where up to 30% of care workers were European citizens. We need to develop care as a profession. It is a registered profession in Scotland, but the staff need to be treated as professionals with career development, so that people come into social care for a lifetime, not just until they get a job on the checkout in Tesco. I appreciate clause 121, but it is not remotely radical enough. In something called the Health and Care Bill it is very small considering the mountain that has to be climbed.
Edward Argar
I do not think it is an entirely fair reflection to ask why it is taking so long to get to social care reform. We have already had debates about integrated care systems, integrate care partnerships and the integrated care board; a key element of that was about local government working with the NHS in the social care space, so that is a slightly unfair characterisation. Members will have heard the Prime Minister set out his ambitious plan to fix social care and waiting lists, with more to follow.
Clause 121 inserts proposed new section 46A into the Health and Social Care Act 2008, introducing a new legal duty for the CQC to review and make an assessment of the performance of local authorities in exercising certain regulated care functions related to adult social care. As part of the new legal duty, the commission will be required to publish a report of its assessment. The specific regulated care functions that local authorities will be assessed against will be set out in secondary legislation. These reviews will be informed by objectives and priorities set by the Secretary of State and will reflect indicators of quality and methodology devised by the commission and approved by the Secretary of State.
The commission may choose to revise the quality indicators and the statement describing the methodology periodically, or do so under the Secretary of State’s direction. In order to provide transparency, the commission must publish the objectives and priorities, the quality indicators that will inform assessments, and the statement describing the methodology. This new duty is crucial in increasing assurance and transparency about how local authorities are delivering critical adult social care responsibilities, on which so many people rely.
Amendment 145 would alter the proposed duty under proposed new section 46A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to require the Care Quality Commission directly to involve service users and providers when undertaking reviews of local authorities’ regulated care functions. I understand the spirit behind this amendment and sympathise with its aims. It is our intention that reviews by the CQC should draw upon a wide range of information and perspectives from the sector, including from providers and service users.
However, I do not feel this cause is best advanced through acceptance of this amendment. The views of people who use services, and the providers of those services, are already central to the way in which the CQC regulates. The CQC has a proven record of hearing a wide range of views since its creation over 10 years ago, both when it develops its methodology and when it assesses quality and safety in services. That is supported by section 4 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which places a duty on the CQC when performing its functions to have regard to views expressed by or on behalf of members of the public about health and social care services, and to the experiences of people who use health and social care services, and their families and friends.
Reviews under proposed new section 46A are not due to commence until 2023-24. As the CQC designs its approach to reviewing local authority performance before then, it will work closely with people who use health and social care services, their families, health and social care providers and the organisations that represent them, as well as other key stakeholders to ensure that its regulation is properly informed by a diverse range of views.
More detailed information on how local authorities’ reviews will be undertaken will be provided in a method statement, which the CQC must develop and the Secretary of State will approve. Section 46A(8) requires the CQC to produce a method statement outlining the method that it proposes to use in reviewing local authorities. This statement is a more appropriate place to set out operational details such as when and how providers and service users will be involved—the shadow Minister made a point about whether it would be guidance and whether it should be in the legislation.
I would like to further reassure right hon. and hon. Members, given the CQC’s publication of its new strategy, “The world of health and social care is changing. So are we” and “A new strategy for the changing world of health and social care” in May this year. That sets out a bold new approach to regulation, underpinned by a focus on what good and outstanding person-centred care looks like, and smarter use of data and intelligence. The CQC consulted on the strategy earlier this year, receiving more than 790 responses from people who use services, the public and voluntary groups and almost 400 from commissioning bodies and service providers. For the reasons that I have given, I would encourage the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Let me turn to the relevant clause. Demographic change has resulted in more people having care and support needs, and we expect that trend to continue for the foreseeable future. As social care affects a greater number of people at some point during their lives, it is important that there is a transparent system through which local authorities can be held to account by their populations for delivering the right kind of care—I take the point, which I think the hon. Member for Nottingham North was making, about democratic elections, essentially, forming a key part of that; I do not disagree, but I believe it is important that there is a mechanism to assess quality of care in this context, and the best outcomes within the resources available. The measure delivers on that aim by requiring that assessment of how local authorities are delivering critical adult social care functions.
I believe that this new level of insight will support local authorities to understand what they are doing well and what they could do better. It will also help the Department to understand what is happening, forming an overarching national picture alongside the local-level assessments. I do not believe it challenges the parallel strands, which we have talked about before—the different approaches in a national health service versus local authority social care provision. I do not believe it threatens democratic oversight, either.
Turning to Government new clauses 60 and 61, new clause 60 provides the Secretary of State with powers to intervene where local authorities are failing to discharge their functions under part 1 of the Care Act 2014 to an acceptable standard. This will form one part of a new approach to assurance and support for local authorities, which will underpin our efforts to improve outcomes for people receiving care and support. Our new power of intervention will sit alongside this statutory CQC assurance framework. Where issues are identified, our priority will be to support local authorities to lead their own improvement. However, where CQC assessment identifies a persistent and serious risk to people’s wellbeing and local authorities are unable to lead their own improvement, it is right that the Government have powers to step in and help secure that improvement.
We will intervene using the most proportionate and appropriate tools available. That might include requiring local authorities to report to an improvement panel or co-operate with improvement advisers nominated by the Department of Health and Social Care. We have ruled out the use of independent trusts, whereby services are removed from local authority control and transferred to an independent charity or a commercial organisation. We will of course engage partners in the sector to finalise our approach, with additional detail to be set out in the forthcoming White Paper. Where necessary, the new clause gives the Secretary of State, or an individual nominated by the Secretary of State, power to take over the exercise of specified adult social care functions of a local authority.
In the light of our new approach to assurance and support, we are making changes to section 50 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 through new clause 61. Where the CQC identifies failure, it may make recommendations to local authorities. It must also notify the Secretary of State of the failure and advise him on possible next steps to secure improvement. Because we are creating bespoke powers relating to adult social care services, we are taking adult social care functions under part 1 of the Care Act out of the scope of the existing powers of intervention under section 7D of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
Our intervention amendments are key to ensuring that people can expect high-quality care, regardless of where they live; without clause 121, we would continue to lack a strong understanding of local authority performance, good practice and pioneering approaches that can support local authorities to meet the needs of those who rely on them for social care. I therefore commend the clause and the Government new clauses to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. I completely agreed with her point that, fundamentally, the No. 1 basic issue is a complete lack of investment, as we have seen over the last decade. Everything else after that becomes just tinkering around the edges, and there has been too much of that in this legislation. I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for taking a different approach—to stop treating social care as a burden and to understand our responsibility to working-age adults, but also to older people, and the investment and the national good of investing to ensure that those people can live independent lives and can reach their potential and do what they want to do. That we do not prioritise that in this country is a profound sadness.
Perhaps I was a little glib in the point that I made about the two clauses, and I am conscious that the Minister thinks that was unfair. He talked about other examples in which carers feature in the Bill. The reality is that each time it is about how care affects and reflects on the national health service. It is never about social care; it is about what the health service needs with regard to social care. Those two things are not the same. The point is that the Bill, for better or worse—we are not very enthusiastic about it—has 120-odd clauses about reforming the national health service and two clauses about reforming social care.
The problem is that for 11 years, or certainly for my entire four and a half years in Parliament, the Government have been promising a social care Green Paper that never comes. It is in a desk. It has supposedly been written for many years, but it never sees the light of day. Our failure adequately to grasp social care is really bad for society and terrible for the health service. That is why I made that point. How many more health service Acts do we have to see before someone finally tries to grab hold of social care? The reality is that we will have to see a change of Government for that to happen meaningfully.
The Minister’s comments on amendment 145 provided great comfort, so I will not press it to a Division. On the point that he made about needing a mechanism in cases where a local authority fails, in the most exceptional cases I agree with that, but what do we do when national Government fails? National Government have failed on that point for 11 years. The answer is that we wait until the next general election and try to persuade people. We have failed to do that three times in that period. That is right, but it also applies to local government, so I would not want to see that overused. I think I have made my point on Government new clauses 60 and 61, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 147, in clause 121, page 102, line 46, leave out “or”.
This amendment is consequential on NC59.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 148.
Government new clause 59—Care Quality Commission reviews etc of integrated care system.
Edward Argar
We tabled the amendments following the publication of recommendations by the Health and Social Care Committee on the Bill. The Committee recommended that the Care Quality Commission be given a role in assessing integrated care systems—the umbrella term, of course, for integrated care boards, local authorities and their system partners working collectively. We agree entirely; indeed, I thank the Committee for championing that agenda. The intention is for those reviews to provide the public and the system with independent assurance of how their ICS area is performing, and in particular the effectiveness of joined-up working and integration. Those reviews will be a valuable way to improve the services provided and encourage the effective joint working that the Bill enables.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome the involvement of the CQC in reviewing the work and impact of the new integrated care systems, but other parts of public service provision, particularly children’s services, are regulated by other bodies—Ofsted, in the case of children’s social care. Can the Minister reassure me, either now or at a later stage, that those bodies will be involved in the initial discussions about what the reviews will look like, and how Ofsted may be able to provide input to ensure that the review encompasses all aspects of regulation and inspection that will touch on the ICSs.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that we must not at any point forget the interest of children and families in the context of the services being provided. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I certainly envisage that, as we draw up the system, and as what we are proposing becomes designed and operationalised, the process would encompass close co-operation with Ofsted and other relevant bodies to ensure that it does the job that it is intended to, and that no one falls through the cracks—for want of a better way of putting it—in that regime.
Our approach builds on the existing role of the CQC as the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, it already reviews individual providers of health and social care. This Bill expands its role, as under clause 121 it will also have a duty to review and assess the performance of local authorities in delivering their adult social care functions under part 1 of the Care Act 2014.
Alex Norris
I am glad to see this change added to the Bill. Since the publication of the White Paper, we have called for greater oversight of integrated care systems. We offered options in previous sittings around democratic accountability, which would be our preference, but we may have to settle for this change, which does represent progress. Integrated care systems—in particular integrated care boards, which will be the system in reality—will be powerful. They will hold billions of pounds in funds, and will author and manage care for the entire population—a lot of people. The quality of their work will go a long way to deciding the quality of local healthcare provision and, indeed, health outcomes in their communities.
It is right to have oversight of that work, to have a way to hold systems up against each other and understand where there is success and where there are greater challenges, and to use an established overseer with reputation, experience and a degree of independence—one that the public know how to engage with and contact. It represents the first bulwark against the system working in its own interests, rather than in the interest of population health, which is good news.
I have a couple of specific questions, but before asking them I want to make a general point to the Minister. I hope we do not lose one of the best things that local government does, and does much better than the health service, which is sector-led improvement. The idea is that as we have however many—150—local authority areas in England, they will develop an awful lot of great experience over time and can share it among them. I do not mean, “Here, read our manifesto—we’re wonderful,” but in a day-to-day supportive and developing way, which is better than just waiting for an inspection every four years.
Before I was elected to this place, I was a member peer, and I helped those in other health footprints on the exact point of integration, so I know that established people are already working in this field. I recall that it was at one of these sector-led, improvement-type activities that I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. That was eight or nine years ago, when we were the future once in local government, or perhaps in politics in general—and look at us now! Nevertheless, the point is that there is loads of really good work going on in the LGA, and I really hope to hear from the Minister that that will be seen as an asset, and could now be developed for all these systems as something that would really complement an inspection regime.
I will make two quick points about the inspection regime itself. Proposed new section 46B(3)(a) in new clause 59 says that the CQC will have to establish indicators. Will the Minister clarify what he means by that? Is it about things we would conventionally understand —outstanding, good, requires improvement, adequate—or similar? Again, this needs to be something the public can easily understand, and we need to be able to understand what it is trying to tell us.
Under proposed new section 46B(6)(a)(i), it would be left to the CQC to determine the frequency of inspection. I feel that that is rather a function for the Department, as it commissions the inspector, than for the inspector itself. I seek at least a sense from the Minister of the frequency we are talking about. I understand that it might be different for different footprints—I think it was the hon. Member for Eddisbury who mentioned Ofsted—depending on how their ICSs are doing at a certain point, but what at least is the broad frequency we are talking about?
Those are important details, and I hope to hear greater clarity on them, but the basic principle that there is oversight is one we are supporting.
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, and I think that on this we are in broad agreement. He raised a few specific points, about which I hope I can reassure him. On local authority sector-led improvement, I entirely share his view; I think it is an asset. We are in the business not of excluding ways to improve, but of creating new ways to improve. If we have something that—he is absolutely right—does add value, I would hope it is looked to as an asset to draw on, rather than pushed to one side.
Let me discuss the hon. Gentleman’s other points. On indicators, yes, I entirely agree with him. While we must wait for subsequent developments to assess exactly how we characterise those—we will be doing a system assessment rather than an individual provider assessment, with complex moving parts—I entirely agree with his underlying point, which is that the indicators ideally need to be consistent with extant ones, to be easily understandable and to convey a clear message on performance—be it outstanding, good or whatever—as something that is meaningful to all our voters and to those using the systems.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point about frequency, I may disappoint him a little in not being able to give quite such a clear answer. I am being cautious because I think it is right that the CQC—when it is given this power, subject to the passage of the legislation through Parliament—can take a step back and consider what it thinks. The ICSs will be at different stages of development in different parts of the country; some will be very much advanced because of where they are now, and some will not be.
It would wrong at this stage to be prescriptive about that frequency. I suppose I would say—we have seen this with Ofsted—that some are inspected very regularly because there is clearly a problem that needs to be addressed, but others that are doing quite well will be assessed at regular, but less frequent, intervals. That does not give the hon. Gentleman a clear statistical answer, but I would expect regular routine assessments, obviously with the facility for the CQC to do more frequent assessments where it thinks something needs bottoming out or where it needs to support such improvement. I hope that that, to a degree, answers the points he made, all of which are valid and important.
Amendment 147 agreed to.
Amendment made: 148, in clause 121, page 103, line 3, leave out “or”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment is consequential on NC59.
Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Provision of social care services: financial assistance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will be relatively brief. The clause will expand the Secretary of State’s powers under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that payments can be made to all providers delivering social care services. It will also allow the Secretary of State to delegate the new power to special health authorities via directions.
The power in the 2008 Act excludes providers that operate for profit. Given that social care in England is largely delivered by private providers operating on a profit-making basis, the Secretary of State is unable to make direct payments to much of the sector under the existing power. Crucially, the power can be used only by financial assistance bodies engaged in providing social care services or services connected with social care services.
The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the need for speed and flexibility in providing support to the care sector. Without the clause, our only means to deliver financial assistance to social care providers is via local authorities. We are clear that the power will not be used to amend or replace the existing system of funding for adult social care, whereby funding for state provision is funded via local authorities, largely through local income and supplemented by Government grant.
The new power will allow the Secretary of State to react to unforeseen and changing circumstances by directing financial assistance social care providers with greater speed and in a more targeted manner. That is one of the learnings that we are seeking to implement as a result of what has happened during the recent pandemic. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I will be very brief, not least because we will not divide the Committee. However, I could not let us go past the clause without mentioning the heading. I must read it from the Bill because it gives me so much pleasure: “Provision of social care services: financial assistance”. Wouldn’t that be something in this country?
It is quite something to see the Government seeking to establish a mechanism to fund social care because we have been waiting 11 years for them to do so. During tomorrow’s Budget, we will listen with interest for news of support for social care. Given that most of the Budget has been leaked already, I dare say we will be disappointed. I feel a little as though the clause is the parliamentary equivalent of being threatened with a good time.
We do not have any issue with the establishment of such a mechanism, although our preference would be for that to be done by the Department that leads on local government, rather than by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, because we think that that is confusing. However, we do not oppose the principle behind the clause.
I can foresee the scenario in which this power would be desirable, but I would like the Minister to reiterate on the record that it will not lead to the routine commissioning of private providers outside the commissioning plans of the local authority. Each local authority puts incredible efforts into commissioning services in its community. The last thing local authorities want is someone doing a sideline arrangement on a different matter. To be clear, this is an exceptional power—almost an emergency power—and not one that we would expect to be used frequently.
Edward Argar
I think I can give the shadow Minister that reassurance. The clause is intended to reflect some of the learning from the pandemic. There are occasions when such intervention is necessary, but there is no intention, as I said in my remarks, to in any way go round or replace the current commissioning functions of the local authority. I have had discussions with the Local Government Association on exactly that point, so I hope I can give him the reassurance he seeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 123
Regulation of health care and associated professions
Dr Whitford
I beg to move amendment 112, in clause 123, page 105, line 13, at end insert—
“(f) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) An Order in Council under this section—
(a) which affects Scotland may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(b) which affects Wales may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers;
(c) which affects Northern Ireland may only be made with the consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers.””
This amendment would require the appropriate authority to obtain the consent of devolved governments before orders under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 affecting the relevant territory could be made.
Obviously, we are discussing the regulation of healthcare and associated professions. I am concerned that what we see written is that the Secretary of State will have the power to abolish certain regulatory bodies, deregulate certain professions and specifically deregulate social care workers. Most registration and regulatory bodies for healthcare are UK-wide, but it must be recognised that people work and move between the four nations, so anything that happens at that level will have an impact on the devolved health services.
During the debate on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, Members raised the issue that professional qualifications gained in any of the four nations must be recognised across all four. That makes absolute sense, but the debate was about teachers, and in England Teach First allows a degree holder to become a teacher within a matter of a couple of months whereas in Scotland and Wales, a postgraduate teaching qualification is required. That did not go ahead, but it highlights the issue.
We see new health professions developing—new grades, physicians and associates—and the devolved nations will have their own view on whether they would use such staff, how they think those staff should be regulated and registered, and where they would fit in their health services. We face the potential of new grades or qualifications being created that the devolved health services would have no option other than to recognise and accept, yet they would have minimal input, so we are back to the issue of genuine consultation with and consent from Health Ministers.
Earlier, when we were talking about the need to professionalise social care, I was surprised to hear the deregulation of social care workers mentioned. In Scotland, we are moving forward with the registration of care staff as the first step in that professionalisation, and we would not want to see it undermined. That is the same theme, unfortunately, that I have repeatedly put before the Committee. However, it is important to recognise that while the delivery of health and social care is devolved, some of the issues that we are debating would have a significant impact on the three devolved services, and it would be wrong for their Ministers to have these decisions forced on them by the Secretary of State with no significant input or consent as to how to take things forward.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I shall be brief. I support my hon. Friend on this matter. Clearly, systems vary from one country to another. Indeed, a long time ago, I was involved in teaching social care staff, and we were ambitious to register all staff whereas, as I remember it, 10% of staff in England were going to be registered at that time. Across the UK, there are different approaches to health provision. As I have said before in the Committee, the Labour Government in Wales have adopted a wellbeing approach for many years, and I think the requirements of implementing such a wellbeing approach might vary from one country to another.
I restate my support for my hon. Friend on this matter and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about it.
Edward Argar
Amendment 112 would place on the Secretary of State a duty to obtain consent from the devolved Administrations prior to legislating using section 60 of the Health Act 1999, where such legislation would affect the devolved Administrations. Before I turn to the substance of the amendment, I will set out the benefits of regulating health and care professionals on a UK-wide basis. It is important that we have UK-wide standards to ensure the same level of public protection across the UK and to allow healthcare professionals the flexibility to work across the whole of the UK. We value and will continue to work collaboratively with our devolved Administration partners on the regulation of health and care professionals.
Each devolved legislature, as has been alluded to, has its own devolved arrangements in respect of professional regulation, which are a mix of reserved and devolved or transferred powers. In practice, any use of section 60 affecting professionals in Northern Ireland is exercised only with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive. In Scotland, consent is required in relation to legislation concerning healthcare professionals brought into regulation post the Scotland Act 1998. In the case of Wales, the regulation of healthcare professionals is a reserved matter, so consent is not sought.
In practice, the UK Government always seek the agreement of the NI Executive when making changes to the regulation of healthcare professionals, and the Scottish Parliament’s consent is required in the circumstances that I set out previously. The amendment would add to that by requiring consent in relation to any changes to the regulation of healthcare professionals affecting the devolved Administrations. In addition, legislation requires that section 60 can be used only following public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The purpose of the professional regulation system is to protect the public. Regulating health and care professionals on a UK-wide basis helps to provide consistency across the four nations and ensures that we continue to work together with the devolved legislatures to align workforce policy. For those reasons, although I appreciate the point underlying the amendment, I ask the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire to withdraw it.
Dr Whitford
We have had a lot of debate over recent years about whether we are aiming for lowest common denominator or to achieve the highest standard. The concern is about delegating or creating new grades of staff who are not expected to have the same level of qualification or training as the people they may be replacing within the health service. That is not always to the benefit of patient safety. We are really calling for meaningful engagement, which is not what we have seen before. It is important to recognise the impact that it would have on the devolved nations.
I totally recognise that professionals need to be able to work across the UK, but it should be about aiming for people to have the training, professionalisation, standards and regulation that they require and which is comparative to the job that they are doing and the service they are delivering for patients. We spent the whole morning on patient safety. The standard of the staff who deliver the care is the most important thing for patient safety. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 123, page 105, line 13, at end insert—
“(f) After subsection (2B) insert—
(2C) The regulation of health professions and social care workers must be used where possible to raise professional awareness of rare and less common conditions.”
This amendment would require professional regulators to support improved awareness of rare and less common conditions amongst health and care professionals.
May I clarify that there will be a debate on the substantive clause afterwards?
Justin Madders
I do so wish. I will not detain the Committee long on amendment 142. We are seeking to find ways of increasing awareness of rare and less common conditions among healthcare professionals. I readily accept that the amendment may not be a perfect vehicle for doing that, but the recent UK rare diseases framework included increasing awareness of rare and less common conditions among healthcare professionals as one of its four priority areas, partly due to the challenges that people within the community face in receiving accurate and timely diagnoses in primary care.
What mechanisms can be introduced to help to raise awareness of rare and less common conditions among healthcare professionals? Will the Minister consider introducing reforms to workforce training and resourcing to facilitate that because among the raft of the entire professional regulation process and a range of development issues, continuing development about and awareness of rare conditions is at the heart of proper and effective regulation?
Edward Argar
Amendment 142 would introduce a legislative requirement in section 60 of the Health Act 1999 for health and care professional regulators to raise professional awareness of rare and less common conditions where possible.
The purpose of regulating healthcare professionals is to protect the public. Regulators set the standards that registered professionals must meet; they also set standards relating to education and training. By ensuring that the standards are met, the regulators ensure that on an ongoing basis professionals have the right behaviours, skills, knowledge and experience to provide safe and effective care.
Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 provides powers to make changes to the professional regulatory landscape through secondary legislation. Each professional regulator has its own legislation that can be amended under the powers in section 60, which provides the framework for its establishment and remit. Although I have sympathy with the amendment’s aim and the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmore Port and Neston about the need to ensure that health and care professionals are aware of rare conditions, I do not believe that writing such a requirement into section 60 of the 1999 Act is quite the right approach to achieve that.
All the healthcare professional regulators have the same set of objectives, which were placed on a consistent footing by the Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Act 2015. Those objectives are to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public; to promote and maintain public confidence in the professions regulated under the Act; and to promote and maintain proper professional standards and conduct for members of those professions.
A key part of delivering those objectives is setting standards that require professionals to have the necessary skills and knowledge to practise safely. That includes knowledge and awareness of rare conditions where that is necessary for an individual’s practice. Regulators set the standards that healthcare professionals are required to meet in order to practise. Professionals have a duty to ensure that they provide a good standard of practice and care, which includes keeping their professional knowledge and skills up to date. That is set out in the guidance issued by the regulators.
For example, the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” sets out the standards required of a registered doctor. It specifies that a doctor must keep their professional knowledge and skills up to date, must be familiar with guidelines and developments that affect their work, and must recognise and work within the limits of their competence. That provides a clear framework that requires doctors to have knowledge of rare conditions where that is necessary for their practice.
The exact knowledge and skills required for each healthcare professional cannot be known or set by the regulator, but the current legislative requirements put in a place a framework that requires each professional to maintain the skills and knowledge needed to practise safely, including knowledge of rare conditions.
As experts in regulation, it is the responsibility of the regulators to determine what role they need to play in raising issues such as awareness of rare and less common conditions among their professionals. For those reasons, I encourage the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Justin Madders
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause provides additional powers that will widen the scope of section 60 of the Health Act 1999 and enable the Privy Council to make additional changes through secondary legislation.
The powers will enable the abolition of an individual health and care professional regulatory body where the professions concerned have been deregulated or are being regulated by another body; the removal of a healthcare profession from regulation where that is no longer for the protection of the public; or the delegation of certain functions to other regulatory bodies through legislation which previously had not been allowed. The powers will enable the regulation of group of workers concerned with physical and mental health, whether or not they are generally regarded as a profession, such as senior managers and leaders.
The UK model of regulation for healthcare professionals is rigid, complex and needs to be flexible and to change to better protect patients, support our health and care services and to help the workforce meet future challenges. The case for reforming professional regulation has long been acknowledged. Stakeholders have long expressed concern that having nine separate professional regulatory bodies is inefficient and confusing to the public. Our 2019 public consultation response reflected the desire for fewer regulatory bodies to deliver benefits to the professional regulation system. In addition, an independent review of the regulatory landscape, in particular the existing roles of regulators, has been commissioned and is due to report by the end of this year.
The powers in clause 123 will enable future changes to be made to make the professional regulatory landscape more streamlined and work more flexibly. The powers will also make it easier to ensure that the professions protected in law are the right ones and that the level of regulatory oversight is proportionate to the risks to the public.
Justin Madders
As the Minister has told us, the clause seeks to amend section 60 of the Health Act 1999 in relation to making changes to the professional regulatory landscape through secondary legislation. It will simultaneously widen the scope of section 60 and extend the Secretary of State’s powers. Members may have picked up a theme by now: whenever there is a chance for the Secretary of State to seek more power, he uses this Bill to obtain it.
At the moment, the Government have powers to bring new professions into regulation or make modifications through secondary legislation, but can remove a profession from regulation only through primary legislation. This clause will enable the removal of a profession through secondary legislation and makes it clear that a profession would be removed from regulation only when that was no longer required for the purpose of protecting the public—but then I would hardly expect a statement from the Government about deregulating only where there is a risk.
While at one end of the spectrum one could argue that virtually all interactions with patients might have some element of risk, the more balanced view might be that while not all interactions carry the same risk, it is likely that all professions at some time undertake acts where the consequences of mistakes for the patient will be significant.
I am left wondering exactly what the yardstick will be and what criteria will be used to determine when there is no longer a need to protect the public. Is that the only criterion to be applied? Does professional regulation not also help to facilitate consistent common standards? What is lacking at the moment is any sense of the principles that will be followed to inform decisions to bring professions into regulation or to remove them. Will patient organisations, representative bodies and regulators be consulted on any new criteria to be applied?
I appreciate that, as the Minister said, section 60 of the Health Act 1999 already contains requirements that legislation should be published in draft, subject to a three-month consultation, specifically with affected professionals and service users, but it would be helpful if he confirmed that that is the absolute minimum. I have to say, though, that even if the answer to that is yes, it seems a fairly minimal procedure for abolishing an entire profession. I am not sure that will cut it in terms of Parliament, never mind the public being satisfied that due diligence has been done to assess the overall risk profile of any particular role in the system. I am concerned about where that would leave matters such as professional indemnity insurance, as well as about any knock-on effect on the reassessment of bandings under agenda for change.
The more one looks at this, the harder it is to see how it could be done properly in the timescales envisaged. There are just under 700,000 registered nurses in the UK. One can see how resource-intensive it would be if every one of them responded to a consultation to abolish their profession. I suspect the Minister will tell us that he has no plans to abolish professional regulation for doctors and nurses, but imagine if he did. This process would be wholly inadequate, which leads to the question: what exactly does the Minister, or more accurately the Secretary of State, have in mind when it comes to these powers? If we got some answers on that today, it might help us to decide whether these procedures were adequate and also whether the powers are necessary at all.
Moving the power to abolish professions to secondary legislation is not putting scrutiny and transparency at the forefront, and doing so without putting any indication on the record of which professions are being considered for derecognition under this power does not instil confidence that this power grab has been considered properly or is in fact needed at all. The implications for the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, are also important. There are differences in regulation and it is not clear what would happen if there were a difference of opinion between England and the devolved nations.
Clause 123(2)(d) inserts new subsection (2ZZA) into the Health Act 1999. I would welcome the suggestion that the scope of regulation could be extended to others who might not necessarily be regarded as professionals. It remains to be seen who or what this power will be used for, but I question whether the vehicle proposed is sufficient. More needs to be done. The 2019 Interim NHS People Plan states:
“It cannot be right that there are no agreed competencies for holding senior positions in the NHS or that we hold so little information about the skills, qualifications and career history of our leaders. A series of reports over the last decade have all highlighted a ‘revolving door’ culture, where leaders are quietly moved elsewhere in the NHS, facilitated by ‘vanilla’ references. These practices are not widespread, but they must end.”
I do not know whether this will be the right vehicle for tackling this issue, but it certainly needs tackling.
On clause 123(3) and the power to abolish regulatory bodies, the case has been made rather better—most notably by the Health and Care Professions Council, which sees this as an opportunity for some much needed modernisation, with a multi-professional regulatory model that would allow regulators to retain their individual identities and independence. That would see each regulator continue to operate its own register, oversee fitness to practise processes, liaise with relevant professional bodies and set its own educational standards relating to the professions they regulate, but there would be greater collaboration, with shared back-office services and other resources, which would presumably improve efficiency.
That approach has some benefits although I am also mindful of the evidence submitted by the Professional Standards Authority, which warned:
“Any mergers would be likely to lead to a period of turbulence of three-to-five years.”
It may be of interest that the authority also said that in the coming five or so years, it expected turbulence in the NHS and referred to the Bill as part of that turbulence. Of course, there are also the issues that we have discussed many times in this place about the pandemic’s impact.
On the overall impact of clause 123, I am sure that we can all agree on the need for robust, independent processes to ensure that any decisions made are in the public interest and based on a clear assessment of the risk of harm arising from practice. It is an obvious thing to do. It is important that individuals belong to a profession because that provides a framework of standards to uphold, encourages expertise and respect, and brings a higher level of professionalism, and, crucially, accountability to the public. However, it is far from obvious how the clause will assist those aims or why in going down the road of deregulation we would want to put those important principles at risk.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. His points coalesce around a number of key themes that I shall seek to address. He highlighted his concern about why we would do this and the potential disruption of either a lack of regulation in some spaces were we to abolish regulators or of that caused by moving functions. The key point here is that this is about creating a power that enables flexibility in the system that is not currently there. It is not that we have any direct or immediate plans to do this but about creating, in the context of the opportunity provided by the legislation, a framework whereby we could move powers around. There are some points sitting underneath that which I shall try to address.
The current section 60 powers are limited in terms of the changes they can deliver in the professional regulatory framework. We can use secondary legislation to bring a new profession into regulation and create a new regulatory body, but we do not have equivalent powers to remove a profession from regulation or close a regulatory body and move functions without primary legislation. Widening the scope helps us to ensure that professional regulation delivers public protection more consistently and efficiently, recognising the dynamic, to a degree, nature of evolving professional regulation.
On his concern about abolishing regulators, I know the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is no intention of doing that. But he rightly asks, “But what if?” It is the role of the Committee to look at that. Were a regulator to be abolished, that would not necessarily mean that the professionals they regulate would cease to be regulated. Current legislation allows a number of professions to be regulated by a single body, and that creates the mechanism to allow those movements and transfers.
To give an example that some might raise, would that mean that the GMC could be abolished? It is an extreme example, but hopefully it illustrates the point. The scope of the power to abolish a regulator covers all health and care professional regulators. However, the key point is that a regulator will be abolished only if the professions have either been moved to another regulator or removed, or deemed to be removed, from regulation altogether. Any use of this power is subject to existing legislative provision, namely a public consultation and the affirmative procedure. However, to take the example I gave, there are no plans to abolish the GMC, because clearly there would always be a need for continued regulation of medical practitioners. Therefore, given that the GMC regulates them, it would continue to do so.
Underpinning that concern is whether the removal of a specified profession entirely from regulation would increase in any way risks to public safety. Again, a profession would only be removed entirely from regulation following an assessment that showed the profession no longer required regulation for the purposes of public protection and that risks could therefore be safely managed, effectively and efficiently, outside statutory regulation. Given the nature of the professionals that we are talking about here, that would be highly unlikely in any of those spaces and I do not anticipate it. Any use of the power to remove a profession from regulation would be subject to consultation and, again, the affirmative parliamentary procedure.
The counterpoint could be why more professions are not included in regulation. From time to time we debate particular professions as new treatments, such as cosmetic treatments, emerge. Given the risks that some may pose, the question of whether there should be greater regulation then arises. Although statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where there are significant risks in the use of services that cannot be mitigated in other ways, we believe that it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users. Therefore, each situation needs to be assessed carefully on its own merits. We have seen colleagues from the across the House making the case for regulating different aspects of professions, or service providers that have effectively become professional or are providing a service that is regularly used. Rather than a blanket approach, we believe that remains the right way.
Dr Whitford
I wonder whether, within this, there is a consideration of the issues within the cosmetic surgery and treatment field, particularly the use of Botox and the injection of fillers, which often result in side effects, and the fact that even cosmetic surgeons, as opposed to plastic surgeons, are not regulated in the same way. The problem is that whenever those medical terms are used, the public assume that they are dealing with a licensed medical professional who is both registered and regulated.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her private Member’s Bill, which began putting a framework around Botulinum fillers and who could or could not access them, with age limits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) was then the Minister responsible, but she was self-isolating and awaiting test results, so I had the privilege of speaking in that debate. As often happens on Fridays, it was an interesting and well-informed debate, rather than a political to and fro, as occasionally happens in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire highlights an important point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has taken a close interest in the issue, as have hon. Members across the House. I am due to meet her to discuss this more broadly in the context of this legislation. I do not want to pre-empt that meeting and the upshot of it, but I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 124, page 106, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) In subsection (4) in paragraph (e), after “examiners” insert “including the requirement to investigate stillbirths and deaths related to childbirth”.”
This amendment would extend the medical examiner remit to look at still births and maternity cases.
This place has come a long way in recognising, discussing and acting on the tragedy that is baby loss. It has taken us a long time to get there, and there is still a long way to go, but we hope that this amendment will help us to continue on that journey.
The Minister will be aware of the November 2017 announcement on the possibility of coroners being asked to conduct inquests into stillbirths and the subsequent consultation—I believe he was the Minister who initiated that consultation, which was needed. In 2017 the Court of Appeal highlighted the need for reform. It said that the law relating to coronial investigations of stillbirths had not changed since 1887, and:
“Still-birth is a tragedy that continues to befall many families in advanced societies but it was a phenomenon more common in the past… The public interest in establishing whether a child was or was not stillborn, and if it was not how it came by its death, is apparent and continuing.”
I am sure those words will resonate with all Members, who will recognise that during the tragedy of stillbirth, parents will want to know why it has happened to them. Although a coronial investigation is no guarantee that answers will be forthcoming, it may relieve the sense of loss that they feel and may help in some small way.
The Government response to the consultation has been delayed somewhat, and they have said that they are not seeking to replace the role of the NHS in investigating stillbirths, but coronial investigations would
“supplement and support those investigations and ensure that coroners can contribute to the learning and play a role in reducing the stillbirth rate.”
Any update on when the response to the consultation will be published would be appreciated.
In essence, the amendment seeks to build on the comments made by the Royal College of Pathologists, which stated when that announcement was made back in 2017 that medical examiners should in fact play a far greater role in investigating stillbirths, as
“medical examiners are ideally placed to identify trends relating to deaths”
and to highlight areas for further improvement. The Government’s roll-out of medical examiners so far has not included investigations into stillbirths. The purpose of the amendment is to get underneath the rationale for that and to press for the issue to be reconsidered. If we are to have a separate debate on clause stand part, I will leave my comments there in order for the Minister to respond.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us, through amendment 116, an opportunity to debate and discuss this issue. Every stillbirth and death related to childbirth is a tragedy, and it is only right that we remain absolutely committed to supporting parents and families during such a difficult time. However, we are not convinced that this amendment is necessary in order to do that, and I will explain why in due course.
Following the passage of the Bill, the Secretary of State will make, in relation to England, regulations underpinning the medical examiner system, which will set out that the functions of medical examiners include confirming the cause of non-coronial deaths as stated by the doctor on the medical certificate of cause of death. The intention is that that will include confirming the cause of deaths of mothers in childbirth. As part of proposals to improve and digitise the medical certificate of cause of death, we are proposing the introduction of a new section on the certificate that will allow information relating to pregnancy at the time of death to be recorded. Recording information relating to pregnancy on the medical certificate of cause of death will provide a more accurate way to measure maternal deaths, and bring the certificate used in England and Wales in line with certificates used in other countries.
On stillbirths specifically, it is the case that between March and June of 2019, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, the Ministry of Justice—I was in the Department at the time, as he set out—and the Department of Health and Social Care jointly consulted on proposals for coroners to investigate term or post-term stillbirths. The proposals are intended to improve the independence and transparency of reviews through independent investigation by coroners as judicial office holders outside the NHS. Work on analysing the responses to the consultation was delayed during the covid-19 pandemic, but the Government hope to publish the response to the consultation as soon as possible.
The Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 also requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the preparation of a report on whether and how the law ought to be changed to require coroners to investigate stillbirths, and provides a power to make those changes within five years. At such a time as the response to the consultation on proposals to provide coroners with new powers to investigate term stillbirths is published, it will be appropriate for the position on medical examiners also, potentially, to be considered.
There are existing processes for investigations of stillbirths, including the perinatal mortality review tool, introduced in 2018, and investigations by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch. I would like to highlight the importance of parents having the opportunity to be involved in the reviews and investigations. In early 2018 the perinatal mortality review tool was introduced to support NHS maternity and neonatal units in England, Wales and Scotland to undertake high-quality, standardised reviews of the circumstances and care leading up to and surrounding each stillbirth and neonatal death. The aim of the perinatal mortality review tool is to support objective, robust and standardised reviews to provide answers for bereaved parents about why their baby died, as well as ensuring local and national learning to improve care and, ultimately, prevent future baby deaths.
Since April 2018 the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has been responsible in England for all NHS patient safety investigations of maternity incidents that meet the criteria for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Each Baby Counts programme, of which there are approximately 1,000 cases each year. That includes all cases in which a term baby was considered to be alive and healthy at the onset of labour but the birth outcome was severe brain damage, intrapartum stillbirth or neonatal death, and maternal deaths, to identify common themes and influence system change.
Both the perinatal mortality review tool and the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch provide the opportunity for parents’ involvement in the investigation of stillbirths, which is essential to help provide answers for bereaved parents and to improve care.
I will not prejudge what the response might be to the consultation that we spoke about earlier, but I invite the shadow Minister to perhaps draw his own conclusions about my thinking on this, given that I believe it was my signature on the front of that document and I was the Minister who fought to be able to launch it. On that basis, I gently encourage him to consider not pressing his amendment to a vote on this occasion.
Justin Madders
In the light of the Minister’s encouragement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 124 will amend the statutory medical examiner system in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 so that English NHS bodies may appoint medical examiners to scrutinise deaths, instead of local authorities. Appointment of medical examiners by NHS bodies will facilitate their access to patient information in order to scrutinise the proposed cause of death while remaining clinically independent of the case. The medical examiner system will introduce a level of independent scrutiny, improving the quality and accuracy of the medical certificate of cause of death and thereby informing the national data on mortality and patient safety.
The medical examiner system will increase transparency and offer bereaved people the opportunity to raise concerns. It will provide new levels of scrutiny to help identify and deter criminal activity and poor practice. New duties on, and powers for, the Secretary of State to ensure enough medical examiners are appointed by English NHS bodies and are provided with sufficient resources and monitoring will help to facilitate and develop this system. As a result of the introduction of the medical examiner system, all deaths would be scrutinised by either a medical examiner or coroner, irrespective of the decision to bury or cremate, thus bringing the system on to an equal footing. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Justin Madders
As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of medical examiners is to provide greater safeguards to the public by ensuring proper scrutiny of all non-coronial deaths; to ensure the appropriate notification of deaths to the coroner; and to provide a better service for the bereaved and, importantly, give them an opportunity to raise any concerns to a doctor who was not involved in the care of the deceased. It will also hopefully improve the quality of death certification and mortality data. These are all worthy aims that we can support, so the challenge for the Minister is to set out how the Government will benchmark the success or otherwise of medical examiners in achieving those aims. For example, can he tell us what improved quality of mortality data will actually look like? Does he envisage this leading to further system changes down the line, or is it too early to tell?
Another area I would be grateful for a little more detail about is set out in proposed new section 19(A3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which gives the Secretary of State the power to
“give a direction to an English NHS body—
(a) requiring the body to appoint or arrange for the appointment of one or more medical examiners,”
setting out the funds and resources that should be made available to such employed medical examiners, or setting out the means and methods that may be employed to monitor the performance of those medical examiners. Can the Minister tell us exactly who that body might be? Does the Secretary of State have a view on how many medical examiners might be needed, and what the appropriate level of funding might be?
I also want to ask about clause 124(8), which amends section 20 of the 2009 Act. That section provides a power to make regulation to require a fee to be payable in respect of medical examiners’ confirmation of cause of death. The clause will require any such fee to be payable to an English NHS body, rather than a local authority. Does the Department have a position on fees? Are they desirable? Has a level been set for them? What consultation has taken place about that level, and indeed the principle of charging a fee? It would be a shame if medical examiners were not accessible to the majority of people because of a barrier being created by a fee. If the Minister could answer those questions, it would be appreciated.
Dr Whitford
The recommendation to introduce a medical examiner system was one of the strongest recommendations from the Shipman inquiry, and Shipman was convicted in 2000, over two decades ago. As a professional, we saw an entire industry of appraisals and various other systems introduced to the NHS that took up hours and hours of clinical time, whereas there was nothing to actually review death certificates—either their accuracy or who was issuing them—and to spot unusual patterns. Obviously, it can be the case that a GP practice covers a hospice or some other setting where there are likely to be increased numbers of deaths and, therefore, death certificates, but it has taken an awfully long time to get to this point. Scotland introduced its medical examiners six years ago, in 2015.
The Minister has talked about all certificates being reviewed, but I would be interested to know the degree of depth to which they are going to be reviewed. It is unlikely to be possible to have a detailed inquiry on every death certificate, so in what way will they be streamed for further intervention, review or interaction with clinicians to understand what happened? That may not be clear from just looking at the certificate. Clearly, patterns of certification and patterns of death would become obvious to a medical examiner and may produce very interesting and useful information.
Edward Argar
A number of points have been raised. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, asked whether we would envisage this leading to system change if a pattern was identified and whether it could be a catalyst for that change. Absolutely—that is part of what we hope would come out of this. I am pleased that we are legislating now on this issue, but the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is right about the time it has taken. I acknowledge the example from Scotland; I do not always agree with everything done in Holyrood, but to give credit where it is due, I recognise the progress that Scotland has made in this space.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made a number of points generally revolving around resources, fees and similar issues. I hesitate to put a figure on exactly how many medical examiners or what level of resource would be needed at this stage, but I will seek to address his point about fees and resourcing in broader terms. He will know that, in the non-statutory system, medical examiners are funded through the existing fee for completing medical cremation form 5, in combination with central Government funding for medical examiner work not covered by those fees. With the temporary removal of cremation form 5 as a provision of the Coronavirus Act 2020, all costs are currently covered by central Government, but that is temporary. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 includes provisions for making regulations to introduce a new fee for the service provided by the medical examiner, and any such regulations will be subject to further parliamentary debate and scrutiny before their passage.
On the overall cost, the reality is that our estimated cost will be informed by the impact assessment published in 2018 and the data gathered from the non-statutory medical examiner system introduced in the NHS in 2019. We have seen a slightly atypical year or 18 months, so I hesitate to put an exact figure on this, but we have a broad evidence base from which to extrapolate. It predates the pandemic but it probably still has relevance. I am sorry that I cannot give him more direct data, but I would not want to pluck out a figure for him and then, quite rightly, be held to account for it in due course. I cannot do that but I hope that I have given him and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire some reassurance on those points.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 125
Advertising of less healthy food and drink
Dr Whitford
I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 125, page 107, line 12, at end insert—
“(2) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under any section of the Communications Act 2003 inserted by Schedule 16 may only be made with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Ministers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the devolved governments before the powers granted by Schedule 16 clause are exercised.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 139, page 216, line 5, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.
Amendment 140, page 217, line 3, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.
Amendment 141, page 218, line 27, in schedule 16, at end insert—
“(fa) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the online ban.
That Schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 55—Nutrient profiling model—
“Before making any adjustments to the nutrient profiling model used for the purposes of regulations under the Communications Act 2003, or of any other enactment, the Secretary of State must undertake a full and open formal consultation.”
This new clause would insert a requirement for a consultation before any changes can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Model.
Dr Whitford
Basically, clause 125 is just schedule 16 —there is nothing very much in clause 125. I sat on the Health and Social Care Committee when we talked about trying to tackle obesity, which is a growing harm across the UK, giving rise to heart disease, diabetes and so on, and the difficulties of trying to regulate the advertising of unhealthy foods, particularly foods with high fat, salt and sugar. I welcome the fact that there is an attempt to tackle that issue in broadcasting, streaming and particularly online.
I have concerns that the exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises could be worked into a loophole at a later date by large companies simply employing multiple small advertisers or restructuring themselves to get away with still advertising. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that exemption, because unhealthy food is just as unhealthy whether made by a small or a big company.
Broadcasting and online regulation are clearly reserved matters, and I totally respect that, but public health is devolved, so I would welcome clarification from the Minister on exactly how the devolved Ministers will be involved, how their public health policies will be respected, and how they will be consulted.
Proposed new section 368Z20(3) of the Communications Act 2003 gives power to amend by regulation Acts of the devolved Parliaments, and proposed new subsection (4) states that the Secretary of State can consult who they think appropriate. I am surprised that at that point there is no mention of consulting the devolved Governments. I totally accept that it would not be a matter of consent, but yet again there is absolutely no mention of consultation with or involvement of the Public Health Ministers in the devolved nations.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to speak to this important clause, which sets out restrictions on advertising less healthy food and drink. I echo what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said about its importance and the general commitment to it across the House. Importantly, it also gives me an opportunity to put on the record a message of thanks to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for all the work she did in this area while a Health Minister. She has moved to a new post during the Bill’s consideration, but she championed this provision for a long time and fought very hard for it, so I have no doubt that she will be glad to see it included in the Bill.
These measures form part of the Government’s obesity strategy, which is coming through the system bit by bit. The strategy has largely come through in secondary measures, so I welcome the fact that this provision has been included in the Bill, because it gives us an opportunity to propose improving amendments. Is the Minister able to explain why other provisions in the strategy have not been brought forward in this way? For example, we have considered a statutory instrument on showing calories on menus, which I dare say all Members will have received something about in their mailbags, because it is a contentious and emotive topic, with many shades of grey. That provision would have been improved if we had had a chance to amend it, so I am sad that we instead got a “take it or leave it” measure. I do wonder why the entire obesity strategy was not put through in this way.
Turning to what is before us, ensuring that we do not see the aggressive promotion of products high in fat, sugar and salt, particularly to our nation’s children, is an important step in reducing the obesogenic environment we live in. We know that one in three of our children leave primary school overweight and one in five are obese, and we know the lifelong impact that that has on physical and mental health, such as the links to diabetes, musculoskeletal ailments and depression. We also know the impact on children’s education, as they go to secondary school and beyond, and on their prospects in the world of work.
It is a well-established and long-standing precedent in this country that we try to protect children from exposure via the television by using a watershed, so it makes sense to consider these products within that scope. Of course, the nature of the content we all consume—children are no exception—has changed beyond all recognition in my lifetime. The explosion of the internet and its pre-eminence in our lives has provided new advertising space for traditional means—banner ads, pop-up ads and similar—but there is also a much broader platform. Today is probably not the day, certainly not in the witching hour of this Committee, to get into the influence of culture and how the entertainment landscape is changing—not least because I feel woefully underqualified to talk about it—but the point is that there are extraordinarily novel ways of connecting with people, especially young people. It is therefore right that we in Parliament enter this space to try to create the safest possible environment.
I will say, alongside this, that I am surprised that we have not yet seen the online harms legislation—it seems to have been coming through the system for a very long time indeed—because it would sit very neatly with this. I hope there will be a sense of trying to weave this in with that in due course.
The Government’s answer here goes beyond a watershed and into full prohibition. I hope that the Minister will take us through how that decision was reached. I understand from my conversations with industry, particularly those working in digital media, that they have offered a solution that would act as a de facto ban for children without being an outright ban. Given that we genuinely lay claim to being world leading in advertising in general, and in digital media in particular, we ought to listen if there are more elegant ways of doing that. I hope the Minister can cover the conversations being had with the sector and why this approach was chosen, not a slightly more nuanced one. Perhaps it was considered too complicated, but we need to know that.
As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says, clause 125 inserts schedule 16 into the Bill. As that is where the meat is, I want to probe the Minister on a couple of points. First, on the fines regime, what are the sanctions in the Government’s mind? Secondly, the schedule provides for regulations to follow. I suspect we will see a full regime, but when are we likely to see it? How far along are we, and what sort of consultation will there be? Thirdly—again, this will be a matter for regulations, but I hope the Minister might be drawn on it now as a concept—who does the burden fall on? Is it the advertiser or the platform? It might be both, and obviously it could not be neither. That will be a very important point going forwards.
Adding to the case the hon. Member made about small and medium-sized enterprises, we supported that conceptually in the statutory instrument on calories on menus because there was agreement that it was reasonable to say that these things would be a significant burden for a small operator, which might have only one or two members of staff. I do not think that applies in the advertising space. Again, we would be keen to understand how the Minister and his colleagues reached the conclusion they did.
Amendments 139 and 141 deal with alcohol. One of the few parts of the obesity strategy where we have departed from the Government’s view is the curious decision to remove alcohol, particularly with regard to calories and labels. We all know that alcohol is a less healthy product—I may well be the billboard for that, certainly when it comes to weight—so why has it been left out? Our amendments are more probing than an attempt to actually change the Bill, because I hope that alcohol has already been covered. However, in the obesity strategy in general, it seems to have disappeared, which seems very odd. I hope that the Minister can explain his thinking on that.
New clause 55 seeks to protect the nutrient profiling model. According to gov.uk, the NPM
“was developed by the Food Standards Agency in 2004-2005 as a tool to help Ofcom differentiate foods and improve the balance of television advertising to children. Ofcom introduced controls which restricted the advertising of HFSS foods in order to encourage the promotion of healthier alternatives.”
So far, so good. We would say that that principle is sound today and will be sound going forward; that is why we are keen to see it in the Bill. It is crucial that we continue to uphold those standards, but we know that foods change. We know that our understanding of what different nutrients mean for us or our children changes over time. We know that the biggest prize in this space is about reformulation, as much as it is about anything else, which would put more stresses on the NPM. I am keen to hear a full commitment from the Minister today that before meaningful changes are made to the NPM, they will be put out to proper consultation and that industry and consumer groups will be properly engaged, along with anyone else who may have an interest.
I will finish with amendment 113, in the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. I have made the arguments around engagement through consent, mutual good faith and co-operation from Ministers multiple times, and I hope to hear that in closing.
Clause 125 is very important, and we would like to know a bit more about schedule 16. I would be keen to hear that the issues raised in our amendments are covered elsewhere or at least to have a commitment to that. Finally, I would like to hear a bit about the nutrient profiling model.
Edward Timpson
Briefly, on clause 125 and schedule 16 in particular, I want to pick up where the hon. Member for Nottingham North left us, on the issue of obesity. I think we all share concerns that a rising number of children continue to leave primary school either overweight or obese. Much of the answer to tackling that lies in making physical education and sport part of the core curriculum in schools, but we need to look at all measures, including on what children look at and are exposed to in the changing and more digital age in which we live. I welcome measures to tackle that head on, particularly in primary legislation, although I recognise that regulation will flow from that.
Hywel Williams
I will not repeat the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire made about what is sometimes called the jagged edge of devolution—in this respect, that public health is devolved, but the regulation of broadcasting is not. I am not contesting that this afternoon, but I seek assurance that the Welsh Government, along with the Scottish Government, will be properly consulted, and their views listened to.
I will make two points on schedule 16. On the point that the hon. Member raised about small and medium-sized enterprises, in Wales, particularly rural Wales, food and drink businesses are overwhelmingly microbusinesses employing one, two or three people. It would be unusual indeed to have such a company employ more than 250 people, which I think is the definition of an SME. I therefore assume that those small producers will not be affected by the schedule, and will be exempt.
A point that has been made to me—perhaps the Minister could give me an answer to this—is that there are umbrella bodies that promote certain foods. The one that springs to my mind is Hybu Cig Cymru—the red meat authority in Wales—which promotes lamb and beef. It promotes red meats extensively, and advertises, particularly on S4C, the Welsh language channel, which I think helpfully has lower advertising rates. Would that particular umbrella or trade body, and others, be affected by the legislation?
Edward Argar
This is an important clause and set of amendments, so I fear I may detain the Committee on them for a little while. However, it is important that we air a number of points. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and others, because when we talk about digital platforms, including in other pieces of legislation and, indeed, in democracies around the world, we are essentially grappling with whether they are platforms or publishers responsible for content. I think it is fair to say that that debate continues in legislatures around the world, which presents a fundamental challenge.
I will pick up on a few questions while they are fresh in my head, and I suspect that I will cover the others in my prepared remarks. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked why there is no watershed equivalent online, and how that might operate. The short answer is that it reflects the nature of online media: it is on demand, rather than linear, as with a terrestrial or satellite broadcast, though we see slight changes to that now, with Sky boxes—other online platforms are available for TV—the ability to record things, catch up, and so on. The situation is changing, and is not quite as binary as it used to be, but that is the primary reason.
If it is agreeable to you, Mr McCabe, I will discuss the amendments first, then turn to clause 125 and schedule 16. I hope that, with my extensive notes, I will be able to mop up and scoop up a number of the questions asked. If I do not, I will ask my officials to have a scan of Hansard, and I will endeavour to write to hon. Members prior to Report to cover any points that I omit. I will then address new clause 55, which relates to the clause and schedule.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss amendment 113, which would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the DAs before any of the regulation-making powers granted by schedule 16 of the clause were exercised. As I am sure members of the Committee will be aware, the provisions in clause 125 and schedule 16 on advertising less healthy food and drink will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
We consider the provisions in this part of the Bill to be primarily focused on online services and broadcast restrictions, which are not devolved realms of responsibility. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and her colleagues in the Scottish Government might have a different interpretation of the same point—it is in the nature of the constitutional settlement that such discussions occur—but telecommunications and internet services remain reserved matters under the devolution settlement. The UK Government have made it clear that the primary purpose of the provision on the advertising of less healthy food and drink on TV and internet services is to regulate content on reserved media, internet and broadcasting. On that basis, we hold to the view that it is reserved. The purpose is not incidental—hence our argument that it does not fall within the devolved provisions and the devolved remit—but I suspect that we may return to this debate in the coming months.
Dr Whitford
I totally recognise, as I recognised in my remarks, that this area is reserved, both as regards broadcasting and online, but obviously the nations consider taking different public health approaches. Given that this is a UK-wide approach, it is important that it is joined up. I totally accept that the Minister is not interested in accepting consent, but there is no mention in the clause of consulting. I would have thought it important that there be discussion of the public health approaches of the four nations, in order to ensure that centralised policy in this Parliament lines up and reflects policies across the UK.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. Although we did not think it necessary to put “consult” in the Bill, I accept that a joined-up approach to public health matters across the four nations of the United Kingdom is beneficial. I expect close working at both official and ministerial level to continue, and I therefore expect consultation and discussion to be ongoing.
As I am sure members of the Committee would agree, the restrictions on advertising on TV and internet services are crucial in contributing to the Government’s goal of tackling childhood obesity, and I welcome what I think is cross-party support for that goal. Through these provisions, we have the opportunity to remove up to 7.2 billion calories per year from children’s diets in the UK. None the less, for the reasons that I have set out, the Government believe that amendment 113 is not appropriate in this context, so I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw it.
I am grateful for the opportunity to address amendments 139 to 141. As the Committee will know and as I have said, tackling obesity is a priority for the House, irrespective of which side one sits on. That has been brought into sharp focus throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Introducing advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink products is one of the many policies that the Government are bringing forward to tackle this issue. Following extensive consideration of the evidence submitted and comments made by stakeholders during the consultation exercise, we have announced that we will introduce a 9 pm TV watershed for advertising for less healthy food and drink products, and a restriction on paid-for advertising of such products online.
Amendments 139 to 141 would expand the definition of “less healthy products” to include alcohol, which would have the effect of making alcohol advertising liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services, and to the online restriction of paid-for advertising. The UK Government are committed to ensuring that children and young people are suitably protected from alcohol advertising and marketing through a set of rules in the UK advertising codes. Restrictions and limitations laid out in the UK advertising codes provide that alcohol advertising may not be featured in any medium where more than 25% of the audience is under 18. Alcohol advertising must not be likely to appeal strongly to young people under 18, reflect or associate with youth culture, or show adolescent or juvenile behaviour—I make no comment there about the behaviour of the House on occasions. No children, and no one who is or appears to be under the age of 25, may play a significant role in advertising alcoholic drinks. The advertising codes apply to broadcast media and non-broadcast media, including online advertising. We do not believe it is necessary to consider alcohol a less healthy product in this context, or to apply the new restrictions to it.
As we will discuss in more detail shortly, clause 125 and schedule 16 are aimed at reducing the exposure of children to advertising for less healthy food and drink, and at reducing the impact of such advertising on child obesity. Less healthy food and drink products are unique, as they are not age-restricted at the point of purchase, unlike alcohol.
Dr Whitford
I do not plan to press my amendment to a Division, but I encourage the Minister to put in the Bill the consultation that is required. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 126
Hospital food standards
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 126, page 107, line 18, leave out “hospital”.
This amendment would make the power to impose food standards applicable to all premises within the remit of the Care Quality Commission, rather than just hospitals.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 138, in clause 126, page 107, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 137.
Clause stand part.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to speak on the important topic of hospital food standards. We very much support the substance of the clause, and its inclusion in the Bill. What we consume before, during and after we engage with a hospital can have a profound impact and long-lasting effects on the ailment that brought us there, and affects our experience while we are there.
Even prior to being in hospital, malnutrition is a feature in many people’s lives. It affects about 3 million people in the UK, and health and social care expenditure on malnutrition is estimated at more than £23 billion a year across the UK. Around one in 10, or 1.3 million, older people are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition, and older people are disproportionately represented in malnourished groups. Of course, malnutrition plays a significant role in hospital admissions; around one in three patients admitted to hospital are malnourished, or at risk of becoming so.
This is the right time to act on this issue. We ought to expect that a person’s time in hospital will be used as well as possible, and what a person consumes while they are there should be seen as part of their care, reablement and rehabilitation. It is a good idea to make sure that our hospitals promote that view, and we therefore support the clause. Our amendments 137 and 138 would improve it, and I hope to find the Minister in listening mode on this.
The whole point of the Bill is that while hospitals are one element of our health and social care system, there are many other places in the system that people are more likely to find themselves in. They may be in community-based care facilities, in step-up or step-down care, or a care home, which could be their permanent home. We argue that anything within the purview of the Care Quality Commission ought to adhere to the standards set out in the clause. The evidence bears that out. Somewhere between a third and 40% of patients admitted to care homes, and one in five patients admitted to a mental health unit, are at risk of malnutrition, so clearly they would need this sort of support.
For those in long-term care settings, nutrition is a vital part of their care. Research has shown the importance of good nutrition to people with dementia; it slows the loss of independence or functional decline. Research shows that nearly 30% of dementia patients experience malnutrition, and that is associated with a much more rapid functional decline over five years. It is really important that we make sure this provision is in place for them; it is fundamental to their life and their future.
Of course, the issue with the two amendments and the clause is resourcing. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to resource the clause, because we do not want pressure on hospital settings—and settings in the community, if our amendments are accepted—to make cuts elsewhere. It would be a pyrrhic victory if the clause led to better nutrition but worse care. We need to see the measures as not only the right thing to do—of course, it is what individuals should expect when in the care of the state—but a good investment that will bring us a good return. This is an important issue, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Edward Argar
As matters stand, the enforcement of standards for food and drink in hospital is not on a statutory footing. That has resulted in variance in compliance across the sector. The clause will grant the Secretary of State the power to make regulations imposing requirements and improved standards for food and drink provided and sold on NHS hospital premises in England to patients, staff, visitors or anyone else on the premises. As the hon. Gentleman set out, providing good-quality, nutritious food is a cornerstone of patient care, and placing these requirements on a statutory footing will ensure a level playing field when it comes to compliance across the sector with nutritional standards in hospitals.
The Care Quality Commission will ensure that any requirements in regulations made under the clause are fulfilled, pursuant to its existing statutory powers of enforcement under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The clause demonstrates that we are committed to acting on a key recommendation from the independent review of NHS hospital food, published in October 2020, to ensure that hospital food standards are enshrined in law and sufficiently enforced .
To address amendments 137 and 138, as I have set out, the clause has been drafted specifically in response to the independent review of NHS hospital food, which was published on 26 October 2020. That independent review was announced in August 2019, following the deaths of six people linked to an outbreak of listeria in contaminated food in hospitals. The review’s aims were to improve public confidence in hospital food by setting out clear ambitions for delivering high-quality food to patients and the public. The review was intentionally limited to hospitals only because specific issues had been identified in relation to hospital foods that necessitated a prompt and meaningful response by the Government.
The report was prepared following considerable research, investigation, hospital visits and expert advice from within and outside the NHS specifically in relation to the provision of hospital food. The review recommended that ambitious NHS food and drink standards for patients, staff and visitors be put on a statutory footing. We support that recommendation and have included the clause in the Bill because we believe that giving the Secretary of State powers to place hospital food standards on a statutory footing sends a clear message about the importance of standards for the provision of good hydration and nutrition in the NHS. Covid-19 has highlighted the importance of good nutrition in recovery and rehabilitation, were such a reminder needed.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to the health and wellbeing of patients in all healthcare settings. Each setting presents unique issues and challenges. Although there may be some common themes, if the clause were to be broadened beyond hospitals, the provision of food in other healthcare settings would need to be researched, investigated and carefully considered in the context of those individual settings and in consultation with their service users and stakeholders to ensure that the legislation was fit for purpose and met their individual needs. Challenges affecting the provision of food in other healthcare settings were not considered as part of the scope for the independent review of hospital food. Therefore, although there are common themes, we cannot be sure that the amendment would adequately and fully meet their needs and requirements.
The recommendations from the review, and the introduction of the clause, form a key part of our policy to improve public confidence in hospital food. I commend the intention behind the amendments to expand the clause to capture all premises within the remit of the Care Quality Commission.
The CQC already has some important powers over other healthcare settings. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 provide the CQC with powers to prosecute providers that do not provide people in their care with nutrition and hydration to sustain life and good health and reduce the risks of malnutrition and dehydration while they receive care and treatment. That power ensures that basic nutrition standards are provided.
The clause goes further and is not about basic provision. The root-and-branch independent review made recommendations on how NHS trusts could prioritise food safety and provide more nutritious meals to staff and patients. The clause is a key component of our plan to fulfil the recommendations of the review. I reassure hon. Members that the CQC remains vigilant about the provision of nutrition and hydration in other healthcare settings, as evidenced by the CQC’s powers.
For these reasons, I urge the hon. Member for Nottingham North not to press the amendments. Ultimately, the clause cements the Government’s commitment to patients in this regard and sends a clear message about the role that food plays in patient care and recovery. I commend it to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I understand that the genesis of the clause was a hospital setting. The case that the Minister mentioned was exceptionally serious, and it is right that action was taken, but I feel that there is a slight lack of ambition to say that the activity must stop at hospitals—it is a slightly blinkered approach. I heard the point that extending the provision to broader care settings would take research and careful consideration. I probably support that principle, but I would like to have heard that that process is under way, and I did not hear that.
At the end of the day, the goalposts do not move that much. Basic nutritional and hydration standards are either being met or they are not. Taking the learning from hospital settings should have made it easier to widen the process, rather than harder. The point that the CQC inspects those settings is true and fair. It is also true of hospital settings. Setting some standards would probably have been prudent. I will not press the amendment, but I think we will return to the issue at some point. I hope the Minister and his officials will reflect on the opportunity to go further with the provision .
Edward Argar
I am always happy to reflect on the sensible suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Food information for consumers: power to amend retained EU law
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the Committee that I will be a little briefer than in my remarks on clause 125.
Clause 127 amends the Food Safety Act 1990 to make provision for domestic legislation to modify retained EU regulation 1169/2011 concerning the labelling, marketing, presentation or advertising of food and the descriptions that may be applied to food. The current powers to amend the regulation are limited in scope. This power will afford the Government an additional necessary lever to introduce domestic changes that better suit and support consumer needs and priorities for food information. We know that consumers want transparency and clear information about the food and drink that they are buying, and such information can inform people’s choices. Scientific information and evidence on labelling and consumer needs continue to evolve. We want the ability to respond quickly to those changes and that changing evidence base as and when required.
Retained EU regulation 1169/2011 sets requirements on labelling and food information in the UK. It was designed to apply to EU member states. Now that we have left the EU, primary legislation is required to modify the retained legislation. Clause 127 will help us to settle this issue by conferring powers on the Secretary of State in England, and Ministers in Scotland and Wales, to modify requirements on food labelling using regulations. The regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will ensure that any changes introduced are debated and actively approved before implementation.
The clause will be vital in supporting the Government to deliver on a range of policies being developed as part of our obesity strategy, which includes commitments to consult on front-of-pack nutrition labelling and whether to mandate alcohol calorie labelling. The power will enable us to make improvements to food and drink information more effectively while retaining a level of scrutiny on any proposed changes. The clause can also help us to deliver on wider Government objectives, including options for the forthcoming food strategy White Paper, which sets Government ambitions and direction for food system transformation. I commend clause 127 to the Committee.
Alex Norris
The Minister and I have had these Brexit-type statutory instruments time and time again, so I am not going to get too involved in the conversations that we have had. As we said in the discussion on clause 146, we would like to see greater safeguards. We are glad about the use of the affirmative procedure but we do not think that there is a strong mandate for Ministers to march across the statute book. I hope to hear that this power will be used to the minimum extent necessary to implement the decisions that we have taken.
Edward Timpson
I want to put on record my support for the clause and for the opportunity that it presents for our domestic market and the promotion of locally grown produce, the high standards of animal welfare across the UK and our eco credentials. We do not want to make labelling too complicated for people––we want to make it accessible and simple to decipher––but this power is a chance to put that to the forefront so that consumers get produce that is good for them but also good for the UK market.
Edward Argar
I just want to give the shadow Minister the assurance he seeks that I believe that the powers under this clause would be used sparingly and proportionately.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 127 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 128
Fluoridation of water supplies
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 128, page 108, line 22, at end insert—
“(za) in subsection (3)(a)(i), after “Secretary of State” insert “or relevant local authority”;”
The Bill removes the ability of local authorities to commence fluoridation schemes and gives that ability to the Secretary of State. This amendment, together with Amendment 150, seeks to allow local authorities to commence schemes as well as the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 150, in clause 128, page 108, line 26, after “Secretary of State” insert “or relevant local authority”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 149.
Amendment 151, in clause 128, page 108, leave out lines 33 to 36.
This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to pass the cost of fluoridation onto another public body.
Clause stand part.
Clause 129 stand part.
Alex Norris
I am really pleased that we have reached clauses 128 and 129, on fluoridation of water supplies. This is something that I am personally very enthusiastic about, so I want to make a few points on it. Fluoridation is a very important venture. Oral ill health can be a hidden and very personal but insidious ailment. It is the single biggest reason for hospital admission among our children. A 2015 review of children’s dental health found that a quarter of five-year-olds have decayed teeth, with an average of 3.4 per child.
Dr Whitford
I wonder whether the hon. Member, like me, is surprised that the opportunity offered by this Bill has not been used to introduce a child dental health programme in England similar to Childsmile, which has existed in Scotland since 2007, or the scheme that Wales has had since 2011. Although there was agreement a couple of years ago to establish pilot sites across England, data on the impact in Scotland, where many areas had significantly poor dental health, has been available for four years. I am just surprised that something like that has not been included in this Bill, when we are talking improving the dental health of children and addressing the fact that, as the hon. Member mentioned, dental clearance—the removal of significant numbers of teeth—is the commonest reason to administer a general anaesthetic to a child. That is quite a shocking indictment.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention; I was going to turn to that issue next. Not only have opportunities been missed over the last decade to invest in oral health, but we are actually going backwards. Supervised tooth brushing and other high-quality evidence-based interventions, such as the models that the hon. Member mentioned, have disappeared because of this Government’s cuts to the public health budget. Of course, the savings from those cuts are hoovered up very quickly by the costs that they generate elsewhere in the system. It is very sad, it results in a lot of pain and lost potential for the individual, and it is bad for the collective.
Fluoridation is one element in trying to put that right. Putting fluoride in our water is a really good, evidence-based intervention that is proven to work. For every pound spent in deprived communities, there are savings of nearly £13 within just five years, and of course every independent review of fluoridation has affirmed its safety. As a nation, we ought to be creating new fluoridation schemes targeted at the communities that would benefit the most. The current system does not work, as I remember well from my time in Nottingham. Currently, a local authority has to decide to enter into this space, build support, and then, with support from Public Health England and the Secretary of State, move to implementation. However, that generally fails for two reasons.
First, our political boundaries do not match up very accurately with our water boundaries, so where we would physically tip in the bag of fluoride does not fit with our political geographies. That creates issues between authorities such as mine, where the case would be very strong because of our oral health outcomes, and bordering authorities that would have less interest because they have better oral health outcomes. Secondly, this issue is contentious. Local authorities have an awful lot on, and it is very hard for a local council to make this the one totemic fight in its four-year term. There are only so many big things that a council can take on at once, and fluoridation gets beyond the bandwidth of local authorities.
We support the principle behind clause 128; bringing the Secretary of State into this is a very good idea. The position of the Secretary of State, once removed from the entire country, can make different geographic decisions sensibly align with water boundaries. He is perhaps also in a stronger position to help with some of the political issues, so in concept we support that.
Amendments 149 and 150 are a pair. Why are the Government keen to swap the current local system for one that is nationally driven, when we could have both? As I have said, we support adding the heft of the Secretary of State to the local expertise of our councils, but why remove councils from the process? Although clause 128 gives new powers to the Secretary of State, our argument is that local authorities should be able to retain their powers in the event that they might want to use them. This is a cost-free proposal. It merely expands the range of possible approaches and paths towards fluoridation, and it promotes local decision making.
Clause 128(2)(d), which inserts new subsection (6B) into section 87 of the Water Industry Act 1991, is a little bit naughty, and amendment 150 seeks to address it. According to page 43 of the Government’s community water fluoridation toolkit, if a local community can successfully get itself together to get a scheme going, Public Health England is required to meet the reasonable capital and operating costs. I presume that that responsibility ported to the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities when it came into force at the beginning of this month. However, subsection (6B) removes that provision and instead allows the Secretary of State to direct another body—I presume it will be the local authority—to pay for the scheme. Therefore, instead of being paid for nationally, the scheme will be paid for by a body chosen by the Secretary of State. That will be a barrier to the creation of a scheme.
I think that local authorities will be less keen to engage with the Secretary of State in implementing a scheme if they feel that they will have to pay for it. Their budgets are exceptionally stretched—I suspect they will not get much support tomorrow—and the benefits do not generally go back to local authorities. Of course, the benefit goes to the community in general, but in terms of organisations and cashable benefits, they would be health service benefits rather than local authority benefits. I do not think that the proposal promotes integrated thinking. The amendment seeks to address that, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on it. As I have said, I think that, broadly speaking, the clauses do the right thing, but their current effect will be to replace a locally led system with a nationally led one, when actually we could just have both.
To conclude, over the past year we have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government in expressing to communities up and down the country that vaccines are not only safe but necessary. The objections that we receive come from those who argue in the face of evidence or who rely on conspiracy theories. The same is true of arguments against fluoridation. It is an evidence-based, safe and highly effective intervention. That is not to say that it is easy to do. It does not require behaviour change but it has a remarkable impact, so I am keen to hear from the Minister not only that the Government want to put this in the Bill, but that they want to get on with doing it in communities such as mine, which will benefit. If they do that, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with them again, and I think it will be an exceptionally important breakthrough in oral health in this country.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in the points he makes about fluoridation and the parallels he draws with the vaccine. Although there have been times over the past 20 months when he and I, and our respective Front-Bench teams, have not necessarily agreed on every aspect of the response to the pandemic—that is appropriate, as the Opposition seek to challenge and question the Government—may I pay tribute to him and his colleagues in the shadow health team for what they have done to highlight the importance of the vaccine and to counter the misinformation that some have spread about it?
I will speak to amendments 149 and 150 together, as the former is consequential on the latter. They would allow for local authorities to bring forward proposals for new fluoridation schemes and to enter into arrangements with water companies. As has been set out, tooth decay is a significant, yet largely preventable, public health problem. In 2019-20, more than 35,000 people aged 19 or under were admitted to hospital for the extraction of decaying teeth. In the same year, the cost of hospital admissions for tooth extractions among that age group was estimated to be £54.6 million.
As we know, fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water and some foods, and at the right levels it has been shown to reduce tooth decay. If five-year-olds in England with low levels of fluoride drank water containing at least 0.7 mg of fluoride per litre, the number experiencing decay would fall by 28% in the most deprived areas, and the number of hospital admissions for tooth extractions due to decay would reduce by up to 68%.
We have seen no new water fluoridation schemes implemented for the past 40 years. Both major parties in the House must accept our responsibility for that. That is not a fault of the NHS or local government, but because responsibility in our view has sat fundamentally at the wrong level for driving forward such a health intervention. Local authorities currently have the responsibility to initiate new water fluoridation schemes or to propose that existing schemes are varied or terminated. We have heard their frustration with the overly burdensome and complex processes in place for initiation and variation of schemes. The steps we are proposing to take through the Bill are intended to make it simpler to expand schemes. We all share the same ambition.
Transferring responsibility to central Government will allow us, for the first time, to move away from the limitations of local authority boundaries and to look more strategically across the country, to where oral health is the poorest. Subject to funding being agreed, we will be able to expand schemes across larger areas to make an impact on a bigger scale. We know it is less cost-efficient to operate schemes across individual local areas.Allowing local authorities to continue to bring forward schemes and to enter into arrangements with water companies separately would run counter to our ambitions to manage expansion at a higher level, again adding extra complexity, which we are eeking to remove.
We understand that some local authorities have begun the process to bring forward schemes, and we appreciate that they are passionate about their schemes and the benefits that they would bring to the populations they serve. I want to provide assurance that we share the ambition to expand schemes so that more of the population can benefit from water fluoridation, which we know is both safe and effective.
Any plans to expand schemes will of course take into account oral health across the country as well as areas that have already began to progress schemes. We want to engage and listen to local areas so that together we can make the biggest impact on oral health improvement that we know fluoridation will provide. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to consider withdrawing his amendment.
On amendment 151, we are taking powers in the Bill to remove the operational burden associated with bringing forward new schemes. Prior to 2013, both the NHS and local authorities had, at different times, responsibility for funding both revenue and the capital cost associated with fluoridation schemes. There are no current proposals for cost sharing, but given the cycle of legislation and the infrequency with which such opportunities present themselves, we have taken the decision to include such measures in the Bill.
We have discussed the provisions with both NHS England and NHS Improvement and the Local Government Association, and I can assure the Committee that should we bring forward any plans to cost share in the future, we would seek to fully engage with relevant groups at the earliest opportunity. Under the Bill, any plans to cost share with public sector bodies would be subject to regulations on which there is a requirement to consult.
A precedent has been set over the decades for the funding of water fluoridation schemes. We believe that, to move forward, it would be best to have the flexibility to work collaboratively across industry and the public sector to effect what could be the most significant improvements in oral health that we have seen to date. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to consider not pressing the amendment to a Division.
Clause 128 would transfer the power to initiate, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes to the Secretary of State. The clause also allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations that will enable the sharing of costs for fluoridation schemes with water undertakers and/or public sector bodies that may receive benefit from such schemes. However, before making any such regulations, the clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult. The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult water undertakers on whether any proposal for new fluoridation schemes, or whether any termination or variation of an existing scheme, is operable and efficient prior to undertaking any public consultation, for which there will also continue to be a duty.
The clause requires us to set out in regulations the process for consulting the public, for example on any new proposed schemes. That will ensure that those affected will continue to have a voice. In September, the chief medical officers for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made a joint statement confirming that water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for improving the oral health of adults and children. Such schemes have been in operation for more than 60 years, and no credible evidence that they cause health harms has emerged. It is time we take action that will enable us to reduce the oral health inequalities across the country, and I commend clause 128 to the Committee.
I turn briefly, and finally, to clause 129. We have a number of existing water fluoridation schemes across England that have been in place for decades. We want to ensure that those existing arrangements can be treated in the same way as any new schemes created using the powers in clause 128. Clause 129 simply provides for the existing arrangements to be treated as if they were made under the new statutory regime for fluoridation. The clause also provides that all previous England fluoridation arrangements shall be treated as if they were entered into between the Secretary of State and the water undertaker. The Secretary of State has the power to modify the detail of these existing arrangements to give effect to this, provided he first seeks to agree the modifications with the water undertaker.
I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I take the Minister’s point about current powers. I agree that they are clearly at the wrong level, because these schemes simply are not coming through, so the system is obviously not working. As I say, I would rather we added what we are putting in the Bill today to what we already have, but I have probably made my point, so I do not intend to press amendments 149 or 150 to a Division.
The Minister has made the point that there are currently no schemes in the system. I hope that when it decides which schemes to prioritise or pilot, the Department might at least look fondly on local authorities—such as the city of Nottingham—that have made such commitments in their council plans.
Finally, on amendment 151, I have heard what the Minister said about cost sharing. That gave me some comfort, so I will not press that amendment to a Division either. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 149.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2021 - (27 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we resume, it might be helpful for me to give the Committee a few preliminary reminders. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink are permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided.
I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I remind Members and staff that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if they are coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home.
Clause 130
Power to make consequential provision
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 130, page 111, line 15, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4),”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 115.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 115, in clause 130, page 111, line 25, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations may only be made under this section with the consent of—
(a) the Scottish Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) the Welsh Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, and
(c) The Northern Ireland Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the relevant devolved government before powers in this clause falling within the legislative competence of a devolved institution are exercised.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 131 to 135 stand part.
Dr Whitford
I rise to speak to amendment 115, which is the main amendment. Amendment 114 is consequential on it. The amendment comes back to the main theme: the clause contains significant Henry VIII powers for the Secretary of State to change the Bill or any Act of the devolved Parliaments relating to it.
When the Minister rises to speak, he will say that the power is only for tiny things such as changing names or tidying up, but the Bill is so extensive that the power to introduce some of the themes and policies contained in it into the NHS in Scotland is something that people in Scotland—and, I am sure, in Wales and Northern Ireland—would not be happy with. There is no limitation to this power.
Again, there is no mention of consulting, let alone consenting. It has been the convention for over two decades that if the UK Government legislate in clearly devolved areas, there should be legislative consent. Before this Henry VIII power is used by a Secretary of State, legislative consent should be sought from the devolved Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Mrs Murray, it really is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I echo the comments from the Scottish National party spokesperson. She is correct that the Bill gives the Secretary of State extensive powers—almost carte blanche in some areas—to change the law. We think that taking back control means Parliament taking back control. Elected politicians are meant to serve the people, not the other way round. Some very valid points have been made about the themes and issues across the Bill, and we echo those.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mrs Murray, and to hear of the inadvertent promotion of the shadow Minister. I am sure it is only a matter of time, certainly if his longevity in his current post and being master of his brief are anything to go by.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for raising this matter. I will address amendments 114 and 115 together, as one is consequential on the other, and then I will address the clauses. As the hon. Lady rightly says, she has raised this matter with me not only in this Committee but outwith it. I would have been surprised had she not wished to air it in Committee, which is exactly what we are here for.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of Ministers of the relevant devolved Administrations before making a consequential amendment to any matter that falls within the competence of the devolved legislature. Provisions such as clause 130—she suggested I might say this—are perfectly common in UK Acts of Parliament, and we believe they remain within the spirit of the devolution settlement. The UK Government’s clear position is that, in and of itself, clause 130 would not give rise to the legislative consent motion process, for reasons that I will set out. We deem that a requirement for the consent of the DAs for its use would therefore be inappropriate.
This power will enable the UK Government to make consequential amendments that might be necessary following the passage of the Bill. That includes most of the amendments that need to be made to secondary legislation as a consequence of the Bill’s provisions As such, amendments were not included in the Bill. There may also be minor changes, such as amendments to names of particular bodies—the hon. Lady knows me and the position that Her Majesty’s Government take on these things extremely well—as a result of measures in the Bill.
It is also prudent to retain the power to amend legislation in the event that anything has been missed. It is important for everyone concerned that we have the ability to make such amendments should they be needed to ensure that the legislation works as intended and that we are able to do so quickly, as required.
As I said, this power is quite common in UK legislation, particularly in a Bill as large as the Health and Care Bill, which—as we know, as we reach the end of the current set of clauses—comprises 135 clauses and 16 schedules. There are many examples of similar powers to clause 130 in existing legislation. Perhaps the one with the greatest relevance, giving the most directly analogous example, is section 303 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
As a general principle, it is appropriate that the authority passing the legislation makes the consequential provisions that flow from it, as that authority will be most familiar with the provisions of the legislation and the changes to other legislation that it necessitates. We are seeking legislative consent from the devolved Administrations in respect of a number of provisions in the Bill and we have debated those in recent days, but clause 130 does not, in and of itself, give rise to the LCM process. It is the substantive provisions in the Bill, on which any amendments under clause 130 would be consequential, that do or do not, as the case may be, give rise to the LCM process.
Finally, although this power will enable the UK Government to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation, in practice, any amendments would be discussed with the DAs, officials and legal advisers prior to and throughout the drafting process. These arrangements follow wider good practice and expectations of collaborative working.
Edward Argar
Yes, but I am not sitting down just yet, so the hon. Lady will have more opportunities to intervene.
Dr Whitford
I just remind the Minister that the Cabinet Secretaries in the devolved nations saw this huge Bill the day before it was launched, so although there may have been engagement with officials, that does not suggest that there was engagement with the Governments, which he is saying we should depend on, along with close working.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point but, on engagement with officials, I would argue that it is in a sense a matter for officials in the Scottish Government whether they communicate with the Cabinet Secretary. They were not prohibited from doing so. I will not go into the inner workings of the Holyrood machine, just as, I suspect, the hon. Lady would not wish to go into the inner workings of the Department of Health and Social Care. However, that dialogue has taken place since February this year. I appreciate that there has been a slight challenge with that, given the Holyrood elections and purdah, where, although officials can continue to talk, there was rightly a bit of stepping back at a political level so that democracy could take its course. It took its course and the same party continues to run Scotland, so those conversations resumed. My point is that those discussions at official level have been long standing and extensive, I would hope. I suspect that officials have shared elements with the Cabinet Secretary—perhaps not the entirety, but they have been very much engaged.
I hope that that explanation provides some reassurance to hon. Members, although I suspect that it may not. I suspect that the hon. Lady anticipated that explanation, and it may therefore not add further reassurance, but I hope that it does to a degree.
Let me move on to clauses 130 to 135 stand part of the Bill. As we heard in the foregoing debate, clause 130 allows the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations, which is consequential on the Bill. The Bill contains a significant change to the legal framework of the health service. As a result, numerous consequential amendments to other pieces of primary and secondary legislation are required to reflect those changes.
The power is limited to making amendments consequential to the competence of the Bill and is therefore a narrow power. It is, as I said, a standard provision in a Bill of this size and complexity. A considerable amount of secondary legislation will require amendment following the merger of NHS England and NHS Improvement and the change from clinical commissioning groups to integrated care boards. It would not be appropriate to use primary legislation to list all of those secondary legislative changes. Therefore, the consequential power will be used to make such changes in secondary legislation.
The power extends to making consequential amendments to primary legislation passed by the devolved legislatures, because devolved legislation contains references to UK legislation or bodies that may need to be amended in consequence of this Bill. The power applies only to existing primary legislation—this Bill itself, or primary legislation passed during this Session—and therefore future primary legislation may not be amended under the power conferred by this provision.
Clause 131, again, is a common part of a Bill. It sets out the scope of regulation-making powers in the Bill generally and the parliamentary procedure for making such regulations. Subsection (1) provides that regulations made under the Bill may include
“consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”
and can make
“different provision for different purposes.”
Subsections (3) and (4) set out the parliamentary procedure for making regulations under this legislation.
Clause 132 is also a standard clause concerning financial provision. It simply provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act shall be paid out of the consolidated fund, in accordance with the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2021.
Clause 133 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions of the Bill. It provides that while most of the provisions in the Bill extend only to England and Wales, a small number extend UK-wide. In addition, the bulk of the England and Wales-only provisions—in particular, the vast majority of part 1—will in fact apply only in England, as they concern the health service in England only. The following provisions, listed in subsection (2), extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland: the renaming of NHS England in paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of schedule 1; the Secretary of State’s powers to transfer and delegate functions in part 3 of the Bill; and the carve-out of the health services safety investigations board from any legislative provision to require disclosure of information in clause 109.
In addition, the amendments to other legislation made by the Bill will have the same territorial extent as the provision that is being amended. Examples of this include clause 120, which makes provisions about reciprocal healthcare arrangements, and clause 85, which allows provision to be made for the establishment of medicines information systems. A full analysis of territorial extent and application in the UK can be found in the explanatory notes. In earlier sittings, we debated the consequences of the Bill in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and any issues relating to devolution as and when they have arisen. I suspect we may return to those issues on Report, and that their lordships may wish to debate them in the other place.
Clause 134 sets out when the provisions in the Bill will come into force once it has been passed. Most of the Bill will be brought into force on a date to be set in regulations, as provided for in subsection (3). Again, that is a common approach for a Bill of this type, and allows for flexibility. While the Government are committed to implementing the vital reforms to the health service that are contained in the Bill, we will be able to confirm the precise date on which provisions will come into force when it has completed its parliamentary passage—clearly, we cannot pre-empt Parliament. It is likely that it will be appropriate to bring different provisions of the Bill into force at different times.
Finally, clause 135 provides that, once passed, the Bill may be cited as the Health and Care Act 2021. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Whitford
I appreciate that the vast majority of consequential changes that might be made by the Secretary of State would be minor, and most of them would apply to England. However, I am sure the Minister will also understand that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which has taken away powers over certain aspects of public health, environmental control, infrastructure and so on, is felt in Scotland as a direct threat to devolution. Such clauses are therefore seen as threatening, in that the Bill is so big that it would allow extensive consequential amendments, particularly—as the Minister referred to himself—under clause 131(1)(b), which allows for
“different provision for different purposes.”
Many Opposition Members find the undefined scope disquieting, and we have seen this extensively over the past three years. I would therefore wish to press amendment 114 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
That completes line-by-line consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill, and we will now consider new clauses. New clauses that were grouped for debate with amendments to the Bill will not be debated again, but if the Member who tabled the new clause indicated in their speech that they wished to divide the Committee, they will have the opportunity to do so. I remind Members who wish to press a grouped new clause to a Division that they should indicate their intention when speaking to the clause. We start with Government new clause 59, which was debated yesterday.
New Clause 59
Care Quality Commission reviews etc of integrated care system
“(1) Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (quality of health and social care) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 46A (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert—
‘46B Reviews and performance assessments: integrated care system
(1) The Commission must, in accordance with this section—
(a) conduct reviews of—
(i) the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of each integrated care board, and
(ii) the exercise of the functions of the following in relation to the provision of that care within the area of each integrated care board: the board; its partner local authorities; and registered service providers,
(b) assess the functioning of the system for the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of each integrated care board (taking into account, in particular, how those mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) work together), and
(c) publish a report of its assessment.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must set, and may from time to time revise, objectives and priorities for the Commission in relation to assessments under this section, and
(b) must inform the Commission of the objectives and priorities.
(3) The Commission—
(a) must determine, and may from time to time revise, indicators of quality for the purposes of assessments under this section, and
(b) must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to the indicators.
(4) The Secretary of State may direct the Commission to revise the indicators under subsection (3).
(5) Different objectives and priorities may be set, and different indicators of quality may be determined, for different cases.
(6) The Commission—
(a) must prepare, and may from time to time revise, a statement—
(i) setting out the frequency with which reviews under this section are to be conducted and the period to which they are to relate, and
(ii) describing the method that it proposes to use in assessing and evaluating the functioning of the system for the provision of relevant health care, and adult social care, within the area of an integrated care board, and
(b) must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to the statement.
(7) The statement may—
(a) make different provision about frequency and period of reviews for different cases, and
(b) describe different methods for different cases.
(8) Before preparing or revising a statement under subsection (6) the Commission must consult—
(a) NHS England, and
(b) any other persons it considers appropriate.
(9) The Secretary of State may direct the Commission to revise the statement under subsection (6).
(10) The Commission must publish—
(a) the objectives and priorities under subsection (2),
(b) the indicators of quality under subsection (3), and
(c) the statement under subsection (6).
(11) For the purposes of this section—
“adult social care” means social care for individuals aged 18 or over;
“partner local authority”, in relation to an integrated care board, means any English local authority whose area coincides with, or includes the whole or any part of, the area of the integrated care board;
“registered service provider” means a person registered under Chapter 2 as a service provider;
“relevant health care” means—
(a) NHS care, or
(b) the promotion and protection of public health.
(12) Regulations may amend the definition of “relevant health care” to include health care which is provided or commissioned by a public authority (but which does not amount to NHS care).’
(3) In section 48 (special reviews and investigations), in subsection (2), after ‘46A’ (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert ‘or 46B’.
(4) In section 50 (failings by English local authorities), in subsection (1), after ‘46A’ (inserted by section 121 of this Act) insert ‘or 46B’.
(5) In section 162 (orders and regulations: parliamentary control), in subsection (3), after paragraph (c) insert—
‘(c) regulations under section 46B(12) (amendment of definition of relevant health care),’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause imposes a duty on the Care Quality Commission to carry out reviews and assessments into the overall functioning of the system for the provision of NHS Care and adult social care services within the area of each integrated care board.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Default powers of Secretary of State in relation to adult social care
“(1) In section 7D of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (default powers of Secretary of State as respects social services functions of local authorities)—
(a) in subsection (1), for the words from ‘imposed’ to ‘2002’substitute ‘referred to in subsection (4)’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a duty imposed by or under—
(a) the Children Act 1989,
(b) section 1 or 2(4) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999,
(c) the Adoption and Children Act 2002, or
(d) Part 1 of the Care Act 2014.’
(2) The Care Act 2014 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4).
(3) After section 72 insert—
“Default by local authority
72A Default power of Secretary of State
(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is failing, or has failed, to discharge any of its functions under or by virtue of this Part to an acceptable standard, the Secretary of State may give to the local authority any directions that the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of addressing the failure.
(2) The directions may include provision requiring the local authority—
(a) to act in accordance with advice given by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State,
(b) to collaborate with the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State in taking steps specified in the directions, or
(c) to provide the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State with information of a description specified in the directions, on request or otherwise.
(3) If the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purpose of addressing the failure, the directions may include provision—
(a) for specified functions of the local authority to be exercised by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by the Secretary of State for a period specified in the direction or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) requiring the local authority to comply with any instructions of the Secretary of State or the nominee in relation to the exercise of the functions.
(4) So far as is appropriate in consequence of directions given by virtue of subsection (3), a reference (however expressed) in an enactment, instrument or other document to a local authority is to be read as a reference to the person by whom the function is exercisable.
(5) If directions given by virtue of subsection (3) expire or are revoked without being replaced then, so far as is appropriate in consequence of the expiry or revocation, a reference (however expressed) in an instrument or other document to the person by whom the function was exercisable is to be read as a reference to the local authority to whom the directions were given.
(6) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of cases in which directions are given under subsection (3)(a), make regulations disapplying or modifying an enactment which confers a function on the Secretary of State in respect of a function of a local authority.
(7) Directions under this section may require the local authority to provide financial assistance to the Secretary of State, or a person nominated by the Secretary of State, for the purpose of meeting costs incurred by the Secretary of State or the nominee as a result of the directions.
72B Default power of Secretary of State: supplementary
(1) Before giving directions under section 72A the Secretary of State must give the local authority concerned an opportunity to make representations about the proposed directions, except so far as the Secretary of State considers that it is impractical to do so for reasons of urgency.
(2) The power to give directions under section 72A includes a power to vary or revoke the directions by subsequent directions.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to proposed directions varying previous directions if the Secretary of State does not consider the variations to be significant.
(4) Directions under section 72A must be in writing.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish—
(a) any directions given under section 72A, and
(b) the reasons for giving them.
(6) Directions under section 72A are enforceable, on the Secretary of State’s application, by a mandatory order.”
(4) In section 125(4) (regulations and orders subject to affirmative procedure), after paragraph (k) insert—
‘(ka) regulations under section 72A(6) (modification of enactments where local authority functions are exercised by the Secretary of State or a nominee);’.”—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause would create a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene where local authorities are failing in the exercise of functions under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 (adult social care) and make consequential amendments.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 62 adds to section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006, enabling regulations to be made that would allow further products to be centrally stocked and supplied free of charge to community pharmacies without the need for reimbursement under the standard NHS arrangements. This would allow Ministers to create limited additional exemptions to the exemptions that can already be created by the regulation-making power introduced in 2017 for unlicensed medicines, more commonly known as “specials”.
As was recognised in 2017, the legislative framework for pharmaceutical remuneration established by section 164 is predicated on the basis that community pharmacies will be reimbursed for the products they supply. Unique conditions required the unlicensed specials medicines amendment to be tabled in 2017 due to an unconventional supply chain. Unusually, there was no competition and, therefore, no incentive for community pharmacies to seek value for money for unlicensed medicines.
Under normal conditions, a virtuous competitive circle would encourage community pharmacies to try to source the lowest cost product and, in doing so, force overall prices down. The 2017 amendment allowed for regulations to be made so that the process of sourcing the relevant products could be by central procurement and subsequently there could be direct supply to community pharmacies. No such regulations have yet been made, but the matter remains under review.
The amendment only seeks to further add, in a limited way, to the current powers to make regulations to provide for an exemption from the ordinary requirement to reimburse. The only products that it will cover are vaccines, pandemic treatments, and associated products such as diluents and syringes. There are various reasons why we may seek to procure centrally vaccines or products used to treat a pandemic, for example when the typical competitive supply chain and reimbursement arrangements cannot be relied on, because pressures from global demand mean that central purchasing and direct supply to community pharmacies is critical to maintaining continuity of supply for UK patients.
In those circumstances, if centrally purchased products, rather than being supplied directly to pharmacies, were sold to wholesalers, that would risk wholesalers exporting or selling the stock at a much higher price than is usually paid, thereby playing the market. In this example, that would defeat the original purpose of the central stockpile.
When supplying products directly to pharmacies free of charge, we do not want to reimburse pharmacies as well as purchasing the stock, as that would mean the Government or taxpayer paying twice. Currently, as I have indicated, the legislative framework only makes provision for the reimbursement price of specials to be set at zero. We are restricting those to vaccinations and immunisations, medicinal products used for the prevention or treatment of disease in a pandemic, and associated products. By carving out these niche, critical—but understandable, I hope—exceptions in the legislation in that way, we recognise the importance of not undermining the supply and reimbursement arrangements more generally and broadly across the piece. Furthermore, the legislation will also ensure that in the case of pandemic treatments, once the disease is no longer a pandemic, the appropriate arrangements will be put in place to transition back to normal supply and payment arrangements.
The new clause is important to ensure that centrally purchased stock of essential medicines intended for patients in England can be distributed to community pharmacies to meet clinical need and support patient access, whether that applies to a vaccination or treatment in connection with a pandemic. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to support the new clause.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve again with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. As I said yesterday, we are grateful for the Minister writing with his explanation of this and the other new clauses ahead of time. That was helpful.
As the Minister explained in his letter, the new clause will simplify and safeguard the process of remuneration where the Government centrally procures vaccines, immunisations or products used to treat a pandemic, as well as other listed products, replacing “special medicinal products” under the previous legislation, in particular when there is significant international demand. That is very topical and we have a rich understanding of it given the events of the past 18 months, so it makes sense to the Opposition and we will not dwell on it long, nor will we press the new clause to a division. However, I seek clarity from the Minister on a couple of issues.
In the Minister’s letter, he cited the risk of wholesalers exporting the products or selling them at a much higher price if they were fed into the conventional supply chain. He characterised that as market failure. Community pharmacies would then be claiming reimbursement from the NHS based on the drug tariff determinations. I do not doubt the risk of that, and it is a foreseeable one, but am keen to hear from the Minister whether he is able to quantify the risk or demonstrate examples in either case. For example, during this pandemic, did that happen at the beginning? What was the cost if that took place? Have there been examples of profiteering preventing necessary products from reaching the patients for which they were intended?
In a second point, I am curious about the arrangements put in place to transition back to normal payment arrangements, once the disease in question is no longer pandemic or at risk of becoming pandemic. Again, I think we would always want restoration of normal circumstances at the first appropriate moment. In his letter, the Minister describes the arrangements as “appropriate”, while the new clause reads:
“Where…the Secretary of State considers that the disease to which it relates is no longer a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease, the Secretary of State must revoke that provision within such period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable”.
Given that section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006 also allows the Secretary of State to determine remuneration, that feels a little like the Secretary of State being allowed to mark their own homework. It could leave such measures in place for as long as suits them, rather than for as long as necessary, because the only determination of their need sits with that person. Will the Minister offer some reassurance that the power is for an emergency and is exceptionally limited, and give the Committee some comfort about the oversight and how Parliament perhaps will be given the chance to challenge the Secretary of State, so that the measures are not kept in place for any longer than necessary?
Dr Whitford
I have a small comment following on from the hon. Gentleman, who was asking for evidence of profiteering on specials. I was on the Committee considering the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017 and brought the issue of specials before the Committee. These are often personalised medicines. In Scotland, they are produced centrally by the NHS, but there is certainly huge evidence of profiteering on them within NHS England, with hundreds of pounds being charged for simple ointments. While we may not have evidence on vaccines, evidence of profiteering on specials is long standing.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for helping to reduce the number of the shadow Minister’s questions that I need to answer. The hon. Lady makes her point well. We saw early on in the pandemic the challenges of a globally competitive market and the incentives and disincentives that can create around supply. I will not go into other aspects of supplies purchased for the NHS during the pandemic, but we have seen what happens when a market becomes super-saturated with demand versus a very limited supply, hence why we believe the steps in the new clause are prudent.
The shadow Minister will be familiar with approach in the new clause; it was used, for example, for covid vaccines, which were centrally secured and supplied directly to pharmacies. While we felt that supply could be justified on the basis of conventions of statutory interpretation that allowed us necessary flexibility in those exceptional circumstances, we think it is appropriate that we put such measures on a proper legal footing—through debate and, if necessary, Division in the House—to future-proof our arrangements. We are not trying to radically alter NHS pharmaceutical service provision or the payment mechanism. The aim is actually to strengthen the legal basis, and indeed the democratic oversight of that legal basis, through this debate in this Committee, for scenarios in which usual supply routes need to be bypassed.
The shadow Minister also raised a couple of other points, mainly about the Secretary of State’s power and Parliament’s role going forward, if I may paraphrase it in that way. I take his point. Judgments will obviously be based on advice from officials and legal and scientific advisers, but to a degree it is in the nature of ministerial accountability that there is an element of subjectivity when the Secretary of State is obliged to make a judgment. I appreciate the point, which I echoed in my remarks, on the need to turn these arrangements off or transition out of them as swiftly as possible, but we can see this pandemic declining and coming back at various times—that is the nature of the lifecycle of a pandemic; there are ups and downs before it finally burns itself out—and therefore the Secretary of State will ultimately need a degree of discretion and subjectivity in their judgment about the right moment, although obviously they will take advice.
On the House’s ability to challenge that, as the shadow Minister will possibly expect me to say, he and his colleagues and other Members will have ample opportunity, not only at Question Time but also, as I have discovered, through urgent questions, which I have answered on behalf of colleagues in the Government on occasion. There are plenty of opportunities for Members to summon Ministers to the Dispatch Box, or through written questions, to challenge and to probe and hold Ministers to account. I hope that hon. Members feel that this is a pragmatic and proportionate measure to address something we have identified in the course of the pandemic as needing resolution, and in so doing to put it on a surer and clearer statutory footing.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 62 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
Prohibition of virginity testing
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they attempt to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they provide another person with a product intended for the purpose, or purported purpose, of establishing whether another person is a virgin.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(4) No offence is committed by an approved person who performs—
(a) a surgical operation on a person which is necessary for their physical or mental health; or
(b) a surgical operation on a female who is in any stage of labour, or has just given birth, for purposes connected with the labour or birth.
(5) The following are approved persons—
(a) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (4)(a), a registered medical practitioner; and
(b) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (5)(b), a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person undergoing a course of training with a view to becoming such a practitioner or midwife.
(6) There is also no offence committed by a person who—
(a) performs a surgical operation falling within subsection (4)(a) or (b) outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) in relation to such an operation exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person.
(7) For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(8) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(9) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both.
(10) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”.—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Prohibition of hymenoplasty—
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to re-create the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they advertise the service of hymenoplasty or any service that purports to ‘re-virginise’ or otherwise re-create or re-attach the hymen of a patient by way of surgical procedure.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to or re-creating the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(4) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
(6) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”.
Alex Norris
I want to speak to new clause 1 in my name and seemingly in the name of half the House. With pleasure, we have reached the new clauses. A central theme runs through the new clauses that my colleagues and I have tabled. If the Government are adamant that now is the time for this Bill, and we have well-established issues with that, then given the significant and growing challenges facing health and social care in this country we really ought to put things in the Bill that will make a difference. Too much of what we have discussed over the previous 18 sessions—give or take—has been about structures and moving things around; this is fundamentally likely to make little to no difference on the frontlines to practitioners or the people that we work for. These new clauses, and the new clauses in general, seek to try and redress that balance and put things in the Bill that will make an impact in this country.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support new clauses 1 and 2. Although this issue would be within the devolved space, as a doctor, I think that any practice that is in essence being called a medical practice but is not for the benefit of the patient is unjustifiable. I have to say, I think that extends to X-raying child refugees’ teeth or exposing their limbs to radiation for no clinical reason; I find that unjustifiable. The difference with what these two new clauses deal with is that both involve absolute violation of women and girls, and therefore they are way beyond what we would discuss in other spheres. Although these measures would not apply in Scotland, they are about things that are indefensible, as are other practices that we have heard about, such as female genital mutilation, and so on, which some have tried to disguise as cultural, religious or other practices. Therefore, I totally support the principle and the idea behind these new clauses.
Edward Argar
While, on occasion, there has not been unanimity in this House, I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
I am grateful, first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his private Member’s Bill on this issue, which originally raised it, and I am also grateful to the shadow Minister. I do not always say that about some of his amendments, but I am grateful to him and his colleagues for tabling this new clause, which gives us the opportunity to debate this issue in Committee. I am aware of the work that my hon. Friend has done to raise the issue and I know how strongly the shadow Minister feels about it as well.
First, I want to reassure the Committee that safeguarding vulnerable women and girls is a key priority for the Government, which is why on 21 July we announced our commitment to ban virginity testing in the Home Office-led tackling violence against women and girls strategy, so I think we are of one mind on the principle. I will talk a little bit about the mechanism, the drafting and similar, but it is fair to say that we are of one mind on the principle here. Such tests are, as the shadow Minister said, a violation of human rights and are clearly known to have an adverse and long-term impact on women and girls’ physical, psychological and social wellbeing.
New clause 1, which the shadow Minister tabled and spoke to, gets to the very heart of what we intend to do with regard to virginity testing: ban it. I wholly agree with the spirit of new clause 1; however, I fear that we cannot accept it as drafted. There are several reasons for that, which I will outline. Nevertheless, I hope that in my opening remarks I have reassured him that we are of one mind on this issue, and I will set out the next steps.
By way of further reassurance, may I also say to the Committee that the Government have clear plans to introduce our own legislation, at the appropriate moment and at the nearest opportunity, to criminalise virginity testing? There is work to be done on the drafting and, as the shadow Minister would expect, through discussions within Government. However, I can put on the record in this Committee that it is absolutely our intention to legislate in this space.
While the wording of that legislation will differ slightly from the wording of the new clause, I want to reassure the shadow Minister and other Members that the policy intent and policy outcome will be exactly aligned. Parliamentary drafting is not only an art but a significant skill, and a very technical one. Therefore, we are utilising the best drafting we have available to see how we might achieve the outcome in the appropriate way, subject to cross-Government approvals.
I will also say that the Government absolutely share the shadow Minister’s concerns about how virginity testing is essentially driven by a repressive approach to female sexuality and is a form of violence against women and girls that must be eradicated.
Our concerns about the drafting of the new clause include that it does not specify where in the United Kingdom the offence would apply. It is unclear whether the offence would apply in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom or in England only. That is a drafting technicality, but we think that clarity is important. We are in the process of seeking four-nation-wide agreement on virginity testing in each of the nations, and we are working through options on what that might look like, reflecting our shared view that virginity testing has no place in any part of our United Kingdom, and that the safety of women and girls is paramount wherever they are in the four nations.
Another concern about the drafting is the inclusion of defences. The new clause would provide that in certain circumstances, such as in the course of a surgical procedure undertaken by an appropriate medical professional, an offence would not be committed. The Department’s internal review of virginity testing and hymenoplasty found that virginity tests have no clinical or scientific merit, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said. There is no reliable way to establish virginity, nor is there any clinical reason to know if a woman or girl is a virgin. As such, we are clear that there is no clinical reason for such an examination or operation to be carried out, and we therefore question the legitimacy of including such a defence in the new clause.
I have set out some of the key drafting challenges in the new clauses and I hope that I have given a flavour of the Government’s thinking. The drafting detail of our policy approach is being carefully considered, with the safety of vulnerable women and girls as our guiding principle. The hon. Gentleman may be reassured that the spirit and policy intention of the new clause will be reflected in future legislation as swiftly as we can draft it and secure agreement to bring it forward.
New clause 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham and supported by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, seeks to ban hymenoplasty in the United Kingdom. While the Government share the concerns underpinning the new clause—that hymenoplasty is driven by a repressive approach to female sexuality and closely associated with virginity testing, so it is right that we debate the new clauses together—we also have concerns about timing and process.
After the Department of Health and Social Care conducted an internal review of virginity testing and hymenoplasty, the Government announced in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy that they would convene an expert panel to explore the clinical and ethical aspects of the procedure in more detail. The Government’s primary concern after the initial review was that there was no clearly defined consensus on whether hymenoplasty should be banned. As a Minister, I will not go as far as the hon. Member for Nottingham North while a review has been commissioned, or comment on what that review might say in detail. Arguments have been made on both sides. The hon. Gentleman has a clear view, and he may suspect he knows what my view is, but it is right to allow the expert panel to do its work swiftly and clearly and to use it as our evidence base.
It is fair to say that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders are clear that hymenoplasty perpetuates harmful myths about virginity and could constitute a form of violence against women and girls. Concerns have been expressed about whether banning the procedure could push the practice underground. It is important that the expert panel bottoms out those arguments and gives us a clear basis for proceeding. My challenge with the new clause is simply a matter of timing: it is important that we have the report from the expert panel.
To ensure balance and impartiality, the expert panel is co-chaired by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery and Dr Pallavi Latthe, both of whom are well respected in their areas of expertise. Both have extensive experience in this area of health ethics, and it is important that we let them do their work and then consider what they say. We will consider their recommendations as soon as they are brought forward, and I hope that will happen swiftly.
The recommendations will need to be fair, objective and based on evidence, so I hesitate to go beyond that in expressing a view on the substance of the new clause until I have that expert panel report before me. It will be presented for Ministers’ consideration, and I assure the hon. Gentleman—I can see where he might go with this—that the intention is to publish it before the Christmas recess. It is a swift piece of work. We will consider the report and, depending on its contents, bring forward legislation if or as appropriate, considering everything it contains in the context of vulnerable women and girls’ safety.
Alex Norris
Let me come back briefly on a couple of issues. First, I am grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and, in particular, her point about non-medical practices dressed up as medical practices. That is a particularly insidious way to inflict abuse on another person, and I completely agree with her that that is an absolute violation—it is as totemic as that.
We will all have taken great encouragement from the Minister’s response. I am grateful for that. I associate myself with the comments he made about the hon. Member for North West Durham—I should have said that in opening. Between us, we will ensure that he sees a copy of the proceedings, and he can take great encouragement from what the Minister said.
It was particularly welcome to hear that the Government intend to legislate in this space, with the intent for that to be at the earliest opportunity. That is good news, and the Opposition will support them in that process. I gently say—I know he enjoys these exchanges—that we are currently considering primary legislation, so this is definitely the earliest opportunity. If there are moments for the Government to revisit this issue on Report or in the other place, he will find colleagues very welcoming of that.
I do not want to shatter the consensus that has grown by dividing the Committee, so I do not intend to press either new clause to a Division. However, on new clause 2, we will look at what the expert panel says. I will be interested to see the divisions in opinion—I have not been able to find them. We look at these things on their merit, but the commitment to see the report before Christmas was welcome and will give great heart to campaigners in this space. The Opposition look forward to seeing the proposals and will be keen to support them if they can achieve the goals that we seek. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Annual parity of esteem report: spending on mental health and mental illness
“Within six weeks of the end of each financial year, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the ways in which the allotment made to NHS England for that financial year contributed to the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by mental health services that year from the overall annual allotment has contributed to the improvement of mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister referred to my longevity in post, which gives me the advantage of having had this debate with him previously. That does not make it any less important; in fact, the subject has only risen in importance in the intervening period. That is why the Opposition were pleased to put our name to the new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris).
In March, the Centre for Mental Health reported:
“There are…many areas where parity of esteem has not yet been realised. Mental health problems account for 28% of the burden of disease but only 13% of NHS spending.”
Parity of esteem is the principle by which mental health must be given equal priority to physical health. Many of us assumed that it had always been there, but debates have gone on over the years and, as that figure suggests, it is still some way from being achieved. The founding National Health Service Act 1946 spoke of a comprehensive health service, securing the improvement of both physical and mental health, and the National Health Service Act 2006 said the same. That principle was enshrined in the Health and Social Care Act 2012—at least, the parts of it that remain.
In operational terms, the Government require NHS England to work for parity of esteem for mental and physical health through the NHS mandate. However, there are reports that this requirement falls down at a local level. Certainly as a constituency MP, I have a whole range of stories of people not being able to access treatment in a timely manner, or being pushed around the system with very little effect and discharged from care before it was appropriate, with consequences we can all imagine. It is difficult to overestimate how challenging that is, not just for the individuals, but for the local commissioners when they face competing pressures.
We are not suggesting that the 20% to 30% gap should be closed entirely, but we should be looking to at least get on the road towards delivering true parity. There was a missed opportunity earlier in this Bill when we suggested that one of the mandated positions on the integrated care board should be a mental health representative. Should that have been accepted, the ambitions behind the new clause would have been much easier to achieve. It is about not just getting on the road to financial parity, but actually changing the culture so that disparities can be addressed. It does sometimes seem that mental health is the Cinderella service: the one that gets cut first at the expense of the more visible services where people, understandably, can see if a particular service is shut down.
It should go without saying that it is part of the Secretary of State’s normal duties to promote mental health care, but that is something that has been sadly missing. While we do not want to get into an exact science on spending, we do think that much more can be done in terms of delivery and outcomes. Looking at some of the hard facts, it is clear how far we have to travel. One in four mental health beds has been cut since 2010; just last year, 37% of children referred by a professional to mental health services were turned away. That is a shocking statistic, and I am sure most Members will have similar stories from their own constituencies of people in desperate need of help—young people whose entire lives could change by getting the right help at the right time, but who are not able to access services despite there being an obvious clinical need.
That must change. We need parity to mean something in practical terms. We hope that the new clause would create a shift in culture by requiring the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament addressing whether the aim of parity of esteem has been delivered.
Dr Whitford
The shadow Minister speaks about people who have been referred to mental health support but are not able to get it. Is there not a need to be moving that further upstream? Young people in particular struggle to access child and adolescent mental health services, and often that is because there is not resilient support within schools and there is no counselling at an early point when they are struggling that might mean they do not need to go to a specialised service. As there is none of that, their mental health may deteriorate until the only option is to join a long queue to attend a hospital unit. Therefore, should we not shift to looking at wellbeing—both physical and mental wellbeing—and the resilience of children and young people who have suffered over the past 18 months?
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention—that is a very fair point. I recently spoke to a CAMHS worker who made that very point. One of their frustrations was that problems were not being addressed by early interventions, which only stores up more difficulties for later. Again, that is a symptom of the fact that we do not have parity of esteem, because early interventions can ultimately make a huge difference. We would like to see better access to services and appropriate waiting times being established for a wider range of mental health services, so that people with mental health problems know the maximum time for treatment, as is the case for people with physical health problems. I know the Department has been consulting on that fairly recently, and we think it would be a step change in how we assess and prioritise mental wellbeing.
Parity of treatments is required. Psychological therapies that are approved and recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence should be delivered as per the NHS constitution, and they should be put on a par with NICE-approved drugs. People need 24/7 access to mental health teams. The A&E presentations that we hear so much about have to be considered—that is probably not the optimum way to deal with such issues. There is a whole range of matters that really could make a practical difference in delivering parity of esteem, and we think that the report proposed in the new clause would be a way to drive through some of those changes.
I will not push for a vote on new clause 3, but we wanted to highlight the urgent need for more support for mental health services throughout the UK. Hopefully, the Minister will at least acknowledge that more needs to be done in this area.
Edward Argar
I welcome the spirit in which the shadow Minister brings this issue to the Committee. He is right to highlight not only the words “parity of esteem” but what they mean in practice, the importance of mental health services—particularly after the past year and a half with the rise in people suffering from mental health problems—and the challenges posed every day to our mental health services, irrespective of the pandemic. I suspect that throughout their time in this place, all Members present will have had multiple pieces of constituency casework relating to this issue, and particularly to CAMHS.
It is absolutely right that the shadow Minister has focused our debate on ensuring that mental health services are sufficiently funded to improve access, care and outcomes for patients. We know that, historically, mental health services under successive Governments have not received the same level of funding as NHS-funded services for physical health. By virtue of section 1(1) of the National Health Act 2006, which was inserted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Secretary of State has a “duty to promote comprehensive health service” in England
“designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”
Although there may be many things in the 2012 Act that I suspect Opposition Members do not agree with, I suspect they will agree with that clear objective. Given what the shadow Minister said, I am sure they do.
In line with that duty the Secretary of State, through the NHS mandate, ensures that NHS England must seek to treat mental health with the same urgency as physical health. That is monitored through three metrics: mental health services’ real-term expenditure growth, the number of people accessing Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services, and the number of children and young people accessing NHS-funded mental health services. The Secretary of State has a legal duty to keep under review the progress in meeting mandate objectives. NHS England and NHS Improvement provide reports on the above metrics for the Government’s review on a regular basis, and they have governance mechanisms in place to monitor both mental health spend and service delivery.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. If the investment standard is being met across the board, perhaps it is the investment standard that needs looking at rather than the services themselves. We are all aware that there is a lot more to do in this area. As the Minister rightly says, no doubt we will return to it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Support provided by the NHS to victims of domestic abuse
“(1) Each Integrated Care Board must—
(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in its area;
(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy;
(d) designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead; and
(e) publish an annual report on how it has discharged its duties relating to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence under the Care Act 2014.
(2) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section must, in carrying out its functions, give effect to the strategy.
(3) Before publishing a strategy under this section, an Integrated Care Board must consult—
(a) any local authority for an area within the relevant Integrated Care Board’s area;
(b) the domestic abuse local partnership board appointed by the local authority for an area within the relevant clinical commissioning group’s area under section 58 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and
(c) such other persons as the relevant local authority considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4), “local authority” means—
(a) a county council or district council in England; or
(b) a London borough council.
(5) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may alter or replace the strategy; and
(c) must publish any altered or replacement strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the preparation and publication of strategies under this section.
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—
(a) the procedure to be followed by an Integrated Care Board in preparing a strategy;
(b) matters to which an Integrated Care Board must have regard in preparing a strategy;
(c) how an Integrated Care Board must publish a strategy;
(d) the date by which an Integrated Care Board must first publish a strategy; and
(e) the frequency with which an Integrated Care Board must review its strategy or any effect of the strategy on the provision of other provision in its area.
(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) all Integrated Care Boards; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require Integrated Care Boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
For Opposition Members in Committees of this type, as we assemble the issues that we prioritise in proceedings, we have to be a bit of a magpie and pinch things along the way, so I want to recognise that this new clause is pinched from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot. I am grateful to her for tabling this and for the level of thought that she put into the amendment, which is a very good one.
Earlier in the proceedings, we discussed integrated care board plans and their responsibility to engage with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I was grateful for the commitments that the Minister made. There was a common understanding that the health and social care system has a crucial role in both preventing and tackling domestic abuse and in supporting victims and survivors. That sounds self-evident, but we are not in that position in this country yet, and we could do much better. I hope we can build on that consensus with the new clause, which requires integrated care boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and to designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made earlier regarding the scale of domestic abuse, but it is worth reiterating top lines, particularly the global statistics from the World Health Organisation, which show that 30% of women have experienced some form of physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. In this country it is one in four, so it is of a similar order of magnitude. The Government’s own estimate is that it costs health services £2.3 billion annually. A common refrain from the sector, with which I meet a lot, as I did before coming to this place, concerns the impact it could make with a fraction of that money if it was put into statutory services or the services that it provides. We should think about that investment model.
In discussing the new clause, I want to take the opportunity to cover something that we have not previously considered, namely domestic abuse, which tends to be against women but also concerns people with disabilities. According to Stay Safe East, disabled people and, most specifically again, disabled women, experience higher rates of domestic abuse than those who do not have disabilities. Abuse against women with disabilities is likely to be more violent and to happen over a longer period before the victim discloses it or can access help. The really sad thing is that if the victim––who is living with a disability––is not heard, there is a significant risk that they will then be sent home by the system to be cared for, in the very loosest sense, by their abuser. None of us would want that but it is the sort of thing that happens at the moment because we do not have a strong enough grip. I hope that we can use the new clause and the Bill generally to take more active steps to address that problem.
There is clearly a significant need for specialist domestic abuse services, which are crucial to enable women’s recovery in particular. Often, such services take on the work of statutory services and provide vital advocacy for women facing health exclusion, particularly in respect of services supporting black and minoritised women. It came out strongly in the debate on what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that we need specific and specialised services for those who are at greatest risk of being excluded. We did not quite get there in those provisions. I confess to using every legislative and parliamentary opportunity to keep pushing at this because it is really important and we can do much better.
We know that medical staff receive some training in adult safeguarding and, in a few hospitals, even on domestic abuse and sexual violence. But the skills and time to communicate with people with, say, learning disabilities or cognitive issues, with deaf survivors or with very elderly people who might be less likely to disclose personal information are not always available, and certainly not universally. The new clause seeks to put the onus on the integrated care system to get organised around this, to specialise and to prioritise it. It should be a priority across the system.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman think that we also have a job to do socially in reducing the stigma? I have worked in casualty departments and as a surgeon facing women who had clearly been abused but were standing or lying there making excuses for their abuser and saying why it was their own fault. As well as women with disability, there are women with insecure immigration status or insecure financial status who have no money of their own and feel that they have nowhere to go. I support the principle here, but we have a much bigger job to do around domestic abuse, which is endemic across the UK.
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention and completely agree with everything she said. For my part, and that of many of our colleagues, our way to tackle all those different barriers is to seek to put this in every bit of legislation. Most domestic legislation touches on these issues.
What is pertinent to this debate is thinking about the barriers to reporting. One barrier is the fear of not being believed. Of course, there is a bigger fear around prosecutions, which the Minister took a personal interest in when he was a Justice Minister, but it is clear from the evidence that we are not making enough progress. We have heard lots of positive sounds from the Government but no concrete proposals for change. We could do much better there.
On the barrier of not being believed, one way to create a better environment for a survivor to disclose what has happened to them is by their knowing that the person they are talking to in that healthcare setting has had training and works in a system that prioritises the safe disclosure of abuse. That would do a lot to build confidence. On the hon. Lady’s point about migration status, it is important that we talk about that. It was a key theme in the Domestic Abuse Act. There must be safeguards in place so that the disclosure of abuse trumps immigration status. The practitioner that they work with must be someone whose role is to help them address those issues, not someone who will be speaking to the Home Office. That first knock on the door will be someone trying to help them deal with the abuse and its impact on their life; it will not be from someone trying to resolve their migration status. That is an important principle.
Returning to the new clause, meeting with a professional social worker who ought be trained in assessing risks, including domestic abuse, might be the significant moment that an older or disabled person discloses domestic or other abuse. If given time and asked skilful questions in a safe environment, the person may disclose or express their fears, knowing they can do so in a protect manner. But across the country, such interventions are not falling into place on their own.
Women’s Aid’s data shows that in 2019-20, no refuge services responding to its survey were commissioned by their CCG, and just 10% of community-based services were. This is a multi-agency issue. I fought very hard to persuade the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) when she was Housing Minister that there ought to be investment and support going into the services through local government. She took that on, which was a good thing. Local authorities alone cannot tackle this issue. The picture that emerges from the evidence is that health agencies are not delivering as they ought to.
To be clear on what our modest ask is, subsection (1) states that each board must
“assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services”.
That is pretty basic. Following that, it must prepare a strategy, monitor that strategy and have an annual report on it, but particularly, under paragraph (d), it must
“designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead”,
because we know that in organisations such as the police or health organisations, where they have designated such a person, that person has been impactful. Those are pretty basic requirements. On many occasions the Minister has said that the point of the system is to be a permissive one and to let local areas shape services in the interests of their population, depending on the challenges they face; but the reality is that this problem is in every community, and we ought to be clear to ICBs that we expect this kind of activity. Subsection (3) includes a modest ask for consultation, which is reasonable and desirable.
Women in particular, and all our communities, desperately need this issue to be given deliberate focused attention. There is a high degree of consensus on it, but that does not lead to action frequently enough. The appointment of a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, which we have discussed, was a welcome step, but from a health and social care perspective we need to do more in the system. At the moment, that is not happening. That is not because I think that commissioners, leaders and decision makers do not think it is important, but they have an awful lot on. This can be a hidden crime that goes on behind closed doors, and as such drops down the list of priorities because of the urgent pressures on them; but we cannot let it go. As well as the leadership that we try to display on a national scale, we must do more to encourage this on a local scale. In this case, that is in the strategies and plans of the ICBs. We should make sure that happens.
To conclude—this is in the same vein as what I said when we debated new clauses 1 and 2—we should in our remaining time seek to put in the Bill things that will change people’s health outcomes, and outcomes in life more generally. New clause 5 is one of those things, so I hope the Government are in listening mode.
Edward Argar
I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for enabling this discussion to take place in Committee today. I find myself in deep agreement with the idea that the NHS can play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people and, as part of that, it must have strategies and processes in place for supporting victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm.
The hon. Gentleman was kind to refer to my stint at the Ministry of Justice, when as Victims Minister I took a close interest in this issue with Dame Vera Baird, the former Member for Redcar, in her role as Victims’ Commissioner—I pay tribute to her—and with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). My hon. Friend and I worked on the early stages of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and she saw that work through—I had moved to this role by then—before receiving a well-deserved promotion. I took a close interest in this issue when I was in the MOJ, and hon. Members from across the House will have found that it is not forgotten or left behind; we always reflect on it and see how we can continue to play a part when in other roles.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire was right to highlight the challenges that many people feel. The stigmas are completely unjustified, but people feel them because of the nature of the abuse and the controlling and coercive behaviour to which they have been subjected. When I was at the MOJ, I discovered the limitations of legislation in this space. We can and should legislate in certain areas, but a lot of this is about how services work on the ground, how we talk about this as a society, and how we break down the stigmas. One of the key things that I took away from my time at the MOJ was that tackling domestic violence and abuse is not just the responsibility of the justice system or the NHS; it is our responsibility as a society. I hope I can reassure the shadow Minister. On some areas, we tend to find ourselves in agreement rather more than is perhaps good for either of our political careers, but on this I entirely share his sentiments.
Turning to new clause 5, I hope to reassure the Committee that placing in the Bill a formal duty on ICBs to develop a separate strategy is unnecessary and not the best approach, but I hope the Committee will allow me to expand on my reasoning. There are already several duties on CCGs to consider the needs of victims of violence, including victims of domestic abuse, through the joint strategic needs assessment process. CCGs must respond to identified needs through health and wellbeing strategies. The duties will be transferred to and continue to apply to ICBs once CCGs are abolished, and will be further strengthened by the requirement on ICBs to develop system level commissioning plans. Through the Government’s landmark new Domestic Abuse Act 2021—it would be churlish of me not to recognise the Opposition’s work on it—local healthcare systems will be required to contribute to domestic abuse local partnership boards.
I slightly caution against requiring ICBs to create further additional strategies and plans, separate from those already in the Bill. I recognise the impulse to require NHS bodies to do this, because the theory is that a separate strategy will attract particular attention. My note of caution is because in doing so, we are saying, “We will put that over there, in that strategy” rather than having it as a thread that runs through all the strategies, underpinning strategic documents and plans of the local NHS and the ICB. We risk separating it and putting it in a different compartment from the wider span of integrated responsibilities, which is where it should sit.
The new clause also places a requirement on ICBs to have a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead. We agree with the principle, but we believe we can do that effectively through existing legislation and guidance. As set out in the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy, the Department of Health and Social Care will be engaging with integrated care systems and providing guidance to promote best practice in addressing violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence. That could well include advice on designated leads and those internal structures and processes.
Beyond ICBs, I see a huge opportunity for integrated care partnerships to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm through better partnership working. I am sure we have all undertaken visits to women’s refuges or to other charities that support women who are victims of domestic abuse. I should just say that it is, of course, true that men and women can be victims of domestic abuse. I refer to women in this context because an overwhelming number of victims are women, but it can happen to anyone, irrespective of gender.
In my previous role, I had the privilege of meeting survivors of domestic abuse, who were willing to talk to me about what had happened and their recovery from and survival of domestic abuse. In those conversations, people would often say, “I dealt with one agency, but it did not talk to this agency and this bit did not join up.” There is a real opportunity for the ICPs to work with housing providers, local authorities, the NHS and other voluntary and third sector organisations to help to bring together a more coherent and joined-up approach.
More broadly, I assure the Committee that the NHS will be at the forefront of stepping up to its responsibility to play its part in tackling domestic abuse, sexual violence and violence against women and girls. NHS England is developing enhanced trauma-informed mental health support for victims with the most complex needs within the sexual assault and abuse pathway. The DHSC’s new office for health promotion will work with the newly merged NHS England to review and build on workforce policies to ensure safe, effective processes are in place to support staff affected by domestic violence and sexual violence.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that we take this issue extremely seriously. Although we do not think that the approach proposed in the new clause is the right one, I am open-minded and happy to work across the aisle to see if there is more we can do in this space, in keeping with the strategy set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle when she was at the Home Office, and to see if there are other ways to achieve essentially the same objective.
Alex Norris
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I agree with significant elements of it. I take the point about existing duties on CCGs, and I am very mindful of those. The reality is that they do not work, or they certainly have not worked to date. I have no confidence that anything will change if current arrangements are just ported over to integrated care boards, which is what will happen. I do not think anything will change. I cannot imagine what will have changed in that moment to make it different, and I cannot therefore agree with the characterisation that the new clause is unnecessary.
I accept that we would not want to see a proliferation of further strategies. By making it a requirement, the new clause seeks to put the treatment, assessment and care of domestic abuse on the same footing in integrated care as elective care or major diseases. It should have that status, and at the moment it does not. It needs to be elevated to that level. I do not disagree at all with the Minister’s point about domestic abuse being a thread that runs through all policies. The reality is that we have been saying that for a really long time. What actually happens is that it is in everything and, as a result, it is in nothing, and things do not change. Certainly, they are not changing quickly enough in the health space.
Finally, on the point about integrated care partnerships, I hoped that the Minister would not say what he did, because that is the problem. The fundamental issue is that those who are making the direct daily decisions about health and care in our communities are downgrading the issue by considering what they do not as operational, daily, immediate, crucial decisions—in the way they would with elective care or cancer care—but instead as partnership work.
I would never talk down the pledges that we sign or the awareness days we do. I have signed all the pledges and gone to all the awareness days, and I will keep doing that because it is an important way of keeping the pot boiling. However, I am not convinced that they have done enough to make my constituents safer or give them a better health service. I have seen no evidence of that yet. This is not partnership work, but daily, crucial work that ought to be done by system decision makers, who ought to be prioritising it every day, but I do not think that is the case.
Edward Argar
If I was unclear, I apologise; that was not the intention of what I was saying. I sought to say that that partnership work brings together organisations that, I believe, do focus on the issue day to day and have it as an operational priority, but often still operate in silos. In some of the best partnerships in the best local authority areas, those silos are much less evident. My point about the ICP was not as an alternative to making this front and centre, and asking “What are you doing in your operational decision making?”—be it about elective care, cancer or domestic abuse, and treating them the same—but that often it operates in a way that is internal to those organisations, rather than across them.
That was the point I was trying to make about partnership: not only do we need that internal process and urgency—I totally share the hon. Gentleman’s view on that—but we need the ICPs to offer an opportunity to do that by bridging organisations. I hope that adds a little clarity, if I was unclear.
Alex Norris
It does, and of course I would not want to misrepresent what the Minister said. My point is that, while of course we should seek to work across the partnership and have a cross-partnership approach to tackling this issue in our communities—that is a very good thing to do—the problem currently is that that means we are not doing enough in the health and care space. There has to be something that says to health leaders, “Yes, work in partnership, but there are bits that you have to do yourselves that at the moment you are not doing well enough, so please do them.” This is my “something”. That was my logic in tabling this new clause, and it is why I intend to push it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I think I tabled these new clauses back in August; recalling my brain to that time, summer seems like a long time ago now.
New clause 7 may seem self-evident, and I think the Minister may respond, “Yes, we are happy for them to do this, and parts of this have been included in the Bill.” I will not seek to press the clause to a vote, but I had a short conversation with the Minister to indicate that this is really good practice and that we need some assurance that the NHS will abide by the Government’s rules. That is all I seek to do with this new clause. It is self-evident that papers should be published in advance and made available to people, and that due process should be followed, but we all know that that often does not happen. Sometimes there are emergency reasons for that, but in my experience, it rarely needs to happen at the last minute.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who said what should not really need saying, but still needed to be said, because being open and transparent is the highest form of accountability. Given the history of the NHS as the archetypal public service, one would expect it to be the model of openness and transparency. Maybe it was at one point, but we are a long way from that now. In a public service on the scale of the NHS one would expect the sharing of best practice to be the norm and openness to be the standard. Unfortunately we know that it is not, and one has to ask what it is people want to hide from others.
We know of classic examples of how a secretive approach has made matters far worse than they were. The various inquiries have shown that these methods have not only prevented things from being released, but have actively protected colleagues, units and even trusts from what might, at the very least, be considered reputational damage. Many have said that the best disinfectant is sunlight—or words to that effect—and the best governance comes when things are open and transparent. The best checks and balances are only possible if all information is shared properly.
I will quote from the code of conduct for NHS boards, agreed two decades ago between the NHS Appointments Commission and the Department of Health. I believe it is as valuable today as it was then. It says,
“Health needs and patterns of provision of health care do not stand still. There should be a willingness to be open with the public, patients and with staff as the need for change emerges. It is a requirement that major changes are consulted upon before decisions are reached. Information supporting those decisions should be made available, in a way that is understandable, and positive responses should be given to reasonable requests for information and in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
I think we all understand what that seeks to achieve: be open and transparent, listen and engage. History suggests that this has been applied patchily at best.
One of the inevitable consequences of the shift to a belief in the markets was the idea that bits of the NHS were only semi-attached to the greater body and had their own paths to travel and own priorities. Some of these bodies were expected to behave like businesses and were given the illusion of having a bottom line or a surplus. They were told that their incomes depended on how many customers they had through their doors and that they would win more through competition with other providers in a quasi-market. That led them to become more insular, self-serving and closed. Why would they want to share information with their competitors? That may sound a little extreme, but there are plenty of examples of that kind of behaviour, which tips over into, essentially, reputational management—being seen to be good and one of the best, but actually covering up some of the worst.
Openness and transparency have been eroded as a result. We saw in the Francis report a renewed focus on openness and transparency, which was meant to lead to better patient outcomes—in theory, at least. The renewed interest in openness gave rise to this statement from the report:
“It is a basic and just expectation of the public that organisations are open, honest and transparent about their performance standards, about the rights of patients and about what happened, and why, if things go wrong. This is the only way to begin to restore full public trust in the NHS.”
Sadly, that was not the end of the matter.
The Lansley Act—the Health and Social Care Act 2012—pushed, I am afraid, many trusts in the opposite direction. Despite the Francis report and talk of duties of candour, we still have horrific reports of failures within the NHS. Those failures often illustrate a refusal to be open and honest, showing a scant regard for whistleblowers and a culture of denial and refusal to accept the challenges. In part, this is another remnant of the Lansley Act. Once the emphasis is on competition, reputation management and business-like behaviours and away from public services, we begin to lose openness and transparency.
Let us go back to the key principles of the NHS as a public service that is accountable to us all, as public services should be. NHS business should be conducted in a way that is socially responsible. The NHS is one of the largest employers in many communities, and it should be forging an open, positive relationship with local communities, working with staff, partners and stakeholders to set out a vision for the organisation in line with the expectations of their communities, patients and the public. None of that can be done in secret, behind closed doors. NHS organisations should not only discuss but demonstrate to the public that they are concerned about and determined to deal with the wider health of the population, including how it relates to the organisations’ own impact on the local economy, the local environment and so on. They should reflect the values of engagement, which should be at the forefront of all decision making, and transparency, which should be there in all dealings.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South for tabling this new clause. Much of what we discussed in relation to amendment 34 is relevant here as well. She says she seeks to be helpful by tabling the new clause. I take it in that spirit and will seek to respond in that spirit, although we may not agree on our conclusions.
As I said when we debated amendment 34, we agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and the hon. Lady that it is right that ICBs involve the public in their decisions in a transparent way. That also holds true for NHS England, NHS provider organisations and special health authorities. The new clause would require NHS trusts, foundations trusts, proposed ICBs, NHS England and special health authorities to hold their meetings in public except if it would be prejudicial to the public interest to do so. It would also require those bodies, when making major decisions—defined by thresholds of cost or impact on patients or staff—to do so having produced a business case, undertaken a stage gate review or similar external assessment, and considered comments from the public, patients or staff representatives. The comments, business case and review could not be considered commercially confidential under the FOI Act.
As I mentioned when discussing amendment 34, much of that is already the case. First, the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 places a similar and analogous set of requirements to involve the public in meetings as the new clause. NHS England and NHS trusts are already included in the schedule to the 1960 Act, so are subject to the requirements of that Act. Schedule 4 to the Bill provides for integrated care boards to be added to the schedule to the 1960 Act as well, thereby bringing their activities within its competence.
The position of special health authorities is that where the regulations establishing them provide as such, they are to be subject to the requirements of the 1960 Act. That gives the flexibility to include them as appropriate. For example, NHS Blood and Transplant and the NHS Trust Development Authority—which the Bill proposes merging with NHS England—are included at present.
By having the requirements for public notice of, and attendance at, meetings of those bodies set out in the 1960 Act, we keep NHS bodies in line with the requirements placed on other public bodies, meaning that everyone is clear about the legal requirements and what the public can expect from them. Foundation trusts are not formally covered by the 1960 Act, but it is mandatory that they make provision in their constitutions that their board of directors’ meetings and their annual meeting of members be held in public. They are also under the same duty as NHS trusts to involve those who use their services in their decisions regarding service provision, as set out in section 242 of the National Health Service Act 2006. In practice, therefore, foundation trusts are guided by similar principles to other NHS bodies.
Turning to the point about setting in legislation a decision-making process for “major decisions”, we of course agree that it is vital that NHS bodies follow a robust process when making decisions. Integrated care boards, for example, have clear duties to use their resources efficiently and effectively. For practical reasons, however, we would not want to subject every major decision to a single fixed approach, not least because there is no provision in the amendment for responding to emergencies or rapidly emerging situations, including those related to patient safety.
I hope that I can, however, give some degree of reassurance that there are, as set out in the 2006 Act, broad duties on NHS bodies in respect of consultation and public involvement. NHS England involves those who are affected by decisions about commissioning in the decision-making process, either by consulting them or by providing them with information in other ways. A similar duty will be imposed on ICBs by clause 19. NHS trusts and foundation trusts have a similar duty in respect of public involvement and consultation when making decisions about the services they provide, again set out in the 2006 Act.
The Committee is also aware that the Treasury is committed to seeing business cases where capital spending, or whole-life cost spending for IT, is more than £50 million, and we expect ICBs to align with that standard. Furthermore, NHS England has a broad range of powers to issue guidance on how ICBs and others make decisions, spend capital and involve patients and the public in those decisions. Placing those processes in guidance, rather than on the face of the Bill, gives not only the flexibility to set different approaches in different circumstances, but the ability to respond to changing best practice.
On procurement and transparency, as we have discussed, the Bill introduces a power to bring forward new procurement regulations, which will set out the new provider selection regime. Regulations and statutory guidance will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny under the new regime, which will be designed to ensure open, transparent and robust decision making, and will require decision-making bodies to demonstrate the rationale for their decisions. The decision-making process will be recorded internally by NHS bodies and audited annually. While decision-making bodies will be required to publish contracts awarded and intentions for the method of procurement, with a rationale for both, the bodies will not be required to publish every detail of their decision-making process.
Regarding FOI requests, I recognise the impulse to be as transparent as possible and agree that, unless exemptions apply, information should be released under the FOI Act. I am advised that confidentiality, which is an absolute exemption, and commercial confidentiality, which is a qualified exemption, are two separate exemptions already in that legislation. Where parts of the decision-making process are exempted on the grounds of commercial interests, those exclusions exist to protect the release of information that could prejudice a commercial decision. That could put NHS bodies at a disadvantage in ongoing negotiations and would be detrimental to the public purse.
I am advised that this is a qualified exemption and therefore disclosure would still be required unless the public interest in withholding disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure being made. I recognise that that is a tricky balance to strike, but I do not think it is to the benefit of the NHS that information held by NHS bodies that could be commercially damaging and does not meet a public interest test should be released.
I hope that that offers some reassurance to the Committee. I encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause to a Division.
Health and Care Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Wednesday 27th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2021 - (27 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, I remind hon. Members about electronic devices, masks and notes to Hansard.
New Clause 7
Transparency of decision-making by NHS bodies
“(1) All meetings of NHS bodies must be held in public and reasonable provision must be made for access to meetings other than by physical attendance.
(2) All—
(a) agendas; and
(b) other papers
to be considered at meetings of NHS bodies must be published at least 10 days before the date of the meeting.
(3) For the purposes of this section an NHS body is—
(a) NHS England;
(b) an Integrated Care Board;
(c) an NHS Trust;
(d) an NHS Foundation Trust; and
(e) a Special Health Authority.
(4) An NHS body may, by resolution, exclude the public from the whole or part of a meeting if it considers that publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest because confidential business is to be transacted at the meeting or for other reasons stated in the resolution.
(5) A resolution to exclude the public from a meeting under subsection (4) must be published at least five days before the date of the meeting and must explain—
(a) what is covered by the resolution; and the reason publication is not in the public interest.
(6) Any responses from the public to the publication of the resolution under subsection (5) must be considered in public at the meeting.
(7) All major decisions taken by an NHS body must be based on—
(a) a business case prepared to the standards required by HM Treasury and published at least one month before the decision is to be considered;
(b) a Stage Gate Review or similar external independent assurance review, the summary of which must be published at least one month before the decision is to be considered; and
(c) consideration of any responses from the public, patients or staff representatives to the business case.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7) neither the business case nor any part of it nor any record of the consideration of the case by the NHS body may be considered to be commercially confidential under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (7) a “major decision” includes, but is not restricted to, any proposal for—
(a) capital expenditure in excess of £5m; the award of any contract with a value in excess of £1m to any organisation that is not an NHS Trust or NHS Foundation Trust; and
(b) any change in the organisation of the provision of services that will involve or may involve—
(i) more than 10 staff; or
(ii) more than 10 patients or service users.
(10) NHS England may publish guidance on the consideration of major decisions under subsections (7) to (9).”—(Karin Smyth.)
This new clause requires all NHS organisations to hold meetings and make decisions in an open and transparent manner and allows the public and patients to express views on important proposals.
Brought up, read the First time, and Question proposed (this day), That the clause be read a Second time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, but I am a bit disappointed. The Minister basically set out what was already required, but that was not the issue. Many Members will have found that what is required is not our experience. Meetings are held in private. In my comments this morning I said that increased throughout the ’90s and the noughties. That is not a party political point: it is to do with the increasing competition. The Minister cites Acts from the 1960s, but that is not our experience.
Some foundation trusts have taken the view that they can hold private meetings for their own reasons. It is our experience that decisions are regularly taken before consultation even begins. The consultation that those bodies embark on is often simply about the how, when it should be about the what. The major projects go ahead and procurement commences without what anyone would recognise as a proper business case, with no proper external validation by a gate or any other review. Again, that is the Government’s own policy.
Trusts regularly ignore freedom of information guidance. Businesses cases are withheld because they are contentious, not because they threaten commercial confidentiality—that is a screen behind which people hide. The new clause tries to send the message that the NHS should try harder. The Minister’s response should be to completely agree. He should tell his Department to behave in the way that the Cabinet Office and the Treasury expect, and send that message to the NHS much more strongly.
What does the Minister thinks he has done on compliance? Who is enforcing this? What do MPs and members of the public do when those bodies do not do what we expect them to do? In my experience of recourse to the Secretaries of State, there is no monitoring and compliance, and no real sanctions on people who flaunt the requirements expected. Thankfully, we are not talking about markets and competition, so all the need for secrecy should have gone. I hope the Minister can be stronger within his Department and with the NHS about the standards we expect. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. Today, new guidance was published in the House that all members of staff in Parliament should wear masks. I am truly shocked that, given we are debating the Health and Care Bill, the majority of the Members on the Government side cannot put on a mask and set an example. Is there anything we can do to remind Members that we all have a duty of care to everyone who works here and their safety?
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I should point out that this is not a matter for the Chair. Mr Speaker has encouraged everyone to wear masks when they are not speaking. It would be extremely helpful if people were to abide by that. The hon. Lady’s point is on the record and I am sure it will be drawn to Mr Speaker’s attention.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr McCabe. I understand that it is out of your hands, but this is an important matter for the safety not only of Members but of all staff here. We are in a smaller room than we have been recently, so circulation is probably not as good as we would like. When was the most recent risk assessment on this Committee meeting, and what did it say about the wearing of masks?
The Chair
I have just been advised that there was a statement from the Commission yesterday, but I do not believe there has been a specific assessment in relation to the Committee meeting in this room or any update on that. Again, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is not an issue for me. His point is on the record and it will be drawn to Mr Speaker’s attention. I am not sure there is a great deal more that we can achieve at this stage.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Further to that point of order, some Members may have medical conditions that we do not wish to disclose meaning we cannot wear masks. I have been sitting in the Chamber for three hours now, and I struggle with wearing a mask for a specific medical reason. I would therefore like to put on record that it is not necessarily a political decision not to wear a mask—sometimes it is for a medical reason. That needs to be understood.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Lady for that further point of order. I have to say to all of you: this is not the venue for this debate. If Members really want to have this debate, they need to speak to Mr Speaker. I have heard what people have said and it is on the record. You are entitled to take it up with Mr Speaker. I am going to move on.
New Clause 8
NHS Good Governance Commission
“(1) Regulations must provide for the establishment of an NHS Good Governance Commission as a Special Health Authority.
(2) The Commission has responsibility for ensuring that anyone appointed to, or elected into, a non-executive role on an NHS body—
(a) is a fit and proper person for that role; and
(b) has been appointed or elected by a process that the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) a Chair or ordinary member of an Integrated Care Board must be considered to be a non-executive role.
(4) NHS England may publish guidance, which must be approved by the Commission, about how appointments are made to NHS bodies.
(5) The Commission must publish an annual assessment of diversity and inclusion in decision-making by NHS bodies and in appointments to executive and non-executive roles in NHS bodies.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) an NHS body is—
(a) NHS England;
(b) an Integrated Care Board;
(c) an NHS Trust;
(d) an NHS Foundations Trust; and
(e) a Special Health Authority.”—(Karin Smyth.)
This new clause returns to the position prior to 2012 by recreating a body with independent oversight of important NHS appointments.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
At the risk of my career, I am again trying to be helpful to the Government. During the debate, we have come round in a circular way about the lack of accountability in the Bill and the quite astonishing levels of power taken directly by the Secretary of State. Those may be two separate things, but, in terms of the culture that we want to embed in the health system, they are really quite worrying.
The Bill puts into law the organisational changes of the last few years—based on what the NHS, I agree, has been asking for—on a population basis, not on competition or autonomy. Most of us genuinely welcome that: we want to see better population health, people working together, and services rooted in the community; we want to empower local people and guarantee service levels locally. We want to ensure transparency on funding to see if one area is funded more favourably than another. Historically, there have been problems with that and we want to understand that. We want to know why certain services operate in one area and not another.
Opposition Members often talk about a postcode lottery. I do not always agree with that terminology because if the population shows that it needs different levels of services in different parts of the country, then the local NHS needs to reflect that. My own city, Bristol, is a very young city; we have a very small population of over-85s. Further to the south-west, in nearby Torquay and Torbay, that situation is reversed. I would expect to see different population levels of healthcare in Bristol and Torbay.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
When we talk about a postcode lottery—something I have worked against my entire career—it does not really refer to the area of the postcode, but the access of individuals. At the end of the day, 85-year-olds in Bristol should get the same service as 85-year-olds in Torbay, even if there are fewer of them. Everyone should get the mandate of the service both health and social care deliver, even if it is delivered in a different way because of geography or demographics.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I do not disagree. The terms are bandied around and people often do not know what we mean by them, which is why, without going back into the past too much, I was a strong supporter when we were in Government of the national service frameworks and certainly of guaranteeing a level of care and access, as she says.
However, it is the case that different health systems will have different demands on them, and therefore should respond differently. On that basis, my point is that that local difference should be reflected: it should make the system accountable to and understandable by local people, and should involve them in the decisions made on their behalf. That seems self-evident.
We often hear in this Committee about the Minister’s, the shadow Minister’s and my other colleagues’ experiences in local government, but I think people would agree that the experiences of people involved in local government and people involved in the health service are so far apart as to be completely unrecognisable, in terms of the national accountability that the health service seems to have and the local accountability that local government has.
These bodies are deeply troubling. I have called them local cartels, in their form as integrated care boards. They have no accountability to the local people they serve, or nationally through Parliament. We have heard that the chair and chief executive are to be chosen in London according to criteria we know not, with all power vested in the Secretary of State and some promise of further detail in secondary legislation.
However, the logical conclusion of the Bill, and the way out of the problem for the Government, is a system, as we have tried to suggest, of elected chairs akin to the police and crime commissioners or metro Mayors. Elsewhere in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I have highlighted the vast discrepancy in money and powers that exists between police and crime commissioners, or even my local Mayor, and the health service. Health service spending dwarfs both of them.
I will not press the new clause to a Division, because I would like to see it picked up elsewhere in the debate as the Bill progresses through this place, and I would like to leave it as something helpful for the Government to keep considering. If the Government do not want to go down the election route, and we heard the reasons from the Minister, bringing back some form of the Appointments Commission, which disappeared in the coalition’s bonfire of the quangos, would be very helpful. There, we had clear role descriptions and person specifications for people who sit on those bodies, a transparent recruitment and interview process, and performance oversight and accountability. I was subject to that when I was a member of the primary care trust in Bristol North some time ago.
The other vital change is to try to bring in some genuine openness and transparency and some independent oversight of the process of appointment. The new boards and integrated care systems are a radical departure from the past 30 years. Earlier in the Committee, I made us pause momentarily as we saw off section 75, autonomy and competition. This is a big moment, and the new systems will need very highly skilled and experienced people to develop them to their potential, because, as we have heard, it is not clear how they are to be run.
The Government keep talking about permissiveness. The systems will be run by people on the ground, and the sort of people we want in charge must be imbued from the off with the culture that we want to see. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire talked the other day about the safety board being strangled at birth, and there is a danger that these bodies, some of which have been operating quite well, will not fulfil their potential and will be strangled at birth, because that culture of feeding up accountability just to NHS England and not to local populations will make them not work in the way they should, and certainly will make them not work well with local government.
This huge culture change is a culture change for clinical leaders as well as managers. There are some great opportunities here for population-based health, but we are asking clinical leaders—clinical leadership is already a real problem in these bodies—not to look to their own departments in the first instance and their own institutions in the second, but to look outwith their institutions, working with clinicians across the primary-secondary interface, and at a population-based approach rather than their own specialty-based approach. Again, that is a massive sea change for them. Having the clinical leaders doing that at the board level and giving them the support they need to do that in their specialities requires people who are highly skilled and who will be respected locally for their experience and skills, and for, I would argue, their independence from not being hand-picked by the Secretary of State.
The Government continue to lurch from one cronyism charge to another. A transparent process would help them get over that problem—again, I kindly offer the Government some help through their difficulties. The NHS should be seen as an exemplar for appointments and recruitment. The NHS has a terrible problem with diversity. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility on the work the civil service is trying to do around improving recruitment, particularly at the higher levels, of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The NHS has also failed that test over many years, and I believe that a more representative local selection—I would like it to be elected, but it could be selected through an appointments process— would help.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South, who gave a superb analysis of why the new clause is important and she picked up on many of the themes that we have already debated. The topicality of NHS senior management is there for all to see, with some of the recent headlines being orchestrated to divert from the growing waiting list crisis in the NHS.
Our view is that NHS senior management cannot be all that bad because they have seriously outperformed the private sector on efficiency for nearly a decade. If the NHS is one of the most efficient services in the world as many international studies have demonstrated, that is a credit to the managers who form a relatively small proportion of the overall workforce. I hope the Minister will join us in congratulating NHS managers, along with all the other brilliant staff, who have got us through the pandemic over the last 18 months—although, as we know, we are not through it yet. The contrast with some of the political decisions made has been exposed recently by the joint report by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Science and Technology Committee.
As we have discussed on a number of occasions, the Bill seems to specialise in the centralisation of power, with more and more being explicitly given to the Secretary of State. Do we want the Secretary of State appointing every chair, non-executive and chief executive, even in bodies that are meant to be independent from the Department? Amendment 18, which we debated earlier, would have gone some way to addressing that: alas, it was not to be. This is a serious issue that needs tackling. My hon. Friend is an expert on these matters through her own knowledge and experience, and I absolutely support what she has said.
While good governance might sound a little cheesy, I am sure that we could spend a lot of time discussing what exactly this new clause should be called.
I think we can all understand what good governance means and what it should look like, because we have certainly seen what it does not look like in how the Department operates at the moment. As my hon. Friend said, there was something similar in place previously, before it was burned in the bonfire of quangos under the coalition Government. Something should be in place, be it a revitalised appointments commission or even some independent standing committee or panel—something that has independent oversight of these very senior positions.
As we have said before, we would like more direct democracy in our integrated care boards. We are not going to get that, by the looks of it, but we would at least like some independence in appointments. When my ICB chair is finally appointed, I want him or her—it is a “him” at the moment, and it is an interim position—to be looking outwards, not upwards to NHS England all the time. That is something that a good governance panel would help facilitate.
A fit and proper person test should be applied independently, even to get on a shortlist, and there should be some process for removing those who should not be on there. This needs to be applied by people who are independent and competent, and not people who are already on the lists or making the appointment decisions. Perhaps we should even have some people who have oversight of how people in senior positions are appraised, trained and supported. There is a lot of experience and expertise out there that we could harness. I hope that, whatever this body ends up looking like, it can assist the NHS in dealing better with issues such as diversity, succession planning and leadership—all areas on which we can always strive to do better.
I hope that nobody mentions bureaucracy or cost as an excuse to leave things as they are. We know from published NHS experience that having an appointments commission was not really an overhead; in fact, it was a valuable resource that, in the end, saved money. We know how much it costs to replace someone who has proved unsuitable, and to undo the mistakes that they made. Appointing the right people in the first place is the best solution. The Minister will, of course, be aware of the importance of recruitment and retention across the whole NHS. I think that we can do more in respect of senior leadership roles.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, transparency is key throughout the systems. Where the funding goes is a key question that will become even more key as we move into the ICBs, with larger areas and different funding streams merging into one. Transparency will be important there. Of course, there will be local differences, as she said, but there should still be accountability to someone for where that money goes and who is taking those decisions. We have what we have described as a permissive approach to running ICBs at the moment, but that does not mean that we cannot have transparency and accountability. That is why we support the new clause.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol South. Although we may not fully agree, again I take the new clause in the spirit in which she tabled it. I will reflect on what she said, but I will also set out why I cannot accept what she is proposing. I will always reflect on what she says and proposes; when she proposes things, they are well thought out. We may come to different conclusions, but the points she made are certainly deserving of reflection. I can give her that assurance up front.
As in our oral evidence sessions, I join the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to those in our amazing NHS and care workforce. It is also important that we recognise, as I think she said during questioning of witnesses, that the complexity of the organisations we are talking about—the complexity of an acute trust, for example—means that strong and effective leadership, both financial and administrative, are hugely important to the overall success of the enterprise of our NHS. I therefore join her in paying tribute to those staff who often find themselves, particularly in media commentary and similar shorthand critiques, on the receiving end of criticism. People may ask, “What are they there for?”. They are hugely valuable—just as much as frontline clinicians, nursing staff and those who work in the canteens or clean the wards. It is a team.
Edward Argar
I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I am sure she will amplify this point. She has worked in clinical settings and will know that a whole team is needed to make things work.
Dr Whitford
I cannot resist the opportunity to amplify that point. Having spent over three decades working in hospitals as a surgeon, I know that it is a team sport that depends on everyone. Sometimes when cuts are made we hear the definition of “frontline” or “back-room” services. If I am in a clinic on my own without the patient records, the patient or the laboratory results, I am a complete waste of space. It is critical to recognise that. To get all the moving parts working well, really good managers are worth their weight in gold. They are part of the team and should be valued as such.
We heard with reference to fit and proper persons that the Kark review did not go far enough and should have suggested suggest registration or licensing of senior managers. Sometimes when the system does not work, we see the same people move out of one place and into another in this kind of revolving door manner.
Edward Argar
Although I do not always agree with the hon. Lady, I find myself in complete agreement with her. She made a couple of points that referred back to those made by the hon. Member for Bristol South. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the system needs high-calibre, high-quality people with the right skills, particularly given what we are seeking to do with integrated care systems. We must foster an environment in which those high skills are valued, continually reinforced and refreshed.
On the point about the Kark review, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is right. How should I phrase this delicately? People may move on, or be moved on, from posts because it was not a success for whatever reason; I will phrase it like that. We need to look at the challenge posed by those people suddenly reappearing in another equivalent senior post in a different part of the country. There may be a reason why someone has not been a success that is not due to particular circumstances or something beyond their control, and we need to look at the recycling of those people who have not been found to have hit the mark. We need to look at that carefully.
Edward Argar
I see the look on the shadow Minister’s face, which makes me wonder what is coming.
Justin Madders
I am not trying to catch the Minister out. I can think of a specific example where what he mentioned has happened. I am, frankly, angry that this individual has been able to do that. What does the Minister think can be done to ensure that the revolving door is shut on those whom it deserves to be shut on?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister is right. It is a challenge, and it is something I continually reflect on, because it intersects with legal employment rights, the nature of the terms on which someone leaves, how these matters work and the fact that NHS trusts around the country are individual. It is not a simple issue. It is one that I continue to reflect on. I hasten to add that it is not just the shadow Minister but Members from both sides of the House who have, on occasion, raised the issue. It requires further thought and reflection.
New clause 8 would involve creating a new special health authority, effectively, to provide independent oversight of NHS appointments. I recognise the importance of such appointments, and everyone would agree that good governance arrangements should and must be in place for managing them. Appointments to NHS trusts, NHS England and special health authorities are public appointments; they are managed in line with the principles of the governance code for public appointments and are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The chair of an ICB would be appointed by NHS England, with the approval of the Secretary of State. That reflects a point that has been considered on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, namely that the ICB is accountable to NHS England and, through it, to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, Parliament, as part of a national health service.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Bristol South said about the need for people to be answerable and responsive to their local community. The counter-challenge is avoiding the fragmentation of the national health service and the vertical arrangement. She mentioned police and crime commissioners, and although our police forces operate in a similar way, the difference is that we have never had a national police force. Each force is based on a county—or a city, in the case of the Metropolitan Police Service—and works on a locality basis, as local authorities do.
Justin Madders
This is a slightly cheekier question than my last one. Has the Minister conducted a similar exercise in his own Department?
Edward Argar
In respect of Ministers or senior civil servants? When it comes to Ministers, though I suspect that is not the point he wishes to push—
Justin Madders
I think we can see who the Ministers are, at least this week. I was referring more to the senior civil servants.
Edward Argar
I like to think that I am a constant in the Department, this week and in previous weeks. It is piece of work that we have done. If one looks at the very senior civil servants—the directors general and permanent secretaries—there is a good gender balance. He is absolutely right, however; having assumed responsibility for workforce more broadly a few weeks ago, it is a piece of work that I want to do. I was responsible for the implementation of the Lammy review and race disparity audit when I was at the Ministry of Justice, and it is an interest that I have taken with me to my new Department. The last year has been a little bit busy, but it is something of which I have not lost sight.
I do not believe that it is necessary to create a new body to oversee appointments, given that good governance arrangements are already in place. I therefore remain unconvinced by the argument. As ever, and as behoves me when the hon. Lady proposes something, I will continue to reflect on it carefully.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I hope to see this matter further debated during the passage of the Bill. I say gently to the Minister that the gender split for CEOs and managing directors in the health service may be 50:50, but the workforce, and certainly managerial post holders, are overwhelmingly women; however, that is not reflected further up.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes a point that I should have made earlier. When I was looking at this matter in the Ministry of Justice, I was not just looking at prison governors. We need to look at the layers below, the succession plan, and the mix coming up through the system—the next generation of leaders. She is right to highlight that; forgive me for not having mentioned it.
Karin Smyth
I am afraid that these bodies have not proven themselves good at doing that, and it is not good to have them police themselves, so we need to progress the debate. On the national/local question, I am generally more Morrison than Bevan, so I will continue to plough that furrow, but this is also about being seen to do things properly for local people. My fundamental point remains that as we ask people to spend more money—we are talking about a huge proportion of our GDP, and it will be increasingly so under any Government—we need to be able to demonstrate to them what is done with it, and how and why it is done, and we need to involve the public.
That is my view of the future of the health service, and that is why I will continue to pursue this argument. When it comes to cost, it is a moot point whether this is done quietly in the corridors of NHS England; whether it is done by the Secretary of State; whether names mysteriously appear in the local economy; or whether there is due process. I am not saying that the old system was perfect. It is quite hard to recruit people to these bodies, but they are powerful people, spending billions of pounds of local money in the local economy. They need to be more representative and accountable, and we need to know who they are. As I said, I will not pursue the matter now, but I would like to see it debated further over the passage of the Bill, and we will come back to it another time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Duty to promote research
“For Section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 substitute—
‘Duty to promote research
The Secretary of State must—
(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) provide funding for research on matters relevant to the health and care system, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.’”—(Chris Skidmore.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to have a duty to support, fund and promote the use of research in the health and care system in England, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause would introduce for the first time a duty to promote research, particularly on the Secretary of State. The Committee may remember that in discussion on clause 19, I spoke extensively on integrated care boards’ duties to promote research. This reflects the importance that research plays in our healthcare system. We recognise the value of being able to carry out real-term clinical trials in the single health ecosystem that is the NHS. That not only enormously benefits patients, in terms of health outcomes, but underpins a whole life sciences industry, in which, as we have seen from the pandemic and our vaccine response, the UK is truly world leading.
It is not simply because of profit that I wish to speak to the new clause. It is also clear, as I discussed on clause 19, that research can underpin and strengthen the healthcare ecosystem. It can help with retaining staff, who become inspired by the research that they do in the course of their careers. It also improves health outcomes for patients, and the investment in research is ploughed back into healthcare services. Everyone benefits from spending money on research and development. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made the point to me that research also plays an important part when it comes to the accountability and transparency of the NHS by underpinning clinical auditing processes, by which we can then demonstrate healthcare inequalities and map out where NHS services need to improve. That can drive better integration of services by seeking to identify where the inequalities are and closing them.
Promoting research is not simply about R&D and big pharma; it is about changing how we look at our health service. We need to move from a healthcare service that is still primarily reactive to one that can recognise patient population issues around chronic disease, and identify which interventions can be made earlier. That is something that we are beginning to understand far better through the application of genomics and precision medicine. The UK became the first country in the world to code 100,000 genomes in the 100,000 Genomes project, and there is the Biobank project. That has all come about thanks to initial investment in research and development, and it has opened up a whole new area of healthcare services that the NHS will benefit from in decades to come.
It is very important to invest in R&D. Since our morning sitting, the Chancellor has announced an additional £44 billion of investment in the NHS over three years to 2024-25, taking total spend in the NHS up to £177 billion. I welcome that huge investment in healthcare services. It is not yet clear exactly what investment is to go into healthcare R&D, although the Budget leaks in The Sunday Times and beyond suggest that roughly £5 billion of that will be spent on health R&D over five years. I welcome that funding. There was also mention of additional money being spent on genomics.
If it is the case that healthcare research is to receive £5 billion over three years, it is not just about the money; it is about the use that money is put to, and making sure that it goes as far as possible and has the best possible outcomes. We can only do that by ensuring that we have the structures and frameworks in place to make sure that the money is well spent. New clause 9 places a duty on the Secretary of State to
“(a) support the conduct of research on matters relevant to the health and care system,
(b) provide funding for research on matters relevant to the health and care system, via ring-fenced funding for the National Institute for Health Research, and
(c) promote the use in the health and care system of evidence obtained from research.”
The positive feedback mechanism is important. We do not want to commission research that will gather dust on the shelves. We want to make sure, through real-time evidence and clinical trials, that the R&D money goes as far as possible, for the benefit of patients.
I said that paragraph (b) would ringfence funding for the National Institute for Health Research—a long-term ask of research organisations and companies involved in the active process of healthcare R&D. If I am honest with you, the process has often been a hand-to-mouth exercise. NIHR has received about £1 billion a year to spend on R&D. The most important thing in R&D is to provide not simply the funding, but the long-term certainty over that funding. When I was Science Minister, one reason why I was so committed to ensuring that the UK was associated with Horizon Europe was that it is a seven-year multiannual financial framework—those researchers have security for seven years. The level of participation is a different question, but the scientist or healthcare researcher commits to research projects that last several years at a time. What they cannot have is uncertainty, every year, that the research might suddenly be pulled. That leads to the disintegration of research partnerships and a lack of commitment at the start to even beginning to understand what might be achievable.
Ringfencing funding for the NIHR will provide the certainty as well as the money, so it will make the money go further. Individuals will be able to commit to projects, knowing that they have funding not for one year, but several years.
Dr Whitford
I spent a few years in cancer research while doing my doctorate. Does the Minister recognise that when there is that hand-to-mouth need to get a publication so as to get another grant, researchers are taken away from what we might call blue-sky or imaginative research that may not work out? People end up researching something they virtually already know the answer to, because that way they will get a publication and then get another grant. It is not just about their personal insecurity—it skews the type of research that gets done.
Chris Skidmore
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for making that point. When I was Science Minister, we recognised the need to look again at some of the processes that underpin research applications for UK Research and Innovation, for instance. We have the bureaucracy review that is currently being chaired by Adam Tickell, current vice-chancellor of the University of Sussex who is moving on to the University of Birmingham. We need to end this cyclical process of time—which is ultimately the greatest commodity that anyone has to offer—being taken away from researchers whose expertise is far better spent focusing on their research in the laboratory or performing clinical trials, and ensure that they can get on with what they do best rather than having to worry about the administrative burden of applying and form-filling every year.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume with you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I commend the right hon. Member for Kingswood for his new clause and for the persuasive case that he made for it. I will cover much of what he said in my contribution, but I highlight his point about long-term certainty, because I was not going to cover that. Those points were very well made. If we want to embed a culture of research in this country and to be world-leading, as surely we do, we must give our researchers that long-term certainty.
I am going to start with the National Institute for Health Research, which was, of course, established by the previous Labour Government in 2006. We are very proud of that, and since then, in partnership with NICE and other organisations, it has delivered on its mission to improve on the health and wealth of the nation through research. I refer any colleagues who have not had a chance to look at it to the 2016 RAND report, which identifies 100 examples of positive change resulting from the institute’s research. You may be pleased, Mr McCabe, to hear me say that I do not intend to read out all 100, but I do want to highlight the role that it has played since in fighting covid-19 by funding, enabling and delivering lifesaving research throughout the pandemic and now in this current phase. I will not list all the ways in which that has been done, but I will highlight the recovery trial that discovered dexamethasone. That was the first drug to reduce covid-19 mortality in hospitalised patients, cutting deaths by one third, and it was funded and supported by the NIHR. It is a great organisation, which we should be backing and should be very proud of.
On research more generally, there is a shared vision and a shared ambition across this place: the UK should be at the very forefront in science more generally, and particularly in research on health and care. We have all the assets to do that, if we link everything up and invest in it, and to make the UK the destination of choice for clinical research. The new clause offers the Government the chance to put that on a statutory footing, and to make good that commitment, ringfencing funding and mandating the Secretary of State’s support and interest in leadership. As the right hon. Member for Kingswood said, we would expect the Secretary of State to make many things a personal priority. We would argue that this is one of those things.
As in many of our proceedings, we are tidying up on the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and this is a good opportunity to do so again. The Minister smiles; I am always here to offer those opportunities. My hon. Friend and I have been ever so accommodating in that regard. The 2012 Act only included the duty for clinical commissioning groups to promote research. I would direct colleagues to the cross-sector written evidence headed up by the Academy of Medical Sciences, which said that the NHS’s lack of ability
“to prioritise the resourcing and delivery of research has been a major impediment to improving the UK’s clinical research environment over the last decade.”
According to that submission, that has subsequently been a contributing factor to wide-ranging disparities in opportunities for patients to engage in research. When it talks about that, we should listen. As with so many things, we have chance to right that wrong in the 2012 Act and to show in the Bill that we want an active research culture in the NHS, building on the last 18 months.
Evidence shows that a strengthened research mandate would bring many benefits. First, patients treated in research-active NHS organisations have improved outcomes. They have lower mortality rates and higher confidence in the care they receive, which really is a big prize. Secondly, at a time when the NHS is dealing with many work force issues, this increases job satisfaction, with most doctors surveyed by the Royal College of Physicians wanting to be more involved in research and two thirds more likely to apply for a role with dedicated research time. We know it is what our excellent clinicians want too. Thirdly, it brings economic investment into this country; £2.7 billion was generated by NIHR clinical research network-supported activity in 2018-19, making the NHS around £350 million from life science companies. So we win here both coming and going; it is better for our patients, better for clinicians and better for our economy.
There really is a lot in this very good new clause with regard to both the NIHR itself and research more generally. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause. If he does not, I hope that he will give the Committee comfort on how this will be not just a broad priority for the entire system, where it is not quite clear who is responsible, but something that he as a Minister, and the Secretary of State, will be driving personally and taking as a personal responsibility. As I say, the prizes are very great indeed.
Dr Whitford
Although this would obviously apply in England and not Scotland, and the NIHR does not generally fund a lot of clinical research that comes from Scotland, I absolutely support the principle. When I was lead clinician in the west of Scotland, we put trial support staff into all 13 breast cancer units around the west of Scotland. That drove up participation in trials, which, as the hon. Gentleman just said, is what generates confidence among patients and results in better outcomes. Most trials come with a lot of bureaucracy, and people working in very busy clinical jobs in district generals often do not engage because of that. Putting trial staff out in district generals can actually mean that, instead of research being within academic units, it is suddenly available to all patients. That is really important.
Having a questioning mind should be part of being any doctor. All junior doctors are encouraged to develop auditing and clinical ideas as an approach. The hon. Gentleman—I have forgotten the constituency, I am afraid.
Dr Whitford
I was going to guess some other city and get it wrong, but it is somewhere north. The hon. Member said that having access to research time as a clinician, which the right hon. Member for Kingswood mentioned is a way of retaining staff, is quite important. My local health board now employs younger, as opposed to older, doctors as clinical fellows, and they have a day a week as part of their contract. It is not just one or two doctors; the board are doing it as a standard approach. It has become really popular and has certainly helped with our workforce issues in Ayrshire and on Arran. It is important to see laboratory and trials research and frontline outcome audit and clinical ideas research from all young clinicians, and we should encourage that. The money is great, but we then have to work out how the money feeds into the health service to generate the biggest impact.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. It behoves me to pay tribute to his work as Science Minister in the past. He is correct to have mentioned that he is the only person to have held that post and my current role one after the other. In fact, I think he sandwiched my current post between two stints as Science Minister, so he knows a lot about the subject and has done a lot of work on it. I pay tribute to him for that.
The amendment seeks to legislate for an additional duty for the Secretary of State with respect to research and to ringfence funding for the National Institute for Health Research—the NIHR. The NIHR is the delivery mechanism through which the Department of Health and Social Care funds high-quality, timely research that benefits the NHS, public health, and social care. I understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 9. When discussing previous amendments, I alluded to the fact that I can recognise what my right hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. The benefits of research funded through the NIHR have proved invaluable to us during the pandemic, and the great work of the NIHR is addressing much-needed research into better ways to tackle a host of other health and care challenges that we face.
However, referring to the NIHR in primary legislation and proposing ringfencing of the research budget would not be appropriate, as the NIHR is not a legal entity separate from the Department and funding for the NIHR needs to be considered in the round alongside other elements of the Department’s funding—of which it is a component part—all of which are aimed, ultimately, at improving health and wellbeing.
New clause 9 seeks to broaden the wording of the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research, so that it includes the care system in addition to the health service. I recognise that the intention of my right hon. Friend is to ensure that social care is considered a priority area and does not get neglected in the face of demands from health. However, the NIHR already funds both health and social care research. Adult social care is a strategic priority for the NIHR and its research for patient benefit programme has an annual competition specifically for social care proposals.
The amendment seeks to modify the existing duty of the Secretary of State to “promote research”, and to become a duty to
“support the conduct of research”.
It imposes a requirement for the Secretary of State to
“promote the use in the health and care systems of evidence obtained from research”.
We consider that the existing statutory duty has ensured that research has been championed, and that evidence obtained from research has been well and correctly used. The Secretary of State already supports health and care research through funding to the NIHR, and NIHR research evidence is widely used to underpin improvements across the health and care system. Many examples of NIHR impact have been documented in published NIHR annual reports.
For those reasons, I gently encourage my right hon. Friend not to press the new clause to a Division, but I am happy to reflect on the matter further and I suspect that their lordships may well return to this theme in the other place as well.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Minister for his forensic dissection of the new clause; it is greatly appreciated. He makes a strong point about the legal status of the National Institute for Health Research potentially making the new clause defective, and there would be little point in pressing the measure to a vote for that reason. However, to reiterate what I said earlier, it is a goose that will continuously lay golden eggs for the Minister. If he went away to look at how the new clause might be better shaped to deliver on the priorities and frameworks that he has just mentioned, I am sure that he would be richly rewarded in turn, particularly by all the organisations that recognise the value that research can bring, and by patients and staff, who would welcome the certainty arising from placing future research operations on a statutory footing.
I am a generous person. I remember tabling a ten-minute rule Bill back in February calling for the banning of essay mills in universities and other educational settings. The Government gave a similar response—the proposals were slightly defective in who they covered—but they have now tabled their own amendment to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill to ban essay mills. That goes to show what can happen when we take the time to table amendments, either through ten-minute rule Bills or in Committee. I say to any Back Bencher, “You are not going to get in trouble with the Whips, trust me.” It is important that we use our parliamentary and democratic duty to push ideas forward, because someone will eventually take them up, whether in this or another Government.
I hope that, when the Bill reaches the Lords, the Minister will reflect on and look at this as an opportunity to deliver significant reform to the health service. For the reasons that I have outlined, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
The Chair
Therein lies a lesson for us all.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Consultation with staff and patients on service changes
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult staff, staff representatives and patient representatives on any changes in services which fall within the definition of reconfiguration of services or which impact on the roles of more than 20 staff and publish the results of the consultation.
(2) NHS England, ICBs, NHS Trusts and FTs must publish a response to the results of consultations undertaken under subsection (1) and have due regard to the outcome of any consultation.
(3) Where significant changes to services are proposed by any NHS body, that body must produce a business case using the Five Case Model recommended by Her Majesty’s Treasury, or other requirements as set out in guidance prepared and published by the Secretary of State under this section.
(4) The business case mentioned in subsection (3) must be published for consultation and the responses to the consultation taken into account when a decision is taken whether to implement the change.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have wandered down the avenue of reconfiguration before in this Committee, and I am sure that we will do so again. The Opposition have been far from reassured about the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene at any moment when there is the slightest hint of movement in a podiatry clinic or a change of hours at a walk-in centre, but that is where we are.
We all know that in a few more White Papers’ time, there will be more changes in the NHS and in social care, and possibly more integration—who knows what is in store for us? There will be changes in the way that services are delivered, with, we hope, the aim of making them better. For more than three decades, there has been an acceptance that changes to services can be of vital interest to the patients who receive them and the staff who deliver them.
The Committee has already discussed several times the importance of involving people in those debates, and there is an acceptance that there must be a process that engages with patients and all service users. That is what we are trying to achieve through new clause 11. I hope we all agree that any proposals to change the way that services are delivered have to be subject to consultation with patients and, as we have seen in other parts of the Bill, with carers. I hope that we start from that uncontentious common ground. The big issue is just how well that consultation is delivered in practice.
At this point, I take the Committee to the Cabinet Office guidelines of 2018 and the consultation principles, particularly paragraph D, which states:
“Consultations are only part of a process of engagement. Consider whether informal iterative consultation is appropriate, using new digital tools and open, collaborative approaches. Consultation is not just about formal documents and responses. It is an on-going process.”
The NHS does not always understand that they should consult before making a decision, and not on a decision that has already been made, using consultation as a tick-box or rubber-stamp exercise. Genuine consultation, with open dialogue on both sides, before decisions are made almost always results in a better decision in the end.
Of course, the Minister will tell us that the NHS constitution talks about those things and pledges,
“to engage staff in decisions that affect them and the services they provide, individually and through their representative organisations and local partnership working arrangements, and empower all staff to suggest ways to deliver better and safer services for patients and their families.”
That is a pledge, not a requirement, and those fine words are often ignored when it comes to consultations with staff groups.
Even the Health and Social Care Act 2012—the Lansley Act—accepted that there were issues, because it states:
“In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the NHS Constitution.”
Having due regard to the constitution also formed part of the licensing conditions for NHS Providers.
We know what “due regard” means and we have already debated its limits. We know that it means that there must be some sort of formal documentation to demonstrate that consideration has been given to representations. Even that sometimes does not happen, or it happens after a decision has been made. On a number of occasions, no attempt has been made to empower staff and proactively ask for their views on how to deliver the service in a better or safer way for patients. A decision is made and presented as a take it or leave it.
A helpful factsheet that was issued for the 2012 Act states:
“Our reforms will enable change to be driven from the bottom-up, by the clinicians who know the health needs of their patients best, and underpinned by proper local engagement, partnership working and effective local authority scrutiny.”
I draw the Committee’s attention to the words “partnership working”. Again, the NHS can do better in respect of that.
In the new clause, we are trying to codify something that the NHS should be doing anyway when we look at the documents, guidelines, explanatory notes and good intentions, but on a number of occasions fails to do. We therefore move from “due regard” to an actual requirement. That is a beacon of best practice, which we should aim for rather than watering it down. What harm can it do? What is the disbenefit of involving the people who know the service best and deliver it on the ground? That is why there must be consultation with patients, their carers and staff.
The latter part of the new clause provides that there has to be an agreement to provide a business case. Any significant proposal should have a business case attached to it. Paragraph C of the Cabinet Office guidelines states:
“Give enough information to ensure that those consulted understand the issues and can give informed responses. Include validated impact assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered when possible; this might be required where proposals have an impact on business or the voluntary sector.”
It stands to reason that giving people the full pictures means that they can give a fuller and more informed response. That is at the heart of the new clause. It will mean delivering better outcomes, better services for patients and better engagement with staff. If we refer back to the evidence sessions––gosh, some six weeks ago; it seems longer but it was only six weeks––this was one of Unison’s highest priorities. Witness Sara Gorton said of principal staff involvement
“I think trade unions and staff would feel as though they had a stake and would be reassured that they had involvement in future decisions with workforce implications made by those new bits of the system if that pledge were placed in the legislation and were the underpinning principle.”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 93, Q119.]
That is what we are seeking to do here.
It goes without saying that any significant service change should have the business case disclosed, as we discussed earlier with the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Business cases are where proposals are developed and where challenge, and teasing out of alternatives and improvements, can be found. That is the heart of what good consultation should be. We value our staff and the input they can have. We value the impact that service changes can have on patients and the importance of involving them at an early stage with full information. That will improve decisions in the long run and that is why new clause 11 should be supported.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue further. As he suggested, we have touched on it at various other points in the passage of the legislation, but it is right that we debate it again.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult staff, staff representatives and patient representatives on any reconfiguration of services or any service change impacting more than 20 staff. NHS bodies would be required to publish their response to the results of any such consultation and an NHS body proposing significant changes to services would need to produce a business case in a specific model to be published for consultation.
Health service bodies are already under wide-ranging duties on public involvement and consultation on proposals for changes in commissioning arrangements and the reconfiguration of services set out under the National Health Service Act 2006 and regulations made under the Act. In addition, the current guidance issued by NHS England makes clear the importance of engagement and appropriate consultation. That approach will continue to be reflected under new guidance produced under the reconfiguration provisions in the Bill, set out at paragraph 8 of new schedule 10A inserted into the 2006 Act.
Guidance can provide a level of detail that is not always suited to inclusion in primary legislation and allows for flexibility so that the system can work as efficiently as possible. That approach has worked well under the current reconfiguration system and guidance has played an important part. The Government are unconvinced that there is a need for an additional duty to consult patients’ representatives when NHS commissioners and providers must already involve service users in any proposals to change health services delivered to those users and which service users can access.
Moreover, it would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation for each reconfiguration or service change affecting staff. To run national consultation for every local change would be disproportionate. It would not be the best use of resource or lead to the local level of engagement that is so important. It is right that NHS bodies responsible for arranging for or providing health services should lead the consultations on proposed changes. These should be done primarily at local level with local expertise. There is always a challenge between the national and the local. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Bristol South was alluding to that when she said that she was more Morrison than Bevan, and suggested that I was more Bevan than Morrison in my approach. Neither comparison has been made about me in the past, but when I next see her, I will ask. There is a real challenge in the local-national balance that runs through several clauses and in respect of the way the NHS has operated for decades.
The new clause would require consultation not just of patients but of staff and staff representatives. Staff views are of course vital in the design of service changes. That is made absolutely clear in the current guidance issued by NHS England, which repeatedly emphasises the need to involve clinicians whose practices would be affected by proposed changes. This approach will not change in the future, and updated guidance will continue to reflect that position and ensure that affected staff provide meaningful input.
Justin Madders
We are not going to push the new clause to a vote, because we recognise when the Minister is not for turning—I am not sure whether he likes that comparison. But I have a couple of reflections on what he said. He was obviously very keen that the Secretary of State not get involved in lots of consultations, but of course he gives himself the power, under the Bill, to do that in relation to any reconfiguration of any size, anywhere in England. That does, I think, highlight a little bit of inconsistency.
The Minister said that there was plenty of guidance and the Government did not want the inflexibility that putting something in legislation would develop. We take the view that actually what we are trying to show is that the guidance does not work to the extent that we would want it to, which is why we think that having something in legislation is an important baseline. It does not prevent further guidance and flexibility from being built in on top of that. I know when we are not going to persuade the Minister, but I think that this is a matter that we will need to return to many times. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
NHS as the preferred provider of NHS contracts
“(1) The NHS is the preferred provider of NHS contracts.
(2) NHS contracts must be provided by NHS suppliers unless the NHS supplier is unable to fulfil the terms of that contract.
(3) Where the NHS is unable to fulfil the terms of a contract, a competitive tender must be held to identify an alternative provider.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(a) ‘alternative provider’ means private companies and independent sector treatment centres, and
(b) general practice and GP-led community services are NHS suppliers.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would establish NHS suppliers of services as the preferred providers of NHS contracts. Independent sector providers could hold NHS contracts after winning a competitive tender.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Regulation of the public display of imported cadavers—
“The Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows—
In subsections (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 1 (authorisation of activities for scheduled purposes) after “imported” insert “other than for the purpose of public display”.”
Alex Norris
In speaking to these new clauses, I stand on the shoulders of the inestimable work done in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and in the other place by the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is with us for a little while longer before he has an oral question to dispose of in the other place. I note my thanks to them for their leadership. I hope that we can move this important issue on as part of our consideration of the Bill.
In this country, since April, around 2,000 people have received an organ transplant. A person voluntarily deciding to give an organ in life or after their death gives the most precious gift of all. It is an incredibly selfless act that allows another person to live. It is a wonderful thing. We should be very proud of Britain’s record on organ donation over the years, of the research and development in that area and the work that I have no doubt we will yet do.
However, there is a sinister underside to organ donation that I ask the Committee to consider with these two new clauses. In some parts of the world organs are not given freely but are taken by force. Extensive research has shown organ harvesting to be prevalent particularly in China, where the number of organs transplanted swamps the official number of voluntary donations. The organs are generally destined for high-paying customers and come from people such as political dissidents, prisoners of conscience and ethnic minorities.
The Chinese Government say that it does not happen. The World Health Organisation has backed that up, based on a self-assessment made by the Chinese Government, which I did not find very credible. What I do find credible is that, in 2020, the independent China Tribunal found that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China, on a significant scale. Falun Gong practitioners have been one source—probably the main source—of organ supply. Victims include both the dead and the living. There are whistleblower reports of corneas being harvested.
In January we made progress on the issue through the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021—I am sure the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire remembers the exchanges fondly. That opened the door to further regulation of human tissues and I hope that we can move further in this Bill.
Existing legislation does not deal with British citizens who travel abroad. New clause 14 attempts to close that loophole by making it a crime for British citizens, residents and other specified people to be involved in the kill-to-order organ trade. It would end the opportunity for someone to travel to pay for black market organs from a prisoner of conscience and to return to the UK for NHS-funded anti-rejection medication. We must make it clear that involvement in this trade is reprehensible and unacceptable. I think that is a point of consensus across the House, but I am yet to hear what the mechanism is to close the loophole—I think new clause 14 presents a very good one.
New clause 15 deals with the display of human bodies. I used the word “grim” earlier in proceedings, and this is very grim indeed. Regrettably, this is not a theoretical conversation. In 2018 the Real Bodies exhibition took place in Birmingham. Adults and children paid to look at deceased corpses that had been injected with silicon and transformed into real-life mannequins. The bodies were sourced from a lab in Dalian in China. The bodies were able to be displayed without any documents or proven consent, and from a lab that we know receives bodies from the Chinese police.
Whether that sort of exhibition counts as entertainment is a matter for individuals—it is certainly not my sort of entertainment. New clause 15 would ensure that the trade is tightly regulated, so that something like that could not happen again. It would prevent the display of dead bodies of political prisoners and guarantee that proper consent has been received, ensuring dignity and respect for the deceased and their families. I think this is a matter of interest to the Committee, which is why I am seeking to put it in the Bill. It is also of significant interest in the other place. I know there will be conversations on the issue as the Bill progresses.
I am keen to hear from the Minister on these two points. I do not doubt that we are of one mind on the matter. What I would like to know now is what the Government are going to do about it, because these are pressing issues and need action now.
Edward Argar
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I think there is a consensus across the Committee, and indeed across both Houses, condemning the reprehensible behaviours and practices that he has highlighted. As he says, the challenge is the mechanism, particularly given the concept of extraterritoriality that applies here, so I will talk about that a little bit. I fear we may have to return to this; I suspect, given the complexities, that it may well be their lordships’ House that grapples with it a little further. Although it is not normally the done thing to recognise those in the Public Gallery, as they are not in the Chamber, were there to be a distinguished Peer in the Public Gallery, I would also pay tribute to their work on this. I hope that just about keeps me in order, Mr McCabe.
New clause 14 seeks to extend the provisions in section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which prohibit commercial dealings in human material for transplantation. The amendment would make it an offence for someone to travel outside the UK to receive such material without free, informed, and specific consent or in exchange for a financial gain or comparable advantage.
We believe that much, albeit not all, of what the clause seeks to achieve is already covered by different aspects of existing legislation. I will talk first about those travelling from the UK, forcibly or otherwise, and the protections available for them from having their organs harvested, and then I will turn to those travelling from the UK to receive organs.
Provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 make it an offence to arrange or facilitate another person’s travel, including travel outside the UK, for the purposes of their exploitation in any part of the world. Travelling covers the arrival or departure from any country, or within any country, and exploitation includes the supply of organs for reward. The Modern Slavery Act applies to the activities of UK nationals regardless of where the travel or the arrangements for it take place.
A person found guilty of that offence could be liable for life imprisonment, and those guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring it are liable for up to 10 years’ imprisonment. This means that existing extraterritorial legislation already makes it an offence for a UK citizen to purchase an organ for transplant overseas, provided that the purchase involves arranging or facilitating a person’s travel for the purpose of the removal of their organ for sale.
Furthermore, section 32 of the Human Tissue Act already prohibits the giving of a reward for the supply, or for an offer to supply, any controlled material. If a substantial part of an illicit transaction takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, it will constitute an offence under this provision. It could, for example, be an offence to arrange a purchase and pay for an organ from a UK bank account and, likewise, it could be deemed against the law if somebody were to take steps in the UK to find someone who would sell them an organ overseas.
By adding an explicitly extraterritorial offence, as this amendment seeks to do, the interpretation of the existing provisions could be restricted, thereby potentially weakening our existing tools under those two pieces of legislation. As this amendment would prohibit travel outside the UK to receive an organ without the specific consent of the donor or next of kin, there is a chance that it could also inadvertently make it an offence for someone from the UK to receive an organ in a country with deemed rather than explicit consent provisions. This is at odds with our domestic position, where deemed consent is accepted as an appropriate form of consent for organ donation.
There is also the possibility of an unintended consequence of criminalising the recipient, as opposed to the supplier and buyer, of a trafficked organ. It is not difficult to imagine a case of a vulnerable person receiving a transplant abroad, perhaps through arrangements made by relatives, and having been misled as to the provenance of their organ. Under these circumstances, we believe that those who made the arrangements to purchase and supply the organ should be prosecuted and deemed liable, as they already can be under the Human Tissue Act and the Modern Slavery Act.
Dr Whitford
There is a problem with the shortage of organs for transplant generally within the UK. While making it an opt-out system will hopefully help with that, is there not a need to have legislation here so that the market is discouraged or prohibited, and therefore we do not have customers for those organs overseas? If there are customers, the business will exist.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. I will turn to new clause 15 in a moment, but we are as one in our concern to ensure that the current legislation is as effective as possible and that it does what we want it to do. I will make some further remarks on my future thinking when I conclude.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his full reply. I do not intend to stress the consensus we have by dividing the Committee. He has given others who may want to look at this at a later stage quite a bit to go at. On resolving the point made in new clause 14, I heard what the Minister said about the scattering of the different parts across the statute book, but a judgment may have to be made about whether that is an effective way to organise the powers. Perhaps creating a consolidated offence would be a more practical and meaningful approach. That is my personal view, but as I have said, there will be lots to go at elsewhere.
I got quite a bit of satisfaction from the Minister’s response to new clause 15. I will go away and look at the Human Tissue Authority’s work. Obviously, primary legislation is always best, but I will see whether that is effective.
Edward Argar
In that context, may I make the hon. Gentleman an offer? If he thinks there is anything specific that my officials could provide to assist him in his reflections, could he let me know and I will be very happy to facilitate it?
Alex Norris
That is a very kind offer and I am almost certainly going to avail myself of it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Licensing of beauty and aesthetics treatments
“(1) No person may carry on an activity to which this subsection applies—
(a) except under the authority of a licence for the purposes of this section, and
(b) other than in accordance with specified training.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to an activity relating to the provision of beauty or aesthetics treatments which is specified for the purposes of the subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) A person commits an offence if that person contravenes subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about licences and conditions for the purposes of this section.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the representatives of any interests concerned which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations may, in particular—
(a) require a licensing authority not to grant a licence unless satisfied as to a matter specified in the regulations; and
(b) require a licensing authority to have regard, in deciding whether to grant a licence, to a matter specified in the regulations.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for cosmetic treatments and makes it an offence for someone to practise without a licence. The list of treatments, detailed conditions and training requirements would be set out in regulations after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will be noted that new clause 16 has attracted considerable support from a wide range of Members across the House. I pay tribute to the beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing all-party parliamentary group, whose work in the area has been influential in producing the new clause. Many of the Members who put their name to it are also members of that group. I pay tribute to a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), Dawn Knight, who has been assiduous in this area, as has my right hon. Friend himself. Their tireless campaigning, which I suspect will continue for some time, has been vital so far. This is such an important area and it needs an awful lot of attention. We know there is a lot more to be done.
As we know, cosmetic treatments can include a wide range of procedures aimed at enhancing or altering appearance. Many common treatments are offered on the high street and include lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make-up, laser treatments, piercings and—one that we are more familiar with—tattoos. Perhaps one day the Minister will show us all of his. If the Minister wants to respond on that point, he is more than welcome to.
Justin Madders
Many of these procedures are becoming increasingly popular. There is a well-articulated concern that non-medically and medically trained practitioners are performing treatments without being able to evidence appropriate training, or the required standards of oversight and supervision. One need only look on Facebook, for example, to see the proliferation of adverts for all types of treatments. These are usually done by unlicensed individuals who call themselves doctors. We have talked recently about the lack of proper regulation of social media. Although such a debate is not for today and falls outside the scope of the new clause, it is a matter that also needs to be addressed.
Cosmetic treatments can cause serious harm if not carried out correctly, in a safe environment and by competent, trained practitioners. Anything that punctures the skin carries the risk of the transmission of blood-borne viruses. There are countless tragic stories of people who have had life-changing injuries and conditions as a result of poor treatments. The amendment seeks to put the protection of the public at the forefront by giving the Secretary of State power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for cosmetic procedures. It would be a departure from the wild west we face at the moment. We recognise that significant research and engagement with all stakeholders would be needed to develop a scheme that will work well for all cosmetic treatments, as well as providing a practical and efficient system that will be understood and adhered to by members of the public, regulators and practitioners.
Any new scheme would have to have some flexibility in order to capture new cosmetic treatments coming on to the market in future. It would need to be able to set standards for training, qualifications and competency requirements of practitioners, including, we think, periodic checks of premises. Importantly, it would provide for continuous professional development of the practitioner. There would be a requirement for indemnity insurance and access to redress schemes for members of the public to be provided, should complications arise as a result of any aesthetic procedure. There are a number of sad stories about supposedly reputable companies doing damage to their customers, going into liquidation and their insurers then refusing to pay out. I do not think any Member wants to see that happening anymore if we can do something about it.
We would hope that any licensing scheme would have the characteristics that I have set out, and there would be accompanying sanctions for those who contravene it. At present, there is no provision to ensure that prescription-only medicines, such as Botox and anaesthetic creams, adrenaline and hyaluronidase, which are prescribed by regulated prescribers, are actually prescribed in accordance with safe practice. For example, beauty therapists are reliant on registered prescribers prescribing injectables, such as Botox, which they are unable to obtain without a prescription.
Although doctors are required to have a face-to-face individual assessment of each service user prior to prescribing to third parties, such as beauty therapists, a significant body of evidence exists to confirm that individual assessments are not actually taking place in many cases and that telephone prescriptions are being provided remotely. The proposed licensing scheme would provide a requirement for all prescribers to be officially named and to operate in accordance with required practice standards.
Of equal importance is the need for a licensing scheme to close the loophole that currently exists relating to the import of unlicensed injectable products from Korea, such as Botulax. There is a registration scheme in England for certain specialist treatments, such as electrolysis, tattooing, piecing, semi-permanent make-up and acupuncture. However, some of the riskier and newer types of cosmetic treatment cannot be included within the scope of the current regulatory regime. The system also does not allow regulators to specify conditions, qualifications or competency requirements, or to remove anyone from the practitioner register.
Only a small handful of areas across England have introduced their own licensing schemes in order to protect the public—London, Nottingham and Essex are notable examples. There are currently two Professional Standards Authority-approved voluntary registers of accredited practitioners, and one voluntary register of approved education and training providers that operate in the sector. However, joining is not mandatory, which means there are many unaccredited practitioners providing treatments to members of the public without any checks.
The creation of a national licensing scheme in England for practitioners of cosmetic treatments would ensure that all those who practise are competent and safe for members of the public, and it would also cover some of the newer practices not covered by existing licensing laws. There is a large body of support for such a move, including the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Royal Society for Public Health, the Institute of Licensing, the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, the UK Public Health Network, the Faculty of Public Health and Save Face, as well as about 90% of the public, accordingly to at least one survey.
The Minister is keen on giving the Secretary of State additional powers, but I know that he is also keen on finding savings wherever possible. Were he to support this new clause, there would undoubtedly be a saving to the wider NHS in the long run—for example, through reduced visits to A&E and GPs to correct mistakes made by poorly trained and unregulated practitioners.
Here are some examples of the impact on the NHS of that lack of regulation: outbreaks of infection at skin-piercing premises, resulting in individuals being hospitalised and, in some cases, disfiguration and partial removal of the ear; second and third-degree burns from lasers and sun beds; allergic reactions due to failure to carry out patch tests or medical assessments, which have led to hospitalisations; and blindness in one eye caused by the incorrect administration of dermal fillers. Those are all tragedies for the individuals involved and mistakes that could be avoided. They are a cost to the NHS and to wider society. I believe that a system of licensing would put a stop to a lot of those tragedies.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support the new clause. As a surgeon working in general surgery, I know that, as many of these new techniques emerged, the pressure on the NHS became obvious—for example, as a result of local infections and extensive necrosis. Fillers can also migrate. That might seem a minor side effect, but it can create a lot of psychological and mental health distress for the person who went ahead with the procedure and ended up disfigured because the filler was incorrectly administered. Botox has become ubiquitous, but we should remember that it stands for botulinum toxin, which is one of the most dangerous toxins on the planet. It is used in tiny doses, but it can still cause problems if incorrectly administered.
In addition to these aesthetic techniques, which have become extensive because they appear minor and are often delivered by people without significant training—part of their danger is that they are projected to the public as being very simple techniques—we have the issue of more extensive cosmetic surgery, such as breast surgery, abdominal uplifts, liposuction and so on, which involve anaesthetic—often a general anaesthetic—and major intervention. The public think that plastic surgeons and cosmetic surgeons are the same. Although a plastic surgeon, who is a trained and licensed NHS surgeon, may also carry out cosmetic surgery, there are many clinics providing cosmetic surgery that is not carried out by plastic surgeons. Here the side effects and repercussions for a patient can be quite extensive, and indeed they have previously led to loss of life, which in some cases has been well publicised.
If this issue is taken forward, I would like to see a recognition that both these minor aesthetic interventions and cosmetic surgery should be regulated.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for bringing this discussion before the Committee today, and I join him in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the right hon. Member for North Durham. I know that both are tenacious campaigners, and both are due to meet me in the coming days to discuss their work in the context of the all-party group and the constituency case, exactly as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) for her success, within a year or so of coming to this place, in getting her private Member’s Bill through. It imposed some further restrictions in relation to botulinum toxin treatments or procedures, particularly in terms of the age limit from which they could be undertaken.
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for beauty and aesthetics treatments, and make it an offence for a cosmetic practitioner to practise without a licence. I appreciate the intention behind the new clause, and I am sympathetic to its intended purpose. As we are aware, cosmetic treatments are an ever-expanding, multi-million pound industry, and we need to ensure that that industry operates in a safe way.
The breadth of the recent beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing all-party group inquiry into non-surgical procedures, which the shadow Minister alluded to, demonstrates that this is an extremely complex area to tackle and address. There is a huge range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures available, which vary in their level of complexity and invasiveness. The Government are carefully considering the findings of that report and the need for additional regulation in this area in the light of it.
We are considering the case for a licensing system alongside the other specific, and in some cases more narrow, recommendations made in the all-party group’s report. As part of that, we need to work further with stakeholders and within Government to clarify the scope of any further regulation and which procedures it might apply to. The private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks came into force at the start of October. It prohibits the availability of botox and dermal fillers to under-18s, apart from in a very narrow set of defined circumstances. We will consider the impact and effectiveness of this important legislation in parallel with the all-party group’s report in assessing whether to expand further the role of local authorities in overseeing cosmetic procedures.
I reassure the Committee that my priority is to ensure that the right regulatory framework is in place to provide consistent and high standards of practice, and the Government are committed to improving the safety of cosmetic procedures through better training for practitioners and clear information so that people can make informed decisions about their care. I hope I can reassure the Committee that we are actively considering whether increased oversight of practitioners performing some of the most invasive non-surgical procedures is the right way forward, and one that we could work with.
We continue to explore carefully how to achieve a proportionate system of practitioner regulation. The all-party group’s report is a very valuable contribution to that work and that active assessment. As soon as that work has been done, we will look to determine the need for and scope of further regulation in this area, and we look forward to reporting our conclusions from that assessment in early 2022. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press the new clause to a Division, and I invite him to work with us in looking at the issue.
Justin Madders
I am encouraged by what the Minister has said. I am pleased to hear that he is meeting the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham shortly, and that we will hopefully have some progress on this in the new year. In the light of that information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Secretary of State’s duty to maintain safe staffing levels
“After section 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (but before the italic heading after it) insert—
‘1GA Secretary of State’s duty to maintain safe staffing levels
The Secretary of State has a duty to maintain safe staffing levels in the health and care service in England.’”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a probing new clause, and I will not press it to a vote. I am not sure that this is the best legislation for it, but we are trying to make some points about the importance of patient safety. I hope we can all agree that for good care to be central, there need to be enough staff, not just notionally through some measure of the number of posts, but by ensuring that those people are actually in place at the time of giving care. We can have a debate about what level of staffing is enough. For a long time, the issue was left to the good sense of managing clinicians but, of course, that has always been strongly impacted on by the level of budget that could support staff.
Across the world, much attention has been placed on setting out what levels of staff and skill are needed in various settings to achieve the required levels of safety. The debate is not at any fixed point in time, because pathways, models of care, and staffing skills and mixes develop and evolve, but there will always be a correlation between safe staffing and levels of funding. It is a sad fact that our NHS, which should find planning easy as a single national system, has struggled for some time in almost every of aspect of workforce planning. It has shied away from asking questions about safety that come when the available workforce is not matched to the resources. At the end of the day, it is the patients who lose out when we are in that situation.
Much of the discussion on this topic historically has focused on the nursing workforce, which is by far the biggest of the staff groups. The Royal College of Nursing put out guidance pre-covid and during covid and set out where the legal responsibilities lie. It also pointed out recently:
“These are unprecedented times. Nursing staff in almost all settings are facing challenges beyond what were ever expected. Staffing levels are poor in many places, on most shifts and care is being compromised as a result”—
“care is being compromised” can be read to mean unsafe staffing levels.
New clause 17 calls for a duty to be placed on the Secretary of State to ensure that there are in fact safe staffing levels, even if there is not a specific legislative requirement in England. I say in England because in Wales, Labour has led the way with the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016. In Scotland, the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 became law, although I understand that covid has meant that there has been some delay in its implementation. I also understand that Scotland included social care staff in that remit.
A decade ago, research showed that low levels of nurse staffing are linked to worse patient outcomes and unsafe conditions. Before 2013, decisions to assess and review staffing levels were made locally, with little national guidance. However, the Francis inquiries in 2010 and 2013 identified nurse staffing as a patient safety factor that contributed to the care failings identified at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. They highlighted that decisions about nurse staffing were made without full consideration of the risks to patient safety. Francis said:
“So much of what goes wrong in our hospitals is likely, and indeed it was, in many regards, the case in Stafford, due to there being inadequate numbers of staff, either in terms of numbers or skills”.
In response to that statement and the Francis inquiries, the Department of Health developed four strands of policy that aimed to create safe nurse staffing levels in the NHS. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published guidance for safe staffing in all NHS acute hospitals in 2014. It endorsed the safer nursing care tool to help hospitals to plan their staffing. There was a National Quality Board report outlining the principles that NHS trusts were expected to apply in relation to planning staffing, and trusts were required to monitor the differences between planned and achieved nurse staffing levels and to report them through NHS Choices.
A lot of emphasis was placed on the providers of care, and rightly so. They should use their staff effectively and efficiently to keep patients safe. However, there is also a wider responsibility on commissioners—that is where I think we have fallen down—to ensure that providers do what is required, and on system managers and others who allocate the resources, to ensure that they do it in a way that permits safe levels of staffing. Community, maternity and learning disabilities are all nursing specialities where shortages are most acute. Our new clause makes it clear that all settings would have to adhere to the same standards, with no distinctions, because we believe that good and safe care should be for everyone.
In 2013, the National Quality Board set out 10 expectations and a framework within which organisations and staff should make decisions about staffing that put patients first. The document, entitled “Putting people first”, made it clear that safe staffing was both a collective and individual responsibility and central to the delivery of high-quality care that is safe, effective, caring and responsive. In England we have a website full of guidance, and NHS boards are required to take that guidance into account or have regard to it, but there does not appear to be anything similar for social care. Of course, the point I am trying to make, rather unsubtly, is that that is just guidance.
Looking more broadly, the NHS entered its new planning mode from 2015, and we had the emergence of sustainability and transformation partnerships. There was a requirement for them to design local plans to develop, recruit and sustain levels of staff with the right skills, values and behaviour in sufficient numbers, and in the right locations, to ensure the safety of patients. The plans were developed in great haste, but they did not actually go anywhere. Now we are to have more structured ICBs and new plans, but we still do not have a national workforce plan, which means that ICBs cannot plan properly either.
It would be good to know not just the levels of vacancies, but the gap between the staffing needed to maintain safe levels of working and what is actually in place. We touched on this aspect earlier, and we hope the Government respond positively even if they do not accept the new clause. I am sure the Minister will agree that safe staffing levels are better than unsafe levels. We should all agree that it is possible and desirable to enshrine in law guidance from experts on what constitutes safe levels of staffing in various settings and scenarios. We should absolutely be allowed to know when unsafe levels of staffing occur, especially when it becomes an endemic issue due to staff or funding shortages.
As we have mentioned before, we do not want to overburden the Secretary of State, because he already has a number of new powers under the Bill that will keep him busy. We have tried to remove the attempts to give him more work through the power grab, but it would not be for the Secretary of State to do the rotas or phone round for additional staff in the mornings. He just has to ensure that the duty to have staff levels of staffing is fulfilled by those delivering the service. Any wisdom that the Minister can provide on issues around defining, establishing and enforcing safe staffing, and on who carries the systemic responsibilities, will be greatly appreciated.
Dr Whitford
There is no question but that the workforce in both health and social care is one of the biggest challenges across all four nations of the UK. As the shadow Minister highlighted, both Scotland and Wales have passed legislation and aspire to having in law what level should be aimed at, which is quite important. Although covid has impacted in terms of staff leaving the service and the demand on the service, Brexit has also had a huge impact, in that there was an almost 90% drop in European nurses coming to the UK within just months of the referendum. The situation has not recovered, and that impacts right across the system and indeed in social care, where European citizens represented a significant part of the workforce.
When I first came to this place, the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), talked very much about patient safety but claimed that, in essence, doctors were not really available in the NHS outwith nine to five, and that this was causing what were called “weekend deaths”. Having worked long hours for over three decades, I was a bit afraid that my husband would think I was having serial affairs if I was working only nine to five in the hospital, so I refuted that utterly. However, the evidence available at the time was that the only staff ratio that had any provable impact on patient outcome was that of fully trained, registered nurses—not trainees, not associates and not assistants—to patients. Obviously, that ratio changes, based on the dependency of the ward—whether it is an ordinary ward, a high-dependency ward or an intensive care ward. That is what leads to the basic formula in safe staffing legislation, and England does not have it.
Although covid, Brexit and other things have impacted on the ability of Scotland and Wales to achieve what they aspire to, the guidance has been there for years and it has not been achieved, as the shadow Minister said. Having safe staffing ratios in hospitals is critical, but what action should be taken if that safe level of staffing is not there? What work should not be done so that patients with emergencies can be cared for properly? Otherwise, there is pressure on management to get things done where they want to see throughput. Sometimes, staff simply end up between a rock and a hard place, and that drives staff out of the service. Ultimately, coming home after an exhausting shift feeling that they have delivered poor care because they were covering too many patients is demoralising. It undermines the retention of staff and adds to the problem.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, for his framing of the new clause in his opening remarks.
The new clause would place the Secretary of State under a statutory duty to maintain safe staffing levels in the health and care service in England. I fear that its effect would be to detract from the responsibility of clinical and other leaders at a local level to ensure safe staffing, supported by guidance—I certainly take on board the point about guidance made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire—and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. I am afraid that the Government cannot agree with the new clause as worded for a number of reasons, which I will enunciate for the shadow Minister to illustrate my thinking.
First and foremost, we do not believe that there is a single ratio or formula that could calculate what represents safe staffing. It will differ across and within an organisation and, indeed, across organisations. Reaching the right mix requires the use of evidence-based tools and, crucially, the exercise of professional judgment and expertise and a multi-professional approach.
Consequently, we think that responsibility for staffing levels is best placed with clinical and other leaders at a local level, responding to local needs and supported by guidelines, all overseen and regulated by the CQC. Those guidelines, notwithstanding the challenges posed by the hon. Lady and the shadow Minister, are issued by national and professional bodies such as the National Quality Board and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. They are based on the best available clinical evidence and are designed to ensure patient safety.
Appropriate staffing levels form a core element of the CQC’s registration regime for health and social care providers. Providers are required by the CQC to provide sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff to meet the care and treatment needs of the people using the service at all times. Staff must also receive the support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisals necessary to carry out their role and responsibilities.
Secondly, the new clause would require the formulation of safe staffing ratios against which performance could be assessed. I fear that that could be a retrograde step and inhibit the development of the skill mixes needed for a more innovative and productive future workforce, which will be crucial to the successful implementation of the new models of integrated care that the Bill is intended to support. Just as there is no one-size-fits-all approach for the new models of care, there will be no identikit approach to the mix of staff needed. The ultimate outcome of good quality care is influenced by a far greater range of issues than how many of each particular staff group are on any particular shift, according to a prescribed ratio. It requires the professional expertise and judgment of those who know the situation best in a given circumstance. The point I seek to make is that, although those numbers are a key part, they are not the only part.
This is, perhaps, more of a technical point than a point of substance, but the specific wording of the new clause is incredibly broad. It would potentially require the Secretary of State to assess safe staffing levels across all healthcare settings across the whole of England for all medical and clinical staff. Such a duty would, I fear, be challenging to implement, notwithstanding the shadow Minister’s assertion that he would not expect the Secretary of State to sit there each morning going through shift rotas and shift patterns himself. It would be challenging for not only the Department but the wider system and, in particular, clinical leaders in individual settings.
For those reasons, while I appreciate the sentiment and the objective sought by the shadow Minister, I do not believe the new clause is the appropriate practical solution.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for this Minister’s response. I am not surprised that he is not prepared to the support the new clause. Unfortunately, I think there is a large chasm where responsibility for workforce issues probably lies, and this is an example of that. It was certainly not our intention to expect the Secretary of State to deliver each individual setting, but for someone in the system to have that responsibility of advising the Secretary of State. No doubt we will return to this. We will see the practice in the devolved nations and how that has proved to be a success or otherwise, which may strengthen or weaken the argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Workforce responsibilities of integrated care boards
“(1) Each integrated care board must at least every two years publish a report setting out an analysis of the current workforce, the workforce requirements to enable the Board to fulfil its duties over the following 2, 5 and 10 years, and the plans the Board has to close any gaps identified.
(2) In drawing up the report the Board must consult—
(a) the Trusts and Foundation Trusts that provide services in its area,
(b) providers of primary care in its area, and
(c) the recognised trade unions.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are back on the workforce. We had a brief discussion about the proposals in clause 33 on the Secretary of State and workforce planning, and how they are by universal acclaim wholly inadequate. Now is not the time to repeat that debate, although I may shoehorn in one or two references to it. We hope that at some point there will be a better proposal on the national efforts to assess and meet workforce needs.
The new clause tries to repeat the intentions of the amendment to clause 33, and to take some of that thinking and translate it to ICB level. That makes a lot of sense to us, and in an ideal world some of the national plan would be made up of individual local assessments of need and add together the 42 ICBs into one national workforce plan. We will see where we end up with that. As I said, we have had some attempt at this with each STP trying to produce its own plan to a very abrupt timetable. I do not think anyone actually added up all their assessments to come up with a national figure. Because of the truncated timetable they faced, there was not a great deal of engagement with the workforce on that.
There is therefore a bit of a precedent in the work that was done on that. It is probably what you would call a gap analysis: what is needed against what we are likely have unless something is done to close that gap. The new clause follows that approach, which has had some support in some other areas. We felt that a two-year cycle was about right, with reporting on that two-year cycle covering short, medium and longer-term need.
It is hard to see why we will not have local plans if we are going to have national plans, to make sure that there is alignment when, as we hope, the Government come back with something better on clause 33. Looking at the total staff in the NHS and social care for an ICS, some of the larger ones will be running into hundreds of thousands of people. It is hard to think of any system with that many staff where some sort of workforce planning is not going on. If we are looking at things across system level, as the ICS is, surely workforce needs across the system would be part of that. We know that ICBs, together with the relevant trusts and foundation trusts, have the general duty to produce a plan annually, setting out how they propose to exercise their functions over the next five years. They will not be able to do that without the right staff.
A lot of the ground work entailed in the new clause will have been done already. It is our intention that it will try to remove any possibility of blame shifting, where inadequate resources lead to reduced services and the service providers are blamed, rather than those who hold the purse strings in Whitehall. The reporting required by the new clause will make it clear whether there are enough staff to meet all the reasonable requirements of the ICB.
The other key point covered by the new clause is who is consulted in the local planning process. We believe it vital that recognised trade unions are involved. That should be a given anyway, in the light of the general commitments from the NHS over partnership working, but as we have covered before, we think that needs to be explicit in the legislation because of the behaviour of a few NHS bodies in trying to marginalise staff involvement in recent times.
The ICBs will new bodies, and they will need to understand the importance of partnership working from day one. If the levelling-up and devolution agendas are to continue to flourish, surely the regional and sub-regional identification and development of skills in this important area ought to be part of the mix. It feels, I am afraid, as though the whole issue of workforce is being assiduously side-stepped by the Department. That is the Department’s prerogative, but it is a mistake and it is those on the frontline who will bear the brunt. We need someone to take responsibility, so why not the ICBs?
Without its workforce, the NHS is nothing. We are grateful to each and every one of its staff for the work that they do. We owe it to them, the patients and the taxpayer to have in place a proper system of workforce planning. Although we do not pretend that the new clause is the whole answer, it would begin to put in place the building blocks to achieve that.
Edward Argar
The new clause would place a new statutory responsibility on integrated care boards to publish, at least every two years,
“a report setting out an analysis of the current workforce, the workforce requirements to enable the Board to fulfil its duties over the following 2, 5 and 10 years, and the plans the Board has to close any gaps identified.”
Under the new clause, ICBs drawing up that report would be placed under a statutory duty of consultation with the trusts and foundation trusts in their area, providers of primary care and the recognised trade unions. The Government’s view is that that is an unnecessarily prescriptive duty on ICBs, and that clause 33 —alongside our non-legislative work and investment—remains the right way to develop the NHS workforce.
On the workforce nationally, what is needed is greater transparency and accountability for the various bodies involved in workforce planning. Clause 33 requires the Secretary of State to produce a report describing the workforce planning and supply system—including the roles of DHSC and its arm’s length bodies; NHS bodies, including ICBs and others; and how they work together—to provide that greater transparency.
To support local ICBs on workforce matters, work is already being taken forward on workforce planning through NHS England and NHS Improvement’s draft guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions. The draft NHSEI guidance, published in August 2021, states that the intended outcomes for ICBs will include,
“Growing the workforce for the future and enabling adequate workforce supply”,
as well as,
“Leading coordinated workforce planning”.
The guidance notes state explicitly that ICBs will have the responsibility to develop
“plans to address current and future predicted workforce supply requirements”,
which I believe addresses the core intention of the shadow Minister’s new clause.
The production of those plans will require ICBs to develop and regularly refresh collaborative workforce plans for their integrated care area, with demand and supply planning based on population health needs. As part of that work, we can expect ICBs to work with local stakeholders in their areas. ICBs will also be supported by Health Education England on such workforce planning matters. Under the guidance, ICBs will also have the responsibility to provide workforce data to regional and national workforce teams to support workforce planning and inform the prioritisation of workforce initiatives and investment decisions.
We join the shadow Minister in putting on the record our gratitude to our health and care workforce, but we think that that guidance already sends a strong signal to the system about the importance of the issue, and we therefore do not support his new clause.
Justin Madders
I am not surprised, although I am a little saddened, that the Minister has once again adopted the permissive rather than prescriptive approach. We think that the issue is so important for the NHS that it needs a firmer hand. I am sure that I will quote back to him his comments about the need for greater accountability and transparency in workforce planning, because that is something that we absolutely agree on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Secretary of State’s duty to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff
“After section 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (but before the italic heading after it) insert—
‘1GA Secretary of State’s duty to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff
The Secretary of State must provide access to occupational health services to meet the reasonable requirements of all persons who are employed in an activity which involves or relates to the provision of services as part of the health service in England.’”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would place a new duty on the Secretary of State to provide access to OH services to meet the reasonable requirements of all NHS staff. The duty would apply to all healthcare professionals delivering health care including doctors, dentists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, healthcare scientists and the allied health professions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The past 18 months have made clearer than ever the health risks that our health workers face at work, as they have dealt with unprecedented pressures during the pandemic. Occupational health is a multidisciplinary approach to maintaining the wellbeing of those employed in a workplace, preventing and removing ill health and developing solutions to keep staff with health issues at work, the most common problems being mental health and musculoskeletal issues.
Occupational health services occupy a unique position as neither the employer nor the employee. I remember in my time as a union official helping NHS staff with issues at work, and we would howl at times at things that occupational health came up with. Then we met management and realised that they were howling about it too, so we realised that the occupational health practitioner was probably in the right place. That is a very specific and special place, in the NHS and beyond, and we should want our wonderful NHS staff to have proper access to it.
Currently, the NHS provides access to occupational health services to the vast majority of staff in acute trusts, but the policy is inconsistent. While NHS England is making efforts to expand access through the growing OH programme, those efforts need to be accelerated and supported, which is what the new clause would do.
In secondary care, the provision of services tends to depend on legal requirements on safety, for example checking for blood-borne viruses in advance of performing surgical or other procedures that could pose a risk to patients from the infected clinician, rather than occupational health provision that supports individuals to remain at work based on other needs they might have.
Similarly, the co-ordination of occupational health services in primary care has suffered since the abolition of primary care trusts in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. As a result, there is far less provision in primary community care settings. Some of the funds previously allocated to PCTs in support of occupational health services were diverted to the practitioner health programme—PHP— which provides mental health support for NHS staff. While that is valuable, the PHP is not a replacement for specialist occupational health services that are ready to work with both employer and employee on issues beyond mental health. That means that key parts of the NHS workforce—GPs, practice nurses and pharmacists—lack full access to occupational health services, and that has real implications. We worry about burnout in all those groups, especially after the 18 months we have just had. For some of our staff, A&E is the only avenue for treatment, in cases of exposure to infectious disease or a needle stick, for example. That is unsuitable and we could do much better than that.
We think it is vital for NHS staff wellbeing and staff retention that all NHS workers have access to occupational health services when they need them. We are not asking for something extra or beyond the scope of current conception. In 2016, NHS England introduced a commitment for OH services to be provided across the NHS, stating its intention to achieve
“a nationally standardised Occupational Health Service…that is equitable and accessible.”
That is a very good commitment, but five years on it remains unfulfilled. The new clause would put that on a statutory footing and get it going.
The Secretary of State already has several duties to NHS staff, in relation to education and training, for example, under the 2012 Act. The new clause would fulfil the 2016 commitment and meet the needs of NHS staff by requiring the Secretary of State to meet any reasonable OH requirements for anyone employed by the NHS directly or indirectly. It would be really good for our staff and, in turn, for the health service and those it serves. I hope that the Minister will give it positive consideration.
Edward Argar
As the hon. Member for Nottingham North set out, the new clause seeks to legislate for an additional duty on the Secretary of State to provide access to occupational health services to NHS staff.
The NHS is what it is thanks only to the hard work of its staff. The Government and Members of Parliament on both sides of the Chamber are immensely grateful to them. Caring for people throughout the pandemic has required a phenomenal effort from so many people, ranging from students and trainees to new recruits, established staff and those returning to the workforce. The dedication and resilience of NHS staff has been incredible—indeed, humbling—to witness. They have consistently placed the needs of patients before themselves, as indeed they do year in, year out, but they have done so in particularly challenging circumstances over the past year and a half or so.
If healthcare staff are to provide excellent care to patients, they need to receive excellent support themselves. Occupational health services play an important role in ensuring that staff get the support that they need to do their jobs and to flourish in them. Throughout the pandemic, we have placed a strong emphasis on supporting staff wellbeing. In July 2020, we published the NHS “People Plan”, which prioritises staff health and wellbeing. That was supported by the roll-out of a comprehensive national health and wellbeing support offer, which has been accessed by staff across the NHS.
The past 18 months have seen many NHS organisations respond with empathy and agility to the pandemic, and occupational health teams have developed innovative ways of supporting their colleagues. As we move towards, or into, the recovery phase, there is a great need to build on that focus and momentum, to ensure a healthy, sustainable workforce going forward. As we look to the same workforce who have taken us through the pandemic to tackle the waiting lists and waiting times, we must recognise, and be open with those who watch our proceedings and listen to us, that that task of rebuilding and getting the waiting lists down will be challenging. We owe it to the staff to be clear about that, because they are the same staff. They are physically and emotionally exhausted, and we have a duty of care to them, and must enable them to rebuild their physical and emotional strength after what they have been through over the past year and a half.
That is why the NHS priorities and operational planning guidance, published in March 2021, puts staff wellbeing and the recovery of the workforce right at the top of the list of priorities for the NHS. To support that, NHS England and NHS Improvement have launched a new programme to strengthen and improve occupational health across the NHS. That will look at how we can improve occupational health services, grow the occupational health workforce, develop their capability, empower local leadership and bring a strengthened focus on proactive and preventive care. It will build on best practice across the country and will inform future blueprints for potential service delivery models, with the aim of having a five-year service improvement strategy for occupational health in the NHS. It is being developed with the support of Dr Steve Boorman and the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, the Society of Occupational Medicine, the Council for Work and Health and the NHS Health at Work network, as national occupational health partners that both represent the voice of and link directly with occupational health professionals. That work, and the broader programme of work through the NHS “People Plan” to transform the NHS as a place to work, demonstrates our strong commitment to supporting staff health and wellbeing in the NHS.
As a result, we do not believe that this new clause is necessary, although we appreciate the sentiment, objective and aims sitting behind it. Our concern is that drawing out occupational health over and above other aspects of health and wellbeing support does not necessarily help to drive forward the other work done, which I have alluded to and which provides staff with a more comprehensive package that can be tailored to individual or group staff needs. There is a risk, though I suspect it is a small one, that occupational health could become a tick-box exercise to comply with, which would detract from the full journey of health and wellbeing support. Occupational health is part—indeed, a vital part—of that, but it is not the solution in and of itself, alone.
For the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the new clause to a Division at this point.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that response. I do not intend to push this new clause to a Division. I have made my case about the importance of occupational health, and I understand what the Minister said about the broader range of interventions. Of course, we would support those, too, but particularly here, we really need to get to the point of having full coverage. Only NHS England has committed to that. I hope that today we have at least sounded the signal that the pace is too slow, and that we ought to get on with it. I hope that the Minister will keep the matter under consideration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Cap on private charges
‘(1) Section 43 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) Leave out subsection (2A) and insert—
“(2A) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its primary purpose if the proportion of the total income of the NHS foundation trust in any financial year derived from private charges is greater than the proportion of the total income of the NHS trust derived from such charges in the financial year ending 31 March 2022.
(2B) For the purposes of subsections (2A) and (2C) “private charges” means charges imposed in respect of goods and services provided to patients other than patients being provided with goods and services for the purposes of the health service.
(2C) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its principal purpose if in any year the proportion of the total income derived from private charges is greater than the proportion of the total income of the NHS trust derived from such charges in the previous financial year unless—
(a) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have been notified of the intention that this increase will occur;
(b) that intention has been published with a statement of the reasons why it is considered to benefit the NHS;
(c) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have used reasonable endeavours to consider any responses to the publication mentioned in (b); and
(d) any integrated care board which has commissioned services from the trust, and the integrated care partnership for the board, have informed the NHS foundation trust that the proposed increase is justified.”’—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would prevent NHS foundation trusts increasing their income from private patients year on year unless the conditions set in subsection (2C) are met.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One of the livelier arguments during the passage of the Lansley Act was about trusts doing lots more private patient work. Under the Act, up to 50% of a trust’s income could be derived from private patients. That was obviously an attempt to take the NHS in a whole new direction. The previous private patient cap was removed, and a new definition of “principal purpose” was brought in.
We need to be clear that this new clause is not about the parallel argument that we sometimes have about private providers doing more NHS-funded work, though that is a major concern when we hear the news that the private sector is now doing more hip replacements for NHS patients than the NHS. We are in a slightly ludicrous and paradoxical situation: private providers are doing more NHS-funded work, while NHS providers are doing more private work. The new clause tries to put the brakes on that. We say: why not just build up NHS capacity to the point where it does all NHS-funded work, so that the need to keep dipping into the private sector is removed?
The 2011 argument is mirrored in the way the original foundation trusts, when invented, were allowed to develop private patient income, but only to a very low level. That was not a great situation, but it recognised that there were already a few NHS organisations, mostly in London, for which private patient income was so significant that there would be a risk of destabilisation if that income were blocked. The point at the time was that the amount permitted then was acceptable, but that it should go no further. Incidentally, the plain-old NHS trusts could do as much private patient work as they were allowed to by the Secretary of State, who could direct them to do it. If memory serves, he allowed one trust to become the private patient income league table toppers at one point. It did not want to become a foundation trust. What a strange and paradoxical world we live in.
Anyway, in 2011, the cap was raised from 3% to 50%, which started many hares running. We heard predictions of a whole new generation of private patient units being built, and that we would be back to the old days when the NHS was the largest provider of private patient care. Fortunately, that never happened. In the real world, there are now only around a dozen trusts that have any significant private patient income, and it is not increasing at a significant rate, although recent developments in Oxford suggest that the issue has not gone away.
One might argue that in those circumstances there is no need for the new clause, but we would say that there is every need to renounce the approach set out in Lansley, and to go back to a public NHS. The only reason for gaining income from private patients is to benefit the NHS as a whole, not to benefit one NHS organisation. This is a real and live issue, as we saw during covid. There were tensions, and every spare bed was vital; indeed, every spare bed is vital now to support the mammoth effort that is needed to bring down waiting lists. In all seriousness, why would we sanction a trust’s building more private patient capacity, when waiting times for NHS treatment continue to go up? Then we go, as we have done in recent times, cap and wallet in hand to the private providers and pay them huge sums to allow the NHS the option of using their services and capacity, as we did during covid. As we saw recently, that did not get used anything like as much as it should have been. That might be a fortunate thing, but it was a shocking lack of value for money. The report by the Centre for Health and the Public Interest on the contract with the private sector found that none of the five objectives set for the contract were achieved, with large amounts of healthcare resources wasted.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would effectively prevent NHS foundation trusts from increasing their income from private patients year on year unless a number of specified conditions were met.
If hon. Members are students of history, they will recall that in 2012 we abolished the private patient cap, while clarifying that the foundation trusts’ principal purpose was
“the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England”,
meaning that foundation trusts must make the majority of their income from NHS activity. That was a more rational and sensible way of managing the issue than the previous cap, which caused practical problems for some NHS organisations that wanted to become foundation trusts and were prevented from doing so by the prescriptive nature of the previous regime. We also retained the requirement that additional income be used to benefit NHS patient care. It has been used across the system to offset maintenance costs, finance alternative transport such as park and ride, and fund patient care.
I should also be clear that we are talking about a very small percentage of the NHS’s income. The most recent set of provider consolidated accounts for 2019-20 shows income from non-NHS sources as 2% of income, of which less than 1% relates to private patients. Again, all that income has gone to improving care for NHS patients.
The new clause introduces a new cap by a different door; it creates a requirement for foundation trusts to agree with their ICB and ICP their income from non-NHS sources, and if they raised more than in the previous year, they would no longer be fulfilling their primary function as a foundation trust. That would be a significant bureaucratic and administrative burden on foundation trusts, and it would require them to either forgo raising additional income, or seek agreement via a multi-stage process before raising it.
The provision would also mark a significant new restriction on foundation trusts’ freedoms and autonomy, and could potentially dissuade some from wishing to become foundation trusts. As all non-NHS income must benefit NHS patient care, and an NHS foundation trust must always have as its primary purpose the delivery of NHS services, I fear that would potentially be putting ideological purity over practical interests and the practical working of the system.
New clause 23 would only apply to foundation trusts, as I read it, not NHS trusts. NHS trusts do not have a limit on the amount of income they can raise from private patients, and a very small number of trusts raise significant income in this way. Putting an additional requirement on foundation trusts before they can raise non-NHS income, but not doing the same for NHS trusts, would potentially further unbalance the playing field and give an additional nudge in the direction of foundation trusts.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the costs or spending on the independent sector in the context of the pandemic response. I have been clear throughout that when the accounts are fully consolidated and audited, those figures will have to be reported. I cannot say exactly when that process will be complete, but it is a requirement that those accounts be gone through, consolidated and audited. I would hesitate to give him an inaccurate figure, but it is my intention for those figures to be made available at the appropriate time. With that, I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing his new clause.
Justin Madders
I hesitate to withdraw the new clause, because I have to say that the Minister’s arguments about not wanting to deter foundation trusts from making applications rang a little hollow, but we would not want to be accused of preventing that procession from continuing. We have set out very clearly why we do not think this residue from the 2012 Act should remain on the statute book. We think it sends out the wrong message and is actually unhelpful at this time, but we will not push the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Requirement for NHS trusts to publish Royal College invited review reports
“Each NHS Trust in England must publish the reports produced by Royal Colleges of invited reviews of the Trust, including any conclusions and recommendations.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require Trusts to publish Royal College invited review reports.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause seeks to require all trusts to publish reports produced by royal colleges following invited reviews, including any conclusions and recommendations. Invited reviews are advisory, non-regulatory and non-statutory ways for healthcare organisations to assure patient safety and improve patient care through the use of a collaborative, independent, objective and expert review process undertaken by medical royal colleges when asked. Invited reviews have a clear and important role in supporting improvements in services. They aid trusts in understanding issues within departments or teams, particularly where these are multifactorial and involve team dynamics. An independent, external expert opinion is often invaluable in helping senior clinicians see a different viewpoint and in articulating where and why professional differences of opinion in practice are occurring.
The reports can help move issues of contention forward and improve relationships. Trusts value the insight and objective evidence of these reviews, particularly where quality issues have been raised. They are often a vital tool in resolving a complex, seemingly intractable issue. They are also invaluable in ensuring the NHS can continually learn, improve and deliver the safest and best quality care for patients. However, we think that can only be achieved if the information and learning within the reports is shared for the benefit of others across the system.
Independent and external expert reviews are a key part of any assurance process. To us, their value is beyond dispute. How the organisation being reviewed responds to the report produced is again crucial. Although we would expect in most cases the organisations to accept those recommendations and do what is required, we know that does not always happen. Shockingly, BBC “Panorama” revealed that, of 111 invited service reviews over five years, only 16 were put into the public domain. Panorama accuses trusts of burying important reports on patient safety. The invited reviews are organised by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, which follows the published framework. The framework has a section on openness and transparency:
“Where a healthcare organisation has commissioned an invited review of clinical activity in response to concerns about the quality of patient care, they should also be open and transparent with patients, their relatives and the public…Healthcare organisations should also work closely with their regulators and share information about invited reviews with them proactively where necessary to ensure that the safety of patients can be maintained.”
As with all such external reviews, there is a balance between protecting certain information, for example by attributing views or comments, and being open. For such reviews it is necessary that those interviewed or otherwise asked to become involved are happy to do so and happy to speak out confidentially. As we discussed earlier, ensuring that staff and whistleblowers feel safe to come forward and disclose information about an incident is critically important.
The new clause does not intend to get in the way of that protection. It is deliberately not prescriptive about the timing of publication, so that trusts maintain appropriate control. It is not about blame or ensuring that trusts are named and shamed when improvements are needed; it is about transparency. In the NHS, after mistakes have been made, it is vital to have transparency to ensure that necessary improvements are made.
It is concerning that so many reports produced by royal colleges have not been shared with the public and therefore we do not know whether they have been acted upon. As part of the conditions of an invited review, trusts are in effect signing up to publishing and showing the findings. Yet, as we know, that is not happening.
Everything favours openness, although patient-identifiable information would of course have to be redacted. On some occasions, there may be other reasons for part of the report to be withheld, but not the overall conclusions and certainly not the recommendations. That would ensure proper accountability for the follow-up and implementation of the recommendations or, in some cases, a justification for why the organisation did not accept or act on the recommendations.
We have talked several times already about the defensive culture that pervades parts of the NHS and how it sometimes gets in the way of what patients and families want. They want answers and assurances. Most of all, they want the truth. These reviews are part of that truth. We have had the same argument many times, because, although the NHS claims to be open and transparent, it is often not.
Given the fragmented and convoluted set of organisations within the new structure, it is harder to know sometimes who will be responsible for what. With the present system, there is always the issue of who owns the report, who controls what is published and who follows up and ensures that the necessary changes are made. That is why we believe that that the disinfectant of sunlight is vital. We should know everything unless there is a good reason for us not to, not the other way round. We should not be required to protect the reputation of bits of the NHS or even the reputations of those individuals who have failed to do their jobs properly.
We have heard in the many scandals how things were known by a few, but they failed to act and prevented anyone else from acting on the information they had. Sadly, it is necessary to be clear about rules. There ought to be some sort of sanction for those who have broken rules of publication. It may not always be easy for the individuals or the individual organisations, but it is almost certainly always going to be in the interests of the NHS as a whole.
The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the CQC are looking at guidance on invited reviews at the moment. The new clause seeks to focus the Minister’s mind on an issue that has not gone away. I know it is controversial. I hope the Minister can give us some assurances that his Department is committed to developing a system that works better in this area and puts patients at the heart of everything that happens.
Unfortunately, in the last financial year prior to the pandemic, there were 472 serious patient safety issues classified as never events across the NHS in England. There is work to be done to get the NHS to the level of patient care and safety that we would want to see. It is only by seeking to understand why these events happened in the first place and the circumstances that led to them that we can ensure they never happen again. That is the heart of what most patients and their families want to know.
We believe that the safety of patients should be a golden thread running through every aspect of healthcare delivery and we will do everything in our power to make sure that the NHS is one of the safest and most supported healthcare systems in the world. I ask the Minister to tell us why the reviews should not be published on a regular basis. Is 16 reports out of 111 being published good enough? We certainly do not think it is.
I will finish on a quote from the Francis report. We have mentioned this one already, but it needs repeating as it is so important. He said:
“It is a basic and just expectation of the public that organisations are open, honest and transparent about their performance standards, about the rights of patients and about what happened, and why, if things go wrong. This is the only way to begin to restore full public trust in the NHS.”
We hope that this new clause, by requiring publication of the reviews, will go some way to restoring confidence and increasing the transparency that patients deserve.
Edward Argar
The new clause would require each NHS trust in England to publish any report by a medical royal college of an invited review of the trust. That includes any conclusions and recommendations. It is right, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, that trusts are open and transparent in managing any concerns about the quality and safety of their services, and, in particular, regulators should have access to any royal college invited review of a trust.
I have considerable sympathy with the intention of the new clause. We all want to improve patient safety and care, and I recognise the key role that transparency can play as part of that. However, I will explain why I am not convinced that this objective is best advanced by acceptance of this particular new clause. Managing concerns about clinical quality openly and transparently is essential for trusts if they are to provide consistently high quality, safe care, to show quality of leadership and to maintain trust in the trust and the service it delivers.
When the CQC finds that there has been a failure to do so or that fundamental standards of care are not being met, it is reflected in the CQC’s reports and ratings and in the range of enforcement powers it can use. The CQC’s inspection teams maintain ongoing engagement with trusts and make it clear that they expect trusts to be open and honest about issues of quality and safety of services. Furthermore, the CQC has been clear with trusts that reports, including invited reviews by royal colleges, should be made available to relevant commissioners and regulators, including the CQC. The CQC, NHS England and NHS Improvement expect trusts to take prompt actions to address appropriate recommendations, and the framework for invited reviews from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges is clear that trusts and royal colleges undertaking reviews should share any serious patient safety issues from reports with the CQC.
As part of the CQC’s monitoring and inspection activity, it assesses how trusts have acted on recommendations from these reviews, including implementing any learning to make improvements. Since July 2018, the CQC has set a very clear expectation on trusts to share copies of the full final report of external reviews, including those by royal colleagues, and to inform it of steps they are taking to implement any recommendations. The CQC, working with providers, NHS England, NHS Improvement and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, has seen improvement in the development of an open and transparent culture.
The CQC has powers to compel a trust to share an invited review where it is aware of that review. Where serious issues of care are uncovered, NHS England and NHS Improvement can also compel a trust to take whatever steps are necessary to address them. This includes the sharing of an invited review to itself. The CQC is now reviewing its regulatory model, including its approach to monitoring and gathering evidence from providers. In doing so, it will continue to work with trusts and royal colleges, including on sharing and responding to findings from external reviews to encourage a culture of openness and transparency.
There are robust and transparent systems in place to ensure that providers learn from and improve their services. This includes publishing more than 100 reports every year, covering 40 clinical specialisms as part of the clinical audit programme by NHS England and NHS Improvement. NHS England and NHS Improvement also publish regular data on patient safety incidents, other safety indicators and patient safety alerts. They also provide support to challenge providers to improve governance and culture.
Invited reviews are a voluntary process. They are an advisory, non-regulatory and non-statutory way for trusts to assure patient safety and quality of care through the use of an independent review, but compelling the publication of the full report could lead to some unintended consequences. First, it could discourage some trusts from commissioning these invited reviews. That could lead to trusts overlooking specific actions to address safety and quality concerns and opportunities for improvements and learning. Secondly, it could lead to trusts inviting consulting firms and other professional bodies with less expertise in the delivery of clinical care than a team from the royal college to undertake reviews. Thirdly, invited reviews can vary widely in their scope and may not be directly patient safety-related. Therefore a blanket requirement to publish all reports may not be appropriate.
Fourthly, the specific information that a trust can make publicly available will vary from review to review, depending on the circumstances. Invited reviews can often involve sensitive and complex circumstances and cover confidential issues about staff and patients. Trusts need to take account of legislation on patient confidentiality and data protection each time a report is developed. It may therefore not be possible for every invited review to be a published document. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges recommends that trusts should take steps to make available to the public a summary of the review and the steps they are taking.
Finally, requiring publication of invited reviews could attract attention in a way that affects staff morale and organisational learning, and not in a constructive way. It could make future invited review reports weaker or drive necessary conversations and actions off the record. For these reasons, while I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and where he is coming from, we believe that the mechanisms already in place are sufficient and achieve the right balance.
Justin Madders
I am slightly heartened by what the Minister said there. He obviously takes the matter seriously. We are not going to press this to a vote, because we recognise that there is some concern in the sector about this proposal. I ask him to reflect on what he said about a requirement possibly discouraging trusts from seeking invited reviews in the first place. That shows that reputation management is still at the forefront of their considerations rather than patient safety. That is the heart of the problem that we have been seeking to tease out with this new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
“Secretary of State’s duty to report on disparities in maternal mortality rates
The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England, including the steps being taken to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause lays a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England, including what steps his department is taking to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause, in the words of Ronseal, does exactly what it says on the tin. It lays a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in maternal mortality rates in England. The report would include details of the steps that the Department was taking to address these disparities and improve outcomes for patients. We all know that this issue is of paramount importance and has been debated in the House several times recently. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important that we take whatever steps we can to tackle all forms of inequality in our society and this is another example of how that manifests itself.
Covid has sharpened our awareness of health inequalities, but it is clear that it is not just with respiratory viruses where health outcomes can be staggeringly different for different groups. Maternity services are one of the areas where we can and must do far better. The Care Quality Commission report “Safety, Equity and Engagement in Maternity Services”, published in September, highlighted continued concern about the variation in quality and safety of England’s maternity services and presented analysis of key issues that persisted in some maternity services. It also highlighted where action was still needed to support vital improvements. In the UK’s poorest areas the stillbirth rate is still twice that in the UK’s most affluent ones, with pre-pandemic figures showing that babies in the poorest areas have a 73% excess risk of neonatal death. All mothers and babies deserve the very best care and it simply cannot be right that where people live might dictate the quality of the maternity care received. Action is needed to eradicate maternal inequalities.
It is not just geographical and socioeconomic inequalities that need to be tackled but ethnic inequalities. Evidence from MBRACE-UK––Mothers and Babies Reducing Risk Through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK––shows that the maternal mortality rate is more than four times higher for black women compared with white women. The maternal mortality rate for Asian women is almost twice as high compared with white women. Those inequalities are an injustice, and we need action to address them.
I recognise that many black, Asian and minority ethnic women also do not feel that they are listened to during childbirth. A lack of cultural competency and medical training means that complications are not always spotted early enough. For example, black women have shared experiences of how anaemia has not been picked up soon enough because of their skin colour. We really ought to be doing better than that.
The Government have said that they have hosted several roundtables with experts and have commissioned more research to better understand the issue. However, they believe that a target to address maternal mortality disparities would have limitations in improving the quality of care. Why do they hold that view? NHS England’s long-term plan includes targets for addressing health outcomes in other areas. We need action to address the unacceptable disparities in maternal mortality rates as well.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights found that over 60% of black people did not believe that their health was equally protected by the NHS compared with white people. As we know, covid has had a disproportionate impact on BAME communities.
If not a target, then a report would ensure accountability and focus minds to address these unacceptable injustices. New clause 25 would put explicit accountability on the Secretary of State not only to monitor and report on variation in maternity services but, crucially, to set out the steps needed to tackle it. We need a national strategy to address this country’s health inequalities, which must include serious and urgent action to end the mortality gap between black, Asian and ethnic minority women and white women. The new clause is, of course, not the complete answer, but I hope the Minister will agree that it would be a welcome step in the right direction.
Edward Argar
Again, I am grateful to the shadow Minister. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report each year on variation in the quality and safety of England’s maternity services and on disparities in maternal mortality rates in England. Again, I understand the intention behind the new clause, which the hon. Gentlemen set out clearly, as it is paramount that we do all we can to ensure the safety of expectant mothers and their babies, which involves understanding and taking steps to address the variation in quality and safety of England’s maternity services and disparities in outcomes.
However, several organisations and bodies already publish reports each year on the variation of quality and safety of England’s maternity services and the disparities in maternal mortality rates. First, the CQC monitors, inspects and regulates maternity services across England to ensure they meet standards of quality and safety. Following an inspection, it provides findings, recommendations and an overall rating of the trusts. It also publishes monthly reports following inspections of maternity services and annual reports that explore areas for improvement in maternity services across England.
Secondly, “Better Births”, the report of the national maternity review, recommended that a nationally agreed set of indicators should be developed to help local maternity systems to track, benchmark and improve the quality of maternity services. In response, NHS England and NHS Improvement, in partnership with NHS Digital, have produced a national maternity services dashboard. The dashboard enables clinical teams in maternity services to compare their performance with their peers on a series of clinical quality improvement metrics, or CQIMs, and national maternity indicators, or NMIs, for the purposes of identifying areas that may require local clinical quality improvement.
Thirdly, MBRRACE-UK publishes annual reports on maternal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths across the UK. Stillbirth and neonatal mortality rates are provided for individual NHS providers, commissioning boards, and local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and the Crown dependencies. It would not be possible to report annual maternal mortality rates by NHS trusts because the numbers are very small—it would not be a meaningful statistic. That would also potentially risk individuals being identified and could result in contravention of data protection legislation.
The reports by MBRRACE-UK also look at health inequalities; its analysis has identified significant differences in maternal mortality rates, which the shadow Minister mentioned, between women from black or Asian minority ethnic backgrounds and white women, and between women from lower and higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
Finally, the National Maternity and Perinatal Audit, or NMPA, is a large-scale audit of NHS maternity services across England, Scotland and Wales. The NMPA publishes trust-level data and evaluates a range of care processes and outcomes to identify good practice and areas for improvement in the care of women and babies.
Justin Madders
I will disappoint the Minister this time. We will push the new clause to a vote, because we think that it is really important. While the Minister has set out a whole range of reports that have been issued and work that is being done, due to the scale of the injustice we have set out, there needs to be a concrete commitment from the Secretary of State to not only publish the data, but set out the steps he is taking to address the inequalities.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Duty as to education placement capacity and innovation—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1F(1) insert—
‘(1A) To meet the integrated workforce requirements of integrated care systems, the Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that there is sufficient placement capacity in the health and social care system in England to educate and develop a sustainable health and social care workforce,
(b) support, fund and promote the use of innovation in healthcare higher education to meet health and social care workforce needs, including new approaches to interdisciplinarity, digital technology and simulation, and
(c) consult universities, health and social care service employers, providers and other persons deemed necessary to develop practice placement capacity and innovation in higher education for health and social care to meet the needs of the health and social care workforce.’”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to develop and support education practice placement capacity across integrated systems and to support innovation in higher education for health and social care.
Chris Skidmore
Thank you for allowing me to speak to these two new clauses together, Mr McCabe. They are essentially interrelated and were the product of a roundtable that I put together and hosted with Universities UK and the deans of medical colleges in my role as co-chair of the all-party university group. These were the two asks that the universities and medical colleges had for the Bill. I offer these new clauses as part of that consultative approach, so I will not be pushing them to a vote.
Basically, we are at a crux. I raised this question on clause 33 of the Bill, but when it comes to workforce planning and training, we take a siloed approach, focusing on what the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Health Education England set out as their vision, and the funding flows from that. Not included in that vision, although clearly there are consultative opportunities, is a recognised role and responsibility in legislation for healthcare education providers, the universities and the deans of the colleges in providing the clinicians, doctors and nurses of tomorrow. Nor is there recognition that the workforce is changing. While we have the Government’s commitment to the retention of nurses and doctors, that retention can take place only if there is continuous professional development.
When I was a Health Minister, I was very concerned to ensure an uplift in the budget of Health Education England to 3.4% to match that of NHS England. It had always been thought of as the poorer relation; the money would always flow later, and it took a great deal of lobbying from the relevant organisations to make the point that we needed to put that workforce training money aside, particularly for continuous professional development.
New clause 27, in summary, reflects the fact that if we are to have an integrated care system, and if the new White Paper is to look at how to integrate social care with healthcare, we will need to provide huge retraining opportunities for both NHS and social care staff to enable them to work across whatever that new landscape may be. I do not think it is practical to send everyone back to university, or even always to have physical in-work training opportunities, important though those may be. We will clearly need to have digital opportunities, online courses and a whole technological revolution in how we deliver those retraining opportunities.
Those opportunities are out there. If we look at the universities and the role of EdTech, it is important that the health service grips that opportunity with both hands while it has the chance to do so, because it will be coming down the tracks. If we want to implement reform via the integration of services, it will only be as good as the people working in those services, as we all know, and those people will be as good as they can be only if they are given the appropriate opportunities to train and retrain during their career.
The need for new clause 28 has become more pressing as a result of recent developments. It sets out a duty for education placement capacity; I will not go into the detail of the new clause, but effectively it is about place planning and ensuring that the universities and royal colleges are involved with that at the very outset. In the debate on clause 33, I talked about the paradox of our having a cap on places, which is causing a bottleneck in post-18 education—those pupils who are desperate to become doctors or nurses, but who find a cap on their aspiration.
That cap is there, as we know, because medical places are expensive; they cost not £9,250 a year, but more like £70,000 over the course of a medical student’s training lifetime. At the same time, however, we have a cap on places for those 18-year-olds entering the system and then—surprise, surprise—we find we do not have enough doctors and nurses in the system, and we have to start retraining from abroad.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, there has been a drive to expand medical student places in universities right across the UK, but one part of the system that is controlled centrally is foundation places, which a medical graduate has to spend their first two years in. This year, for the first time, there was a shortfall of about 400 places. Hopefully all those graduates have now got a foundation doctor place, but they cannot practise outwith a foundation place, which lasts two years, so they simply cannot work as doctors, nor can they work as doctors until they complete that two-year foundation role. There is no point in expanding medical school places if those at the end of the production line get turfed out to be unemployed or go and work as something else. It is not just about university places; there is also the issue of placements as foundation doctors for the first two years of their career.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Member is absolutely right. When it comes to the foundation year, I was interested in looking at what future reform might come in the workforce. We would need to work with the royal colleges and vested interests on a replacement, or at least on what could make the foundation process more flexible so as to allow in-work training on that foundation year pathway. That is a huge opportunity, and, if I was still a Minister, I would be pressing for a White Paper to look at how we could deliver workforce innovation, because I do not think we can continue to sustain our trajectory using infrastructure and systems designed in the early to mid-20th century. There is a balance to strike, in that we need to ensure that the safety of patients is accounted for, but technology and training has moved on to a different space. We do not see this constriction in other countries, which can offer fast-track routes through medical training processes, particularly post degree and into the foundation stage.
The issue of placement has become incredibly pressing—it is actually a real-time issue. During the pandemic, because the grade threshold was lowered and teacher assessment was used, an additional 1,900 students were accepted to take up medical places in September 2021. Whatever we think about that, those students were all given a place because they had achieved the right threshold, but to train them, an additional £60 million is needed. However, the Government have capped the training budget at £30 million, so although students have been accepted on to courses, universities are finding that they must make a loss of £2,460 per student in the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22, and the Government are not opening their books to change that cap on finances.
The cap is therefore returning from this coming year, and as a result 1,000 fewer students will be trained each year. In effect, we will see a reduction in the number of students coming on board to be trained. There is currently this one-off moment that universities are taking forward, but as a result we will go backwards when we know that we need more doctors. The demographic changes that I spoke about in debate on clause 33 are coming down the tracks, but we will end up just recruiting from abroad. It is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with those qualifications; I would just prefer a sustainable and, in effect, sovereign pathway.
The post-Brexit narrative is that global Britain will ensure that we can stand on our own two feet and have a sustainable skilled workforce. That could be recognised if we had a placement strategy for medical students. However, we can do that only if we involve the universities and the education sector. The problem is that the Department for Education controls the purse strings for that budget, and I do not think that it realises the long-term consequences on our healthcare system.
The new clause would close a loophole that is kneecapping the Minister and the Department of Health by placing artificial caps on aspiration and—worryingly —on the future number of doctors entering the healthcare system. I will not press my new clauses to a vote, but the issue is extremely pressing. We will see 1,000 fewer students enter medical places next year than did so this year; and students going through the system have no funding for their places, despite having been given those places. That is a real-time issue that has resulted from the wider policy issue not being resolved. The new clauses would help resolve it, but I will not push them to a vote.
Alex Norris
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingswood on his excellent new clauses and the case that he has made for them. We strongly agree that the training and development of staff ought to be to the fore. We must take the opportunity of understanding that we have a workforce crisis at a time of significant technological development.
Take cancer services, for example. We are all concerned about gaps in cancer provision. We need to take the opportunity to turbo-leap forward, rather than trying to restore services to where they were pre-pandemic, when targets were being missed, and had been missed for a number of years. Let us train and develop our staff to use new and innovative approaches, such as new radiotherapies. There is real opportunity there. With respect to new clause 27, the right hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for harnessing the ability of our universities and colleges, and putting that together with our workforce to develop and improve our services.
On new clause 28, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the paradox of us having profound workforce shortages—in August, there were about 94,000 vacancies, including for nearly 40,000 nurses—while 14,000 applicants were not accepted on to nursing courses in 2018. I understand that there was a significant increase in 2019, but it was not big enough to meet our shortfalls, so that is a real paradox. Our services are not sustainable until and unless we take deliberate action to increase capacity. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to push the new clause to a Division, but I hope to hear from the Minister about what conscious decisions are being taken. This concerns not just those big courses either, but smaller ones, such as paramedic science and radiography. University Alliance members have reported 1,000 applications for 40 to 50 places, so there is demand. Of course, they cannot just take everybody and there has to be a filtering process, but it feels very over-geared to have 20 or 25 times the applicants per place.
I will not repeat the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments about GPs, but they were good. We should use this moment to change our approach to how we grow our GPs. What do we know about GPs? We know that we do not have enough of them, and that we certainly will not have enough of them in five or 10 years’ time. We know that certain communities find it particularly hard to attract GPs, but also that GPs tend to stay where they train or, if not, they are more likely to go back to where they grew up. As part of any so-called levelling up, we need to focus on growing our own GPs in poorer communities such as mine, and similar midlands communities—perhaps you share some of that vision, Mr McCabe—but we do not quite put this together.
Many of my constituents tend to enter education quite a way behind; they really close the gap over their 14 years of formal education, but fall just short of those very high standards that are needed at the age of 18 to go on to university. Should we be writing off those young people? Could we be doing better at getting them on courses to be GPs? I suspect that we would be able to retain them in Nottingham, or at least attract them back there, and to the surrounding towns, which desperately need GPs. Similarly—this is not a long-term answer, but it is certainly one for the short term—one of my foundational moments in my views on migration came from working in a shop the year after finishing school and before going to university. I was often on the rota with a man from Iraq, who was a trained civil engineer in Iraq, but could not afford to convert his qualification. He could not work in that field and instead worked with me in that shop. It always seemed to me like a significant waste of his skills.
I will take this moment to plug a wonderful project in Nottingham called the phoenix programme, in which students at the University of Nottingham School of Medicine work with migrants to this country who have medical qualifications at home but cannot practise because they need to convert the qualifications and often cannot afford to. Those medical students are working on language, functional skills and all the different aspects of the exams that those individuals will take, in order to help those people become doctors in this country. What a wonderful thing to do.
If we think about however many hundreds of thousands it costs to train a GP in this country, we realise what a saving they are making for us, too. I think that is a wonderful thing. We need that level of creativity on workforce in order to deal with our gap.
I will make no further points—I do not want to repeat what the right hon. Member for Kingswood said—but if those are not going to be the answers, I hope we hear from the Minister what the answer is. If we go for more of the same, we will just see growing workforce gaps and we really will have profound problems in our health service.
Edward Argar
I am grateful for the opportunity to address new clauses 27 and 28 together. First, new clause 27 seeks to place a specific duty on the Secretary of State to support the transformation of the health and social care workforce for integrated care systems by working with universities and colleges to train the future workforce through investment in technological and inter-professional innovation.
I take on board the broader points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as that work is already covered by section 1F of the NHS Act 2006, which the new clause seeks to amend. Section 1F(1) sets out that the Secretary of State has a duty
“to secure that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training to persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in…the health service”.
Discharge of the duty under section 1F(1) is largely delegated to Health Education England through section 97 of the Care Act 2014. To meet its statutory duties and to ensure that an effective education and training system is in place, HEE undertakes a variety of work, including with further and higher education providers and regulators. Part of that work includes the curriculums for the healthcare professions. Those curriculums are set by approved education providers at an institutional level. HEE can influence the content by representing the employer voice to ensure that the training that individuals receive is relevant and remains up to date.
As part of that work, HEE is particularly keen to ensure that technological and medical advances are included in teaching, alongside new ways of working. Those measures would support newly qualified professionals to be suitably prepared to launch their careers in the NHS. To support that work and engagement with universities, HEE commissioned the Topol review, published in February 2019—probably in association with my right hon. Friend in one of his previous ministerial roles—on how to prepare the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future.
That review made recommendations that will enable NHS staff to make the most of innovative technologies such as genomics, digital medicines, artificial intelligence and robotics to improve services. The recommendations support the aims of the NHS long-term plan and the workforce implementation plan, helping to ensure a sustainable NHS. The progress report was published by HEE in 2020 and, as part of the implementation report, HEE has launched a digital readiness programme to continue to lead on developments in preparing the workforce to deliver the digital future.
On inter-professional working, we want a workforce that is less siloed and more flexible and adaptable, and work is ongoing to take that forward in England. For example, at the national level, we are looking at new skill mixes to meet new service models. Those new mixes could include upskilling existing staff, so that more staff are able to do things that have traditionally been limited to a smaller group of professionals—for example, prescribing—or making better use of the wide range of skills and contacts available to reduce duplication.
At ICS level, national guidance on the ICS people function also set out the expectation that the ICB, working with the ICP, will have responsibility for enabling workforce transformation across the health and care system, including through the use of technology and innovation, as well as for work with educational institutions to develop the local future workforce. Nationally, arm’s length bodies will support and enable ICBs to deliver those responsibilities at a local level. I hope that that highlights some of the work being done under the existing statutory duty in section 1F of the 2006 Act.
Secondly, new clause 28 seeks to place three new statutory duties on the Secretary of State. That, in a sense, is at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was getting at. They are: a duty to ensure a sufficient number of clinical placements for the number of students; a duty to ensure innovation—his new clause outlines greater interdisciplinary working, digital technology and simulation as three examples—is supported and funded in the education and training system; and a duty to consult universities and others on clinical placement availability.
We have carefully considered my right hon. Friend’s new clause, but we do not feel that those additional specific statutory duties are necessary, in addition to the existing statutory duty on the Secretary of State in section 1F of the 2006 Act, which my right hon. Friend seeks to amend. Section 1F sets out that the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that there is an effective system for the planning and delivery of education and training to persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in the health service. Discharging the duty under 1F(1) is largely delegated to HEE through section 97 of the Care Act 2014.
As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said, clinical placements are a vital part of healthcare students’ education and training. Good experience during a placement can lead a student to seek employment at their placement provider. As a result, ensuring that there is sufficient placement capacity remains a priority for HEE in order to meet its statutory duties and ensure that an effective education and training system is in place.
Dr Whitford
Just to clarify, I was not referring to placements as students, which are absolutely vital; I was referring to the two foundation years that those individuals have to do afterwards. Otherwise, they simply cannot function as doctors.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarification, but she illustrates that placements, both as students and in the context she describes, are vital to enable students to understand and learn the reality and skill of their profession. It is also important that placements are rewarding for students.
HEE has successfully worked with education providers and placement providers to ensure there is sufficient placement capacity for the record number of nursing students that we now have. Such work includes payment of the education and training tariff, which pays a contribution to the costs of providing placements. The Government have also supported HEE through the provision of additional funding, enabling it to launch its clinical placement expansion programme. The programme has seen HEE commit £15 million to fund additional clinical placements across nursing, midwifery, allied health professionals and healthcare science in 2021-22. This funding will increase the number of placements offered to nursing, midwifery and AHP healthcare students from September 2021, which was last month, and it will enable HEE to deliver the future health and care workforce in sufficient numbers, and with the skills that the NHS needs.
Before I turn to innovation, I will address two points that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and alluded to by the hon. Member for Nottingham North. First, the shadow minister touched on those who come from abroad via normal immigration routes or as refugees, the skills they have and how we need to make it easier for such people to utilise their skills and work in our NHS. He is absolutely right, and we continue to look at how we can make the process easier. We need to balance that with making sure that we can evidence and reference those skills for the safety of patients and those qualifications, but where that can be done and where those skills are commensurate, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to requalify or go through the necessary safety processes to be able to work in our NHS. The only other thing I would say is that we have to be very careful that any recruitment is ethical and that we are not denuding countries of the ability to utilise the skills of clinical professionals in rebuilding their own countries.
The second point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood was about the challenges posed for maintaining quality, in terms of people going through relevant courses, and for the operation of the cap. I will not criticise any other Government Department, but he highlights the juxtaposition that often occurs between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, or between other Departments where two Departments have an interest in the same policy but different incentives for their policy making. There will always have to be a financial test. There is always a limited budget, and my right hon. Friend highlighted how expensive some of the training courses are. However, it is right to expand the number of medical schools and training places, as we have done—he probably presided over it.
I remember going to the University of Lincoln, when I had just been appointed. Those I met were disappointed that I was not my right hon. Friend, but they were none the less very welcoming to me. The University of Lincoln works very closely with the University of Nottingham, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham North, in setting up a new medical school and drawing on the curriculum and expertise that was already in Nottingham. It is a great example. I very much hope that, when I am not in this Bill Committee, I might be able to go once again to visit the University of Lincoln and perhaps come and see the hon. Gentleman’s local medical school over in Nottingham.
Finally, on innovation, HEE currently works with universities, training providers and regulators on the curricula for the healthcare professions to ensure that they reflect the latest technological innovations. Although curricula are set, as I have said, at institution level, HEE can influence the content by representing the employer voice, to ensure that the training that individuals receive is relevant to what employers need.
In relation to consultation, HEE already works with universities, placement providers and others on the availability of placement providers to assess and ensure that there are the right number and types of placement. As I have mentioned, the number of placements has expanded. That is a direct result of the constructive dialogue and engagement that HEE has with placement providers. At ICS level, national guidance on the ICS people function set out the expectations.
I hope that I have set out that work on the areas highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood is being taken forward—some of it was started by him a few years ago—under the existing statutory duty under section 1F of the NHS Act 2006. Therefore, at this point, we do not think that further specific duties are necessary, but I suspect that, in the further passage of this legislation, we may well return to the sort of themes that we have discussed today.
Chris Skidmore
As I said, I will not push the new clauses to a vote, but I will just reiterate that there clearly is a massive structural supply and demand imbalance. I do not believe that the status quo will be sustainable in the longer term. I do appreciate the Minister setting out the ecosystem as it exists, but I fear that that ecosystem, in the longer term, cannot keep up with the changing demands on the healthcare system and the expansion of the healthcare system thanks to the budgetary announcements today about the amount of money that is being spent. None of this will cut through effectively if we do not have the trained workforce in place to be able to deliver healthcare on the ground. Mention has been made of general practitioners and the shortfall that we are going to see as a result of the demographic and retirement bulge that is going through the system at the moment. These are problems coming down the track, and I would always recommend in policy, as in life, that if we see a problem and know that we are going to have to take a decision, it is better to take the decision sooner rather than later, because the costs will only be less now and greater later on.
I will not push these new clauses to a Division, but I have, Cassandra-like, sent out a warning cry of what will happen in the future if we do not act soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
All the rules and regulations you have all heard four times this week still apply, so we will crack on.
New Clause 29
Health warnings on cigarettes and cigarette papers
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes.—(Mary Kelly Foy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 30—Cigarette pack inserts—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted in cigarette packaging.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging.
New clause 31—Packaging and labelling of nicotine products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
New clause 32—Sale and distribution of nicotine products to children under the age of 18 years—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products to those aged under 18 years, and prohibit the sale of all nicotine products to those under 18.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include an exception for medicines or medical devices indicated for the treatment of persons aged under 18.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under 18s.
New clause 33—Flavoured tobacco products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations remove the limitation of the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes or tobacco products to “characterising” flavours, and extend the flavour prohibition to all tobacco products as well as smoking accessories including filter papers, filters and other products designed to flavour tobacco products.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit any flavouring in any tobacco product or smoking accessory.
New clause 34—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make a scheme (referred to in this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] as a statutory scheme) for one or more of the following purposes—
(a) regulating the prices which may be charged by any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products,
(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any manufacturer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products, or
(c) providing for any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise).
(2) A statutory scheme may, in particular, make any provision mentioned in subsections (3) to (6).
(3) The scheme may provide for any amount representing sums charged by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, for tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(4) The scheme may provide for any amount representing the profits, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, accruing to any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies in connection with the manufacture or importation of tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(5) The scheme may provide for any amount payable in accordance with the scheme by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.
(6) The scheme may—
(a) prohibit any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies from varying, without the approval of the Secretary of State, any price charged by him for the supply of any tobacco product covered by the scheme, and
(b) provide for any amount representing any variation in contravention of that prohibition in the sums charged by that person for that product to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.”
This new clause and NC35, NC36 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 35—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—
(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme under section [Tobacco supplies: Statutory schemes], or
(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.
(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—
(a) record and keep information,
(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with subsection (2);
(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.
(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, the Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”
This new clause and NC34, NC36 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 36—Tobacco supplies: enforcement—
“(1) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of regulations or directions under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.
(2) The penalty may be—
(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million,
(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.
(3) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.
(4) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of provision made under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (3)) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and this section.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40), reading—
(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision,
(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘enforcement decision’ means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—
(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him,
(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,
(c) refuse to give approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer,
(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to the Secretary of State,
and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the decision.
(8) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] or this section.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (2).”
This new clause and NC34, NC35 and NC37 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 37—Tobacco supplies: controls: (supplementary)—
“(1) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] may be exercised by—
(a) making regulations, or
(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the direction concerned.
(3) In this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and [Tobacco supplies: enforcement]—
‘tobacco product’ means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;
‘manufacturer’ means any person who manufactures tobacco products;
‘importer’ means any person who imports tobacco products into the UK with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”
This new clause and NC34, NC35 and NC36 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 38—Age of sale of tobacco—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute the age of 21 for the age of 18 for the sale of tobacco and make consequential amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 and the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to raise the age of sale for tobacco products to 21.
Mary Kelly Foy
The Government’s prevention Green Paper, published in July 2019, included an ambition to make England smoke free by 2030. Admitting that bold action would be needed, the Government promised further proposals in order to finish the job. Two years on, and with less than nine years to go before 2030, we are nowhere near on track to achieve that ambition. Using Government data, projections by Cancer Research UK show that we will miss the target by seven years, and by double that for the poorest in society. Despite the promise of further action on tobacco, there are no measures to tackle smoking in the Bill. That is a major oversight, which my new clauses seek to address.
The new clauses are based on the recommendations included in the latest report from the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am the vice-chair. They set out a range of complementary measures to deliver the smoke free ambition, which will also significantly increase productivity and reduce pressure on the health and care system. Although the smoke-free 2030 ambition applies specifically to England, all parts of the UK have stated an ambition to end smoking, so I am pleased that members of the Committee from Wales and Scotland support the new clauses.
I will briefly run through the new clauses and why they are necessary additions to the Bill. New clause 29 would give the Secretary of State the power to require tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. New clause 30 would allow the Secretary of State to require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted into cigarette packaging, which the Government promised to consider in the prevention Green Paper two years ago. Those are simple, uncontroversial and effective measures that would help deliver the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition at minimal cost.
New clauses 31 to 33 would allow the Secretary of State to close loopholes and regulations that allow tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers to market their products to children and to undermine regulations that are designed to protect public health. New clause 31 would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging that appeals to children, such as branding that uses sweet names, cartoon characters and garish colours.
New clause 32 would give the Secretary of State powers to block a shocking loophole in the law that means that, although e-cigarettes cannot be sold to children under 18, they can be given out for free. There is no reason why we cannot seek to rectify that anomaly today. New clause 33 would give the Secretary of State powers to ban all flavouring and not just that defined as characterising. That term is subjective and ill-defined and has allowed tobacco manufacturers to drive a coach and horses through the legislation.
The Government were required by law to review the relevant tobacco regulations to check whether they are fit for purpose, and to publish a report in May 2021, which they have not done. It is time for them to address these egregious loopholes in the regulations, and the Bill is an ideal opportunity to do so. These new clauses are uncontroversial, and would be of clear benefit to child public health. I will therefore seek to divide the Committee on new clauses 31, 32 and possibly 33.
Following on from those new clauses, we must accept that if England is to be smoke free by 2030 we need to stop people starting smoking at the most susceptible age, when they are adolescents and young adults. There is a real and present danger that must be addressed: new figures from a large survey by University College London found a 25% surge in the number of young adults aged 18 to 34 in England who smoked during the first lockdown. New clause 38 would give the Secretary of State powers to raise the age of sale for tobacco products from 18 to 21. That regulatory measure would have the largest impact in reducing the prevalence of smoking among young adults, as demonstrated by what happened in the United States when the age of sale was increased to 21.
Finally, I want to address the issue of funding. The coronavirus pandemic has meant that the need for more investment in public health is greater than ever before. The Government promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers in the 2019 prevention Green Paper. New clauses 34 to 37 would enable the Secretary of State to regulate prices and the profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers, which could provide funding not only for England, but for the devolved Administrations, with any excess allocated to other vital public health interventions.
I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friends for supporting these new clauses. I hope the Government will engage with these proposals in a similarly constructive manner with regard to the forthcoming tobacco control plan, ensuring that public health is at the heart of any discussions around smoking and tobacco.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously, smoking has increased during covid, particularly during the lockdowns, which is quite depressing after some of the progress made in recent decades. This array of new clauses tries to tackle the issue from different angles. New clauses 32 and 38 relate to the age at which someone can purchase, along with other point-of-sale policies. Those issues are all under devolved control, so I have not got involved in those. However, the policy decisions around manufacturing, flavourings, packaging and so on are all reserved, and all four nations of the UK would agree that the biggest single favour anyone can do for their own health is to give up smoking.
As older people and people who have smoked for many years sadly succumb to the diseases we know are caused by smoking, such as heart disease, stroke and cancer, it is incumbent on tobacco companies to recruit a new generation. That is what ornate packaging and childish flavourings are clearly aimed at doing, and they are therefore completely counter to the policies of the UK Government and the devolved Governments.
This is an opportunity to stake the point, move forward and take action to prevent the recruitment of young smokers into cigarette smoking, which will inevitably cost the NHS—indeed the four NHSs—more, as they deal with the health issues over a number of decades, than is raised by tobacco duty. The Government need to stop looking at what they earn from cigarettes and focus on minimising their use. That is the Government’s stated policy, and these new clauses would take that forward.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for her new clauses and the powerful case she made for them, but also for her leadership in the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, alongside the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know it is a truly impactful APPG and I have always been grateful for my opportunities to go to its sessions to contribute or to listen, as I know Ministers have as well. Reducing smoking and being smoke free by 2030 is a major public health prize. It was a bit disappointing and surprising that there were no tobacco control elements on the face of the Bill, so it is right that we spend a little time trying to change that.
Successive Governments have rightly taken real pride in the reductions in smoking over the past 20 to 25 years. Those reductions have not happened by accident, but through concrete interventions that were sometimes controversial and often challenging at the time, such as the smoking ban, plain packaging and packet warnings—things that we soon afterwards realised were very impactful, and very much the right thing to do. Of course, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire says, we have to view this in the context of covid, and there has perhaps been a bit of backsliding on that progress, but that should drive us not to despair, but to redouble our efforts. I hope we can move things forward in the spirit that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham suggested.
We have to understand that the gains we have made in recent years come with a caveat. Most of the quitting has been done by people from better-off communities, and the benefits have largely accrued to those communities. We are now at the point where smoking accounts for 50% of health inequalities between the poorest and the best-off communities. If we really are serious about levelling up or whatever we want to call it, health is surely a crucial part of that. We know that smoking accounts for half of that difference, so we really ought to be focusing on it.
Reducing smoking ought to be a major project for any Government, because poorer smokers are just as likely to want to quit as their better-off counterparts, and just as able to do so if they have access to good services. However, we have spent a decade cutting those services in general, but particularly in the poorest communities, so high-quality smoking cessation services—which are so effective—have withered on the vine in many of the places that need them the most.
I will now turn to the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, beginning with new clause 29. About one in seven adults smokes. That is about 7 million people, and while health warnings have been displayed on smoking packages for well over a decade, there is evidence that the impact of warnings such as those wane over time. However, the dangers of smoking remain high—between 2016 and 2018, there were 1,167 deaths attributable to smoking in my city of Nottingham alone—so we need to build on the techniques that have worked, with new ones to refresh our under-standing of the dangers of cigarettes to smokers.
There is evidence that dissuasive cigarettes can make smoking less attractive to younger people and non-smokers, and the inclusion of warnings on individual cigarettes, as proposed by new clause 29, is one key way of doing that. Such warnings are already being considered around the world: an in-depth study from France found that warnings on cigarettes increased negative health perceptions, reduced positive smoker image and the perceived pleasure of smoking, decreased the desire to start smoking, and increased the desire to quit. There are therefore signs that such a policy would be impactful.
New clause 30 deals with cigarette pack inserts. Inserting leaflets that contain health information and information about quitting is an effective and cheap way to target existing smokers and help them get support to quit. Those inserts are easy and cheap to implement and, moreover, while the reading of cigarette pack warnings decreases over time, the reading of inserts increases. In Canada, package inserts have been a legal requirement since 2000, and a survey of smokers in Canada found that between one quarter and one third of respondents had read pack inserts at least once in the prior month, and those intending to quit or having recently tried to do so were significantly more likely to have read them. Pack inserts will support and reinforce the impact of other measures that will require more significant investment campaigns to go with them, such as behaviour change campaigns and stop smoking services. They are a really good evidence-based, low-cost addition to such campaigns.
New clause 31 relates to the packaging and labelling of nicotine products. Over the decades, regulation has transformed traditional cigarette packaging, plastering it with warnings and preventing tobacco companies from selling a desirable image of smoking. However, regulations have not kept pace with the less traditional nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. Tobacco companies are still able to sell e-cigarettes adorned with bright colours, cartoon characters and attractive images, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, and I know that e-cigarette shops in my constituency offer vape liquids branded as vanilla ice cream, slushies and cookie dough, all of which appear targeted at young people, and children in particular.
I am enthusiastic about vaping—it still feels like that is an unfashionable thing to say, but I stand by it. I think vaping is a really good way to help people quit smoking and stay quit, and it is a really important part of a smoke-free 2030. However, it should be regulated properly to help make being smoke free a reality. Data shows that restrictions on the branding of e-cigarettes and refills reduce the appeal of vaping to young people, particularly children, while having little impact on adult smokers’ interest in using these products to quit smoking, so, again, it is cost-free.
Dr Whitford
I assume from the hon. Gentleman’s comments that he shares my concern that although vaping is considerably safer than traditional tobacco, as Public Health England reports on vaping show, vaping products still contain nicotine, which is a vascularly active substance. Therefore, we should still be concerned about non-smoking children being recruited on to vaping. We have no idea what decades of nicotine vaping will do to someone.
Alex Norris
I do share that view, particularly around children. Our preference would be for them to never start. There should not be packages with cartoons and child-friendly descriptors to develop a market among children. I think there would be a high level of consensus on that.
In that spirit, new clause 32 addresses an incredible loophole, which I cannot believe anybody thinks is a good idea. If the Minister is not going to accept new clause 32, I hope he will say when the issue will be resolved. The idea that you cannot sell e-cigarettes to children but that you can give them out as free samples to under-18s is quite hard to understand. It is time for us to get hold of this simple loophole, which goes against the spirit of the legislation, which is designed to protect children against nicotine addiction. I hope we can get some clarity, either because the Minister accepts the new clause or gives us a clear picture that we will see action very soon.
On new clause 33, about flavoured tobacco products, it again feels like the market is not acting in the spirit of the laws that have been passed. Flavoured tobacco is designed to make products more appealing, especially to younger people. In May 2020, we banned the sale of tobacco with a characterising flavour such as vanilla, spices and menthol. However, companies have adapted to this legal change with new innovations that skirt the law and provide smoking experiences that replicate flavoured tobacco. I can go to supermarket websites and find “green” branded cigarettes being sold, with many reviews stating how similar the flavour is to menthol cigarettes. I do not think that is in the spirit of the law.
In the year from May 2020, Japan Tobacco made over £91 million in profits from menthol brands. Clearly, the law has not worked as we want it to. Moreover, between January 2020 and 2021, a survey of smokers showed that the smoking of menthol cigarettes has not declined, despite the apparent ban, so I do not think the law is working. This new clause would do a good job of closing that legal loophole. If the Minister is not minded to accept it, I would be keen to know what the Government intend to do instead, because I cannot believe that they want laws that they passed, in possession of full facts, to be worked around in that way.
I will take new clauses 34 to 37 as a group, because they create the same thing: a tobacco control fund, paid for by manufacturers, combined with the regulation of tobacco companies’ profits. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, when the Government announced their smoke-free 2030 ambition, they promised to consider a US-style “polluter pays” levy on the manufacturers, and included an ultimatum for industry to make smoked tobacco obsolete by 2030. My hon. Friend’s APPG has published a very strong option for how to do that. Ministers could lift and shift that very happily and get on with this. There are real benefits to that.
Action on Smoking and Health do some wonderful work, and I am grateful for its support in my work. It estimates that a comprehensive national, regional and local tobacco control programme—in many ways, we have lost that in recent years—to deliver a smoke-free 2030 would cost the UK about £315 million. That would involve adding back lost services. ASH’s estimate for a levy, based on the model the APPG talks about, is £700 million. This could be a “polluter pays” model, and we would have plenty left over to overturn all those poor public health budget cut decisions taken over the last decade. If the spirit of yesterday’s Budget was to try to rewind and erase the lost decade that we have had in this country, this would be a really good place to do that, and I think that is a good deal.
Of course, the EU tobacco tax directive is no longer a blocking factor, so we have complete agency to act in this area and it is in the gift of the Government, so I am very interested to know how far along the Minister or his colleagues are in the consideration, as they said, of this matter, and when we will see some proposals. Similarly, when will we see another tobacco control plan? That is something that everybody, from local government, public services, the private sector, community and voluntary services and all of us in this place, can organise around. The 2030 goal is a common goal. Pretty much everything that we have said in the new clauses are things that we are of one mind on. We can do something really good for the health of the nation, and I hope to find the Minister in action mode on that.
I will finish by referencing new clause 38, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, because I do not want it to look like I have ducked the question. It is important that we actively look at that and consider the evidence. I am perhaps not ready to say that it should be in the Bill, but it should be part of an active conversation in this area and part of a tobacco control plan. I think the Minister may be in a similar place on that, because we know that it is an effective part of the armoury. There are loads of really great things to go at in this set of new clauses, and I hope that he feels the same way.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for City of Durham for giving us an opportunity to debate the new clauses. I had the privilege and pleasure, I think almost a year and a half or two years ago, when I was standing in for the Public Health Minister, of responding to a debate in the House on this subject—I think she was in Westminster Hall responding to another debate. I therefore had the pleasure of listening to hon. Members speaking about the work of the APPG, and this issue more broadly, on that occasion. It seems like an age ago. I suspect that it was only about a year ago, but that is what the last year and a half has done for many of us.
New clause 29 seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement for tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. That requirement is intended to further strengthen the current public health messaging and encourage smokers to quit. The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause. We strongly support measures to stop people smoking and to educate smokers of its dangers, as we have done through warnings on cigarette packs. However, we believe that we need to conduct some further research and build a more robust evidence base in support of such additional measures before introducing them. If evidence shows that that requirement would not be effective, there is a risk that the power would not be used. As hon. Members will be aware—the hon. Lady was right in the point that she made—health is a devolved matter. Therefore such a measure would need to be considered in partnership with the devolved Administrations.
We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. When the hon. Lady winds up the debate on this group of new clauses, she may say, “All well and good, but we’ve been in that place for a while. When will I see it?” I would be surprised were she not to do so. We continue to work on the plan at pace. She will be aware that the events of the last year and a half have, in a number of areas, knocked the existing timelines for producing plans slightly sideways, but we continue to work actively on that. As part of the tobacco control plan that we are working on, we are exploring a broad range of new regulatory measures to support our ambition to be smoke free by 2030. We are reviewing this specific proposal as part of that work, in considering the options for a package of legislative measures.
New clause 30 seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a requirement for manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging. We believe that that power is not strictly necessary as the Department could legislate to do that already under the Children and Families Act 2014, as inserts could be required for public health messaging through amendments to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. It is also important to note that we already have strong graphic images and warnings of the health harms of smoking on the outside of cigarette packs, and the NHS website provides advice for people seeking to quit smoking. That website address is required on packaging under the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016.
The current regulations, the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015, prohibit the use of inserts, as there was limited evidence during the development of those regulations that placing public health messaging inserts inside cigarette packets was more effective than the messaging on the outside of packs. A post-implementation review of SPOT—if I may refer to the regulations in that way to save a little time—is currently under way. It is seeking to assess whether the regulations have met their objectives, and will identify whether there is a need to strengthen them in any way or to revisit any aspect of them, such as the one that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentions. We aim to publish the post-implementation review before the end of this year.
If we were to introduce inserts through regulations, we would need to conduct further research on that. We would need to establish the public health benefit, costs to businesses, impact on the environment from litter and practicalities around enforcement, and crucially build a robust evidence base in support of such measures and their efficacy, along with, obviously, public consultation on them. This is something that we will consider as part of the Smokefree 2030 regulatory plans, but we will wait and see what, in the next couple of months, the published post-implementation review says. Health, as I have mentioned, is devolved, so it is something on which we would need to work with our friends and partners in the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations.
New clause 31 seeks to enable legislation that would make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products. That would include requirements for health warnings and the prohibition of branding elements that are attractive to children. I pay tribute to the work that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, has done in this space. I know that this is not just an issue of shadow ministerial concern for him, but something in which he has taken an interest as an individual Member of Parliament, so I recognise his expertise and knowledge in this area.
We are currently undertaking a post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 as well. The current regulations include requirements on the packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes, along with restrictions on marketing, and they prohibit advertising on mainstream media such as TV and radio for e-cigarettes. Again, we will publish that review this year.
We want to encourage smokers to quit smoking using nicotine replacement therapy and by switching to less harmful products such as e-cigarettes. I take the point made by the hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Central Ayrshire. I share the shadow Minister’s view that if there is a choice between a conventional cigarette and an e-cigarette, I would much prefer people to be smoking an e-cigarette, because it is less harmful. But I absolutely take the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who is, as we know, an eminent clinician, that even if it is less harmful, it is still harmful. The ideal would be that people use neither product, but if it is a choice between the two and a question of getting someone to change their habit, I would much prefer to see them using an e-cigarette than a conventional cigarette. I think that there is consensus on that point across the two Front Benches and, indeed, the SNP Front Bench.
However, we need to ensure that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes. That is the point about the degree of harm: although less, it is still there. Regular youth use of e-cigarettes does, on current evidence, remain very low, at about 2% of 11 to 15-year olds. That figure dates back to 2018, so it is slightly dated, but it gives us a useful data point. However, I do not believe that that should induce complacency in any of us. We need to continue looking at the matter very carefully.
Again, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause and strongly support measures to protect young people. Again, I point to the timing and the need for the post-implementation reviews and for further research and consideration in the light of those when they come forward in the next few months.
New clause 32 seeks to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any nicotine products to anyone under 18, with the exception of the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under-18s. There is already in place, as the shadow Minister alluded to, legislation that prohibits the sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to under-18s; that includes proxy sales. There are also existing powers in the Children and Families Act 2014 to extend the age-of-sale restrictions to include any nicotine products such as nicotine pouches. Therefore, as he said, the new clause is not needed in relation to sales.
New clause 32 seeks to further protect young people from the distribution of free nicotine products to under-18s, but again, we do not have a firm or robust evidence base at present to suggest that that is a widespread problem. The recent post-implementation review of the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, published earlier this year, did not raise that as a concern. I suspect the hon. Member for Nottingham North will say, “Why not get ahead of the game, anyway, with a pragmatic measure?”, and I have some sympathy with that point.
Dr Whitford
With regard to the free provision of e-cigarettes or nicotine substitutes, the provision that could be amended quite simply by referring to where they are being provided through smoking cessation services, as opposed to where someone is buying them and then dishing them out, or is trying to use them to recruit young smokers. Accessing them commercially is quite different from being given them as part of a public health smoking cessation project.
Edward Argar
That is the point I was seeking to make. Smoking cessation services would still continue as normal. The argument from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North—this is where I might diverge from him, not necessarily in intent but in the timing—is that even if we cannot see this as a problem at the moment, we should act now on the basis of principle. His argument is: “Even if it is not happening, why would we let it happen? We should just close the loophole”—I paraphrase, but I think that is his argument. My counter-argument is that it would be appropriate to look at this, but to conduct further research to develop the evidence base further. Beyond that we have—from 2018, for example—more work to do on vaping first. That is essentially the point of difference.
The shadow Minister might say, “I accept that, but I still think we should do it now.” That is ultimately a difference in positions, not a point of principle about needing to look at this. It is about whether to act now or to do further research. That is the only difference, and the research is needed to evaluate the detailed benefits of the new clause. Also, there is the scale of the issue that we might be tackling. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fond of an impact assessment of the costs as well as the benefits. He rightly, as does his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and you on occasions, Mr Bone—
Edward Argar
Except perhaps the proper conduct of proceedings.
Moving on swiftly, new clause 33 seeks to change the current flavour ban, which would of course be the context in which I was referring to proper conduct proceedings requiring proper documents to be published. The new clause seeks to change the current flavour ban, which is based on characterising flavours in cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, to one based on flavours for all tobacco products, as well as accessories used to flavour tobacco products.
The Government are committed to protecting the population from the harms of tobacco. Tobacco for smoking that has a detectable flavour—for example, menthol—has been changed to be more appealing to young people and easier to inhale. That can often result in a lifetime of tobacco addiction. Through the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, we have already banned characterising flavours in cigarettes and hand-rolled tobaccos. That means flavours that are noticeable before or during smoking of the product.
Again, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of the new clause, which would prohibit flavours in all tobacco products and accessories, but it is not clear how a ban on flavours would be enforced in practice, as it would include a ban on flavours that do not give a noticeable flavour to the product. Furthermore, it is not clear how this may be a better option than the current regulations, although the hon. Member for City of Durham might wish to address that point in her winding-up speech. As ever, I will reflect carefully on what she says and then discuss it with my colleague, the Public Health Minister. We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. We are exploring, as I have said, a broad range of additional regulatory measures to support our Smokefree 2030 ambition.
New clauses 34 to 37—which, with your permission, Mr Bone, I will take in one bundle—seek to provide the Secretary of State with a power to enable the introduction of a scheme on tobacco manufacturers, limiting profitability by regulating prices. Tobacco taxation matters are, it will not surprise hon. Members to hear, a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. Although earlier this week I found myself answering an urgent question relating to matters pertinent to Her Majesty’s Treasury, I will not stray into its territory, beyond saying that reducing the affordability of tobacco is one of the most effective measures to trigger smoking cessation. Tax increases are particularly effective among a range of groups of smokers, and therefore this is a key tool in helping to address health disparities and health outcomes associated with smoking.
As part of the annual Budget process, the Treasury will continue the policy of using tax to raise revenues and encourage cessation through high prices on tobacco products. The tobacco industry is already required to make a contribution to public finances, through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. While the Government are open to the idea of the tobacco industry providing additional funds beyond taxation, further consideration of the potential options for and impacts of a scheme, including a robust impact assessment, would be needed. We would also need to consider how such a scheme would be implemented and how it would impact the taxation requirements currently placed on the industry. Such a scheme would likely take a number of years to develop and deliver to ensure that it was effective and robust.
The Department will continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury to assess the most effective regulatory means of making the industry pay for the harm that its products cause to our population, to support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition, including exploring a potential future levy. Our ongoing work has contributed to smoking rates falling to their lowest on record, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, but there is still much more work to be done to protect people from the harms of tobacco.
Finally, new clause 38 would introduce a power to introduce legislation that would increase the age of sale on tobacco from 18 to 21. We have successfully made many regulatory reforms over the past two decades, and the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Measures include raising the age of sale from 16 to 18, a tobacco display ban, standardised packaging and a ban on smoking in cars with children, all strengthening the barrier between young people and tobacco products.
The Government remain committed to our ambition to be smoke free by 2030 and to continue to protect the population and future generations from the harms of tobacco. However, the Government would like to review the evidence base of increasing the age of sale to 21 in more detail—I am probably in the same place on that issue as the shadow Minister. We would like to further assess its full impact on public health, the costs of implementation and how it would be enforced by trading standards. We have not consulted publicly on raising the age of sale to 21 to assess public opinion and consider whether it is the right regulatory measure to take forward to protect future generations. I know it is an issue that the APPG and the Royal College of Physicians have recommended we should consider.
We are currently in the process of developing our new tobacco control plan. We will review all the proposals in that context, as well as the well-researched reports that the APPG has put forward. I suspect the hon. Member for City of Durham will still want to push us on a few of these points—if not disagreeing with the sentiment, then possibly with the speed or the timescale. I will listen very carefully to what she says. I encourage her not to press the new clauses, but I suspect I may be out of luck.
Mary Kelly Foy
I welcome the Government’s commitment to publishing the plan and the consideration of some of the recommendations. I hope we will see that very soon. I will not press the majority of the new clauses, but new clauses 31 and 32 are aimed at children and child public health. I do not think we can wait.
We already have examples of vaping companies handing out free vaping products to 16 and 17-year-olds. There is an example of a 17-year-old woman on a market stall. A third party company came along and offered her vaping products in return for her email address, which was suspicious enough anyway. They do not tell the young person that the products have nicotine in them. There are already such examples.
I went online this morning to see whether I could purchase vaping products. The first one that came up was called the Breakfast Club, which tastes like marshmallow-flavoured breakfast charms. It is a shot of nicotine that goes into the refill of a vaping product. The refill is 15 ml, with a space left at the top for the shot. The Breakfast Club “charms”, which come in pink and yellow, are aimed at young people. When I went to buy some, I was asked if I was over 18; I would just have to click “Yes” for it to be delivered to my door tomorrow.
There is evidence that the longer we wait, the more young people will be hooked on nicotine through vaping products. I do not think we need further evidence. How many more young people will be addicted by the time the plan is introduced? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion, but I will divide the Committee on new clauses 31 and 32.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 31
Packaging and labelling of nicotine products
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—Definition of carers—
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 275 (Interpretation) insert—
‘“carer” includes carers as defined by Section 10(3) and 10(9) of the Care Act 2014; parents of disabled children with reference to Section 97 of the Children and Families Act 2014; unpaid carers of disabled children as in Section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995; young carers with reference to Section 96 of the Children and Families Act 2014; and young carers with reference to Section 63 (6) and Section 63 (7) of the Care Act 2014.’”
This new clause inserts a definition of carers into the National Health Service Act 2006 which includes parent carers and young carers as well as adults caring for adults.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone.
The NHS needs to have a core duty to have regard to carers and to promote their health and wellbeing. New clause 39 would put on a statutory footing the requirement for integrated care boards to collect information on carers and their families, and then to use it to develop strategies to promote their health and wellbeing. This is an attempt to ensure a strategic approach to the need for the NHS to demonstrate that it has considered carers in its policies and practice. In other words, all parts of the NHS would have to think carer.
The new clause would avoid situations arising in which carers had been omitted from consideration, for instance in hospital discharges, by ensuring proper care-proofing throughout the entire NHS. We believe that could help integration. Social care sees carers as an equal partner in care and very much part of the system, but sometimes there is a less favourable experience in the health service.
There would also be benefits to the NHS overall, through improved health and wellbeing, improved satisfaction with services, reduced admissions and readmissions, reduced crisis and reduced need. The new clause would avoid the significant omission of carers in recent guidance and improve the general approach to carers. It would also be good for NHS staff, one in three of whom couple working in the NHS with unpaid caring for family members and friends. Research shows increased job satisfaction when employers recognise carers, and the Minister will know how important it is to improve retention rates.
There is definitely an issue here. Surveys have consistently shown a problem, with 55% of carers saying that they agree or strongly agree with the statement, “I feel invisible to the NHS”. They are often providing more than 50 hours of care a week, which is more than a full-time job, and are essential to the NHS, yet that goes unrecognised. There are a range of other statistics on how carers feel about the recognition of their role; 56% agree or agree strongly with the statement, “Health services and professionals do not share information with me, even if it is essential for me to be able to care”. More than half are not involved in decisions on hospital discharge, two thirds of carers do not feel listened to by healthcare professionals about their willingness and ability to care, and a majority are not given enough information and advice when a person they care for is discharged from hospital to care for them safely. Most carers—60%—say that at the point of hospital discharge, they receive insufficient support to protect the health and wellbeing of the patient, or their own health.
Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, carers have parity of esteem, and an equal right to receive information and advice and to have their needs considered. The Government accept that that is right for social care, so we think it should apply equally in healthcare. The NHS has very few responsibilities towards carers when compared with the social care sector. Carers were left out of the original Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation decision on vaccination, even though they were in the green book. They were completely left out of the White Paper that underpinned this Bill; they were left out of two versions of the “Discharge to Assess” guidance; and they barely get a mention in integrated care partnership guidance—there is one reference in there to unpaid carers.
Several organisations are keen to support the approach set out in the new clause, including the Patients Association and the MS Society. The new clause would serve as an important marker in laying out the importance of carers, and it would help us work towards proper strategies to ensure that their value is recognised and that they are supported.
Turning to new clause 40, carers are mentioned in clauses 5 and 19, but are not defined anywhere. They could in theory include carers of any age. The new clause seeks to ensure absolute clarity about who the term “carer” refers to: it would refer to unpaid carers only—not volunteers or paid staff, but friends and family, commonly, who provide care. This keeps the definition consistent with other legislation, and includes parents of disabled children and, most importantly, young carers, who are particularly vulnerable to being forgotten. Young carers face more health inequalities than other children of the same age, and that persists into young adulthood. Every GP patient survey has shown that it is essential that it is made clear and explicit in legislation that provisions on carers include young carers.
In conclusion, we want to acknowledge the vital contribution that carers make, which can be quantified as running into billions of pounds. The NHS could not function without the daily support of unpaid carers, and during the pandemic the extra caring responsibilities that carers took on stopped the NHS being completely overwhelmed. These new clauses ensure carers’ needs will be at the heart of NHS decision making and polices. That is why we hope the Minister is sympathetic to them.
Edward Argar
New clauses 39 and 40 focus on carers. First, I join the shadow Minister, as I suspect all hon. Members wish to, in recognising and paying tribute to the enormous amount of work that carers, both formal and informal, do. We want to strengthen the system by which carers are supported, and ensure that those receiving care have choice and control over how they access services.
New clause 39 would create an obligation on integrated care boards to collect information, and understand and respond to the needs of carers with regard to their health and wellbeing. The Bill provides an opportunity to ensure the views of carers are properly embedded in integrated care boards. The Bill confers a duty on integrated care boards to promote the involvement of carers, along with those who access care and support, in decisions relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and care. There are equivalent provisions for NHS England-commissioned services.
Furthermore, the joint strategic needs assessment, prepared by health and wellbeing boards, will continue to have to consider the needs of carers, and that will shape the strategy developed by the integrated care partnership and the plans of the ICB. That means the services commissioned through these routes in the area where a carer lives will have considered the impact on carers in that community. Carers UK has welcomed the clauses for recognising
“the crucial role carers play day in, day out supporting their relatives’ health”,
and it says the clauses
“give carers more of the visibility they need within health legislation.”
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister recognise the difficulty in getting unpaid carers to recognise that they are unpaid carers? Particularly during covid, couples may have grown into a caring role without ever thinking of themselves as carers, and therefore they do not seek financial or other support. We need a campaign to try and get people to recognise that they are carers. A project that I was involved in when I was back in the NHS in the first wave used the community pharmacy system to interact with carers who were collecting medicines, and helped guide them to the available support.
Edward Argar
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. There is a huge number of unpaid carers who we know about, and who recognise themselves as carers, but there will be a huge number who, as she says, do not see themselves in that way. They see caring for a loved one as part of their normal life, and as what they do; they do not recognise that they are providing care.
There is also a large, often unidentified, number of child carers. They care for their parents, grandparents and others, but they will not think of it in that way. They just think they are doing their bit to look after mum or dad, or granny or grandad. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the need for all of us—both in government and other Members—to make it as clear as possible that these people are carers and should be able to access support and help. There is support and help available, but people need to understand that they are in that category and are entitled to it. That is a long answer to basically say that I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
We are not convinced that the provisions of new clause 39 are appropriate for the ICB, as a similar duty to that in the new clause is already held by and imposed on local authorities, so it risks causing duplication. The local authority will be part of the ICB and of the ICP, so we feel that the issue is captured.
Carers already have a legal right to an assessment of their needs from their local authority. Local authorities have a legal duty to meet needs identified through a carer’s assessment where the carer is deemed eligible. In 2019-20—the latest figures I have to hand—376,000 unpaid carers in England were assessed, reviewed, and/or supported. However, the number may well be a lot higher than that figure, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
We continue to work closely with stakeholders, care organisations and the wider sector to support carers. We will work with care users, providers and other partners to co-develop more detail on our plans for the reform of adult social care. We will publish further detail of our plans for reform in a White Paper later this year, building of course on the strong foundations of integration we are setting in this legislation. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, would have been disappointed or concerned about me if I had not said that, and would have wondered what was going on.
New clause 40 introduces a definition of carer that includes—this goes to the point to which I have just responded—young carers, parent carers and adult carers. It seeks to bring clarity and to ensure that all carers, regardless of their age or their relationship with the person they care for, benefit from the measures in the Bill related to carers. The circumstances and needs of every unpaid carer are unique. Unpaid carers make a vital contribution to the lives of those they care for, and I know that every member of this Committee would want to put on record a tribute to them. It is important that we continue to work to understand carers’ needs and how to best support them, while reflecting the diversity of carers.
I have already discussed the measures in the Bill designed to promote the involvement of carers. “Carers” in this context should include anyone, child or adult, who cares, unpaid, for a friend or family member who, due to a lifelong condition, frailty, illness, disability, serious injury, mental health condition or even addiction, cannot cope without their support. In seeking clarity and inclusion, it is important that we do not inadvertently exclude groups of carers. The legislation as drafted is based on an everyday use of the term “carer”, and this allows for flexibility and the inclusion of all who provide unpaid care, in any shape or form, to a loved one or friend.
I appreciate, and to a large extent share, the shadow Minister’s intention of strengthening the legislation and seeking to bring clarity, so that those who are entitled to support know it, and can claim what they are entitled to. I want to reassure members of the Committee that we have today heard the concerns expressed about carers. I will take that away and carefully consider the issues, and see if we can continue to address them through the wider work of the Department on carers, and our ongoing discussions with organisations, many of which we deal with as constituency MPs, week in and week out, on their work in our constituencies.
For these reasons, I encourage the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston to consider not pressing his new clauses to a Division, but I look forward to hearing from him.
Mary Kelly Foy
For those who do not know, I should say that I was a carer for my severely disabled daughter for 27 years. Maria died six years ago; she suffered with cerebral palsy. I was very fortunate to be in a local authority that recognised the need for respite for carers. I was lucky enough to have a very generous package of six weeks, and that allowed me to engage with public life, have a social life and just recharge my batteries. However, other local authorities do not give such generous packages; it is a postcode lottery. When carers can no longer look after their loved one and that person has to be placed in social care, the cost to the public purse is huge.
On young carers, the issue is not just the caring role of young children. My children were classed as young carers, and the package they had was to enable them to enjoy social activities with other young people. They felt very left out of normal activities, because I was spending most of my time looking after Maria. It is very important that carers recognise that there is help out there, and help has to be consistent. As we know, local authorities have had their budgets cut massively, so what was once perhaps a gold star service for carers is down to a much lesser service.
A lot of carers I knew did not think they were carers and did not really want anything from the state. They said, “We’re just doing it because this is our loved one, and this is what we need to do.” However, the needs, health and wellbeing of unpaid carers are so important if we want them to continue doing the fantastic job that they do.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for relaying her family’s experience. She has articulated far better than I could why it is so important that we support carers, and young carers in particular.
I have listened to what the Minister said about the new clauses. I think he is keen to support this agenda, and there is clearly quite a lot of change happening in the Department over the next few months. We will keep an eye on how the issue of carers sits within that, and how ICPs work in practice, and will not push our new clauses to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Review of implementation of NHS continuing healthcare by integrated care systems
“(1) Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (quality of health and social care) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 46A insert—
‘46B Review and performance assessments: integrated care systems
The Commission must, each year—
(a) conduct a review of the implementation of NHS continuing healthcare by integrated care systems,
(b) assess the performance of these systems following the review, and
(c) publish a report of its assessment.’”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would require the review and assessment of NHS continuing healthcare systems.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Continuing healthcare ought to be something that we do not need to think about in a truly integrated care system. Hopefully, when the next White Paper comes along, it will address some of our issues with continuing healthcare—no doubt the Minister will tell us whether that is correct.
We all know that continuing healthcare is a huge source of contention between the NHS and local authorities. Arguing about who pays for what is not productive or efficient, and of course it is always the patient who is stuck in the middle. I have numerous examples, as I am sure other hon. Members do, of constituents who have been wrangling, for years after the care was provided, about who is picking up the bill for what. It seems a highly bureaucratic, unfair and at times deeply distressing experience for the families involved.
It has been clear for decades that we are moving into a world where many people will have multiple long-term conditions, with both health and social care needs. The new clause was tabled with that in mind, and with the assistance of the Motor Neurone Disease Association. As one would expect, those with MND often fall into the CHC web. I cannot allow a reference to MND to pass without paying tribute to Rob Burrow and the many other magnificent campaigners who have put the spotlight on the challenges that those diagnosed with MND face. I had the privilege of knowing Rob when he was a professional sportsman, and he has taken equal vigour, determination and courage into this field. He has been an absolute star in campaigning on these issues.
Under the current complex and poorly understood rules, some qualify for free social care—in other words, the NHS pays for it, rather than the local authority—but it is for adults only, and in order to qualify there has to be an assessment by professionals of all a person’s needs. If the needs change, the eligibility can change, and of course there are endless arguments about what the needs are at any particular time. That demonstrates why the integration of care is very important and will probably be more efficient in the long run. Those in receipt of, or possibly eligible for, continuing healthcare should be fully involved in the assessment process and kept informed. Carers, who we have already discussed, and family members should also be consulted. There are the personal experience aspects of the process to look at, as well as the arguments about who pays for what.
The new clause accepts that we cannot fix all these things overnight. It suggests that in some cases someone should be responsible for ensuring that the system works properly in the interests of those with continuing needs. This is all part of the wider application of proper openness, and of transparency being the strongest and best form of good governance.
Clinical commissioning groups have a legal responsibility to meet the assessed health and care needs of every person in their area who is found eligible for continuing healthcare. Their responsibilities are laid out in the national framework and supporting guidance, but I am afraid there is extensive evidence that they do not always fulfil those responsibilities, and that the monitoring of delivery of continuing healthcare is inadequate. In 2018, a Public Accounts Committee inquiry on continuing healthcare found:
“NHS England is not adequately carrying out its responsibility to ensure CCGs are complying with the legal requirement to provide CHC to those that are eligible.”
It also found that
“there are limited assurance processes in place to ensure that eligibility decisions are consistent”,
and that existing measures
“may not go far enough to address the variation in performance”
across CCGs. These findings were echoed in a November 2020 report by the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman, which warned that
“people continue to be seriously let down by failings in the way…healthcare is handled by CCGs.”
Patient organisations, represented collectively through the Continuing Healthcare Alliance, have reported a wide range of significant problems in CHC delivery, including CCGs not adhering to the national framework or associated guidance for assessment and care delivery, leading to significant inconsistency and variation across the country. Not enough data is collected about who receives continuing healthcare and multidisciplinary teams are frequently not used to conduct assessments, which leads to them sometimes being carried out by individuals with no knowledge of that person’s history or their medical condition. Care packages are frequently inadequate to assess needs, particularly when individuals require complex care or specialist care input. There is no effective system or process in place to monitor the quality of delivery across the country, to address that unwarranted variation and to take action when commissioners fail to live up to their legal responsibilities in respect of CHC.
We are seeking to address some of those issues through the new clause. We have what we would describe as an accountability gap, where there is no effective mechanism to monitor delivery of CHC and hold to account those who are meant to be responsible for delivering it. It goes without saying that people in receipt of CHC are sometimes the most vulnerable in the population, by definition, and it is surely unacceptable that a group of individuals continue to be let down by a failing system with no mechanism to identify and address those failings.
We hope that the new clause will address that issue and support better patient experience and outcomes with CHC. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would appreciate some responses from the Minister. The issue is not going to go away, so I would like his thoughts about the future of the whole idea of continuing healthcare and how we best monitor and ensure consistency and compliance throughout the country. Any thoughts on how we can make the system better would be most welcome.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and join him in paying tribute to the work of the MND Association and other campaigners who do so much to bring these issues to our attention, both as individual MPs and in debates such as this.
The new clause would impose a new duty on the Care Quality Commission to conduct a review and assess the performance of NHS continuing healthcare, or CHC, by integrated care systems each year. It would also require the CQC to publish a report of its assessment. Again, as with many of the hon. Gentleman’s proposals, I understand and have a degree of sympathy with the intention behind what he seeks to do with the new clause. It is right that clinical commissioning groups, as they are currently called, are held accountable for NHS continuing healthcare within their local health and social care economy. That will also be the case with the national move to integrated care boards, where the board will discharge those duties and be accountable for NHS continuing healthcare as part of its NHS commissioning responsibilities.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for suggesting that the new clause is, in essence, a probing amendment to highlight the issue, because I am not convinced that it is necessarily the most effective way of doing that, although it certainly airs the issue in Committee. I reassure him that the Government share his view about the importance of ensuring adequate oversight in how health and social care services are delivered, including in this space.
First, by way of some reassurance, NHS England has a core role in overseeing ICBs in the exercise of their functions. The Bill requires NHS England to assess the performance of each ICB every year and ICBs are required to provide NHS England with their annual report, which will include oversight of NHS commissioning and thus, in that context, continuing healthcare.
In addition, as Members will be aware, we have debated an amendment to give the CQC a duty to assess integrated care systems at a system level. The intention is for these reviews to provide the public and the system with independent assurance of the work within the ICS and, in particular, the effectiveness of joined-up working and integration. They, too, will be a valuable way to improve the services provided. The scope would include NHS commissioning and NHS continuing healthcare. We also intend for the CQC to work closely with NHS England, which will be conducting its own assessment of integrated care boards. We therefore think that those are the most effective vehicles for that oversight.
However, I share the hon. Gentleman’s view and suspect that we will all, possibly with a degree of regularity, have constituency cases about continuing healthcare payments and whether the system is working efficiently or otherwise. Local healthcare systems must continue to focus on this and seek to do what they can to make the system as smooth and efficient as possible. We believe that the mechanisms in the Bill are an effective way of doing that, but that in no way implies that individual systems should stop looking at ways of continuing to improve that provision and the mechanism by which continuing healthcare funding is delivered to individuals.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments—it seems that the message has been received. Obviously, if the ambitions in the Bill to improve integration, collaboration and joint working are to be delivered, this will be one area where we would expect to see significant improvements. I have no doubt that we will return to this in future, but I beg to ask leave the withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 42
Alcohol product labelling
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or in future versions of that guidance, display—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,
(b) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption,
(c) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant,
(d) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer,
(e) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to bring forth a consultation on introducing calorie labelling on alcohol products, for which we have been calling for some time, but I do not think there is a need to wait for this to be introduced in order for alcohol products to display the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, health warnings, ingredients and nutritional information, which is what the new clause asks for, mirroring what clause 127 does for food.
As it stands, there are no legal requirements for alcohol products to include health warnings, calorie information or even basic information such as ingredients. I am aware of the research by the Portman Group, which says that nearly half choose to do so. However, it is not quite cutting through. Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming and the associated risks, but many people are unaware of the calorie content in alcohol. About 80% of people are unable to identify the number of calories in a large glass of wine. Furthermore, beyond the most obvious risks of drinking alcohol, many people are unaware of the broader risks. Only a quarter of people are aware that alcohol is linked to breast cancer.
Similarly, despite alcohol’s link to worse pregnancy outcomes and serious lifelong impacts on a baby, one in three people are unaware that it is safest not to drink while pregnant, and it is estimated that 41% of women consume alcohol during pregnancy. That is a serious matter, and the issue of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder is not well known enough in this country. Especially in communities such as mine, I suspect that it has a profound impact on child development, which I know we will talk about shortly. My predecessor, Graham Allen, was a very strong proponent of a national study into FAS, and I echo his call. I really hope that might be something the Minister addresses, because it would have profound outcomes for child development and some of the care services that we might need in communities such as mine.
The public have a right to know what is in what they drink and eat and to make informed choices. I will not go round the bars snatching bottles of beer or glasses of wine out of people’s hands—I could not credibly do that, but I also have not inclination to do that. However, people should have a free and full understanding of the impacts of drinking alcohol and make their own judgments based on that. A recent survey conducted by YouGov found that 75% of people want the number of units in a product on the label, 61% want calorie information and 53% want the amount of sugar to be displayed. Again, this is what people want. Notwithstanding the research on some of the good things that the industry is doing voluntarily, which I pointed to earlier, we are still in a situation whereby that is not happening enough.
The Alcohol Health Alliance did a review of 424 alcohol product labels in London, the south-east and north-east of England, Wales and Scotland, which revealed that 71% of labels did not include the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines. More than one quarter of labels included incorrect or misleading information that was either out of date or from other countries, 72% of labels did not list the ingredients and a majority had no nutritional information. Just 7% of labels displayed full nutritional information including calories, which is what we called for.
Dr Whitford
Many of the labels simply say, “Drink responsibly” or, “Drink aware”, but, as the hon. Gentleman is highlighting, the lack of information on labels introduces quite a complex step of that person having to go and look up the risk of harm or the unit measures. Yet we have just been debating the need to have warnings on cigarettes. Alcohol introduces harm both to the individual and, if they are heavy drinkers, to those around them, and therefore we should be taking this seriously. We have tried to do so in Scotland with measures such as minimum unit pricing, but information to the consumer is the first step.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. I would certainly not talk down including the very broad messages that the hon. Lady mentions; I know that in an overwhelming number of cases that is available, but, as she says, that is not enough. People are conscious of that message and we should keep reinforcing it, but the jump-off point is, “So what? What am I going to do differently, or what do I need to understand differently?” At the moment, we are not helping them in that process.
This new clause, mirroring clause 127, asks the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation to compel the inclusion of this sort of information on products. It is a relatively modest ask, but it promotes informed choice, which in this area would be a very good thing. I do not think we should miss the opportunity to put it in the Bill.
Edward Argar
As has been set out, this new clause would make provision to ensure that alcoholic drinks display the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, a warning intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption, a warning intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption particularly when pregnant, a warning intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer, and a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.
First, let me say that alcohol labelling is an important part of the UK Government’s overall work on reducing alcohol harm. We believe that people have a right to accurate information and clear advice about alcohol and its health risks to enable them to make informed choices for themselves about their drinking. However, we feel that the new clause is unnecessary, because the Government are about to launch a consultation on these matters.
As part of our tackling obesity strategy, published in July last year, the Government committed to consulting on whether mandatory calorie labelling should be introduced on all pre-packaged alcohol, as well as alcoholic drinks sold in the out-of-home sector. The Government have worked with the alcohol industry to ensure that labels on pre-packaged alcohol reflect the UK chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, and the industry has made some progress towards achieving that.
To make further progress, as part of our public consultation on alcohol calorie labelling we will also seek views on whether provision of the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines, which include the various specific warnings that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, such as drinking in pregnancy and the drink-drive warning, should be mandatory or should continue on a voluntary basis. Respondents to the consultation will be able to provide suggestions for additional labelling requirements that they would like the Government to consider, such as nutritional information. As I said, that consultation will be launched shortly.
Clause 127 confers a power on the Secretary of State in England, and on Ministers in the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, to make improvements to and amend or repeal articles of European Union Regulation 1169/2011. This EU regulation currently prohibits mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol that is 1.2% alcohol by volume and above. The passage of this legislation will therefore enable Governments to introduce changes such as mandatory calorie labelling on pre-packaged alcohol labels through regulations.
If a decision is made to mandate those labelling requirements following the consultation, the Bill will support the Government in being able to make the necessary changes through a new power in the Food Safety Act 1990. Consistent with the Government’s obligation to consult on matters concerning food law, before any regulations are made, a consultation with interested stakeholders must take place. Therefore, as there is a statutory duty to consult on introducing mandatory labelling requirements and as work on improving alcohol labelling is under way, we do not believe that a separate clause in the Bill is necessary at this time. I encourage the shadow Minister to be reassured by what I have said and to consider not pressing his new clause to a vote.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Any measure, as with that in the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, again relies on us waiting for consultation. It feels like an awful lot of consultation, which is of course an important part of doing the process right, but we should never confuse it with action. We have spent an awful lot of time in this space, and it feels as if there is a danger that we are into soft-pedalling territory, rather than action territory. Nevertheless, I heard what the Minister said, that it is an active process, so on that basis I will not press for a Division. We will reflect on the issue on the Labour Benches but, widely among those interested in the area, there is a growing sense of impatience. I hope that us giving the Minister and the Government space to continue the process is not confused with us being content that we are going quickly enough—I feel strongly that we are not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 43
Annual report on alcohol treatment services: assessment of outcomes
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—
(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol consumption, and
(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are receiving treatment.
(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would put a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on the spend on, and impact of, alcohol treatment services. Each day in the UK, 70 people die of alcohol-related causes. Alcohol is linked to 200 different diseases and injuries and costs the NHS £3.5 billion each year. Good alcohol treatment is essential to support those with alcohol dependence towards recovery. That is important for individuals and for the collective, because it reduces emergency services call-outs, unnecessary hospital admissions and avoidable deaths.
Despite the importance of treatment, even going into the pandemic, only one in five dependent drinkers were believed to be in treatment—that is 80% lacking healthcare. The incomprehensible and frustrating picture in this country in recent years, between 2016 and 2018, is that more than two thirds of local authorities in England cut their alcohol-treatment budgets, and in 17 of them those cuts were greater than 50%.
Having been a local councillor in that period, responsible for public health in my community, I know that no colleague did that because they thought it was the right thing to do for their community; they did it because the public health grant in this country has been run down over the past decade, which has been an absolute tragedy. Those are the sorts of services that we have lost.
A very visible example comes from St Mungo’s—we all know its wonderful work—which estimates that funding cuts have meant that 12,000 fewer rough sleepers accessed support in 2018-19 than would have done had funding remained at 2010 levels. The covid pandemic has only worsened the situation, leading to significant and sustained increases in the rate of unplanned admissions for alcoholic liver disease. This issue is very important now, in the very immediate term. We need to act.
Owing to resource cuts, however, many alcohol treatment providers have been forced to reduce their offer. A lack of outreach resources leads to people with some of the most complex needs missing out on support, while the reduction in capacity means that many of those at the lower levels, where an earlier intervention would be very impactful, miss out as well. Those with greater dependency are not getting specialised treatment or, in some cases, are not getting any treatment at all.
I strongly believe that the Bill needs to address the importance of alcohol treatment in terms of its funding and impact. Requiring the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the ways in which alcohol treatment services have been supported and funded, and on the number of people requiring treatment and how that need is being met, will keep the issue at the forefront.
The Government’s own alcohol strategy states that alcohol treatment services
“offer the most immediate opportunity to reduce alcohol-related admissions and to reduce NHS costs.”
We also know that for every £1 invested in alcohol treatment £3 is yielded in return, rising to £26 over 10 years. Recovery also yields powerful dividends for families and communities affected by addiction, but at the moment we are going the wrong way in terms of our commitment to this issue. What I am asking for in the new clause, and I think it is a relatively modest ask, is for the Secretary of State to have on an annual basis an honest and candid assessment of the situation in this country, and then to account for the activity that is being taken to meet the need. It would be a very powerful statement that the Secretary of State and the Department have a grip of the issue and are committed to it, so I hope to find the Minister in listening mode.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his exposition of the new clause, which would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to publish an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm. It would also introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice. I join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to St Mungo’s for the work that it does, which I think we would all recognise across the House.
We do not think that a new reporting requirement introduced by the new clause is necessary as significant work is already under way in this area. Outcomes for local authority-funded alcohol treatment services are already published via the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities’ national drug treatment monitoring system. They are monthly and quarterly reports provided at a local authority level, and annual reports at a national level. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities also publishes annual data on estimated numbers of alcohol dependent adults in each local authority in England. Health commissioners can use that resource to estimate the number of adults in their area who need specialist treatment, supporting them to appropriately plan and improve alcohol treatment services.
The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities provides a number of data tools to support local areas to compare their performance against that of other areas, and against national performance. Those tools include the public health outcomes framework, local alcohol profiles for England, and the spend and outcomes tool. With respect to spending, local authorities are currently required to report on their spend on alcohol harm prevention and alcohol treatment on an annual basis to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Part 2 of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs was published in July 2021 and the Government, in their initial response, published on 27 July 2021, agreed to carry forward its recommendations and publish a new drugs strategy later this year.
The review recommended increased transparency and accountability from local authorities on how funding is spent. Although the subject of the review was drugs, the implementation of that recommendation will apply to both drug and alcohol treatment through mechanisms such as an improved commissioning standard, which is currently in development. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister not to press the new clause to a Division.
Alex Norris
I cannot quite accept that answer from the Minister. I understand the significant work that he talks about, and the different places where data is available. Those things tell us what is going on; they do not tell us why, and what we intend to do about it as a country. As a result, I do not think that is delivering for us, and we see that in the very difficult outcomes. On that basis, I am afraid I will have to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Health and Care Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to resume our consideration with you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. The new clause is in my name and those of my colleagues. If we think about the pandemic and the last 18 months, we will have various views on all sorts of things that have gone on during that period, but I think that one thing that we would be of one mind on is how well our nation’s directors of public health have performed in this crisis. They have been incredible, pulling together the local response and bringing to bear their unique combination of training, relationships and local soft power in order to ensure that the local approaches to dealing with the pandemic in aid of the community have been strong ones. I think we would all say that they have done absolutely superbly.
The new clause seeks to codify a little more formally the place of directors of public health in the system. As we are authoring a new system in the Bill, this is no bad time to do that. The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the roles, powers and duties of directors of public health and to put them on a statutory footing. Whatever structures DPHs sit within, their major role—the reason why as a country we need them and why we invest in them as we do—is that they act as an independent advocate for the health of the population, for system leadership and for the improvement of the system for the population. They are already responsible within their area for a broad range of things, such as measurable health improvement, health protection, public health input, planning, commissioning, reducing inequalities and more. There is a strong reason to put them on a statutory footing. They of course provide an independent advisory function for a wide range of organisations, including the NHS. My local DPH is very good indeed. She often reminds colleagues that she is the system’s DPH rather than just the local authority’s. She may well be hosted by the local authority, but her remit goes much broader, and that is a very good thing. Putting DPHs on a statutory footing would recognise the system leadership role that they have.
The new clause would use a corporation sole model to ensure that directors of public health have scope for independent action; it would ensure that special arrangements are made for them, as officers of the Crown, to bring certain things to the attention of the Attorney General and the chief medical officer, and to ensure public health representation on NHS managing, regulating or commissioning bodies where necessary; and it would guarantee their professional independence in these wider functions. In the vast majority of cases across the country, most of these functions and roles are operating very well indeed, but the new clause would give statutory underpinning to that.
Together, these changes would allow DPHs to have influence across the entire place that they work for and across all policy areas, including budgetary and allocative decisions, and ensure that they have a chance to play their part across all decisions being made in the local community that impact on public health. This proposal would hardwire links between DPHs and the NHS public health workforce who enact public health policy. For place-based officials, having strong links with local and regional NHS employees is not only a benefit but a necessity. It would help to strengthen our response to health inequalities and hence the prevention of ill health—we have spoken at length about that during these proceedings—as well as enhancing relationships for emergencies, which we have seen in recent months.
Where this is done best, it is a strong model. I know that some directors of public health have consultants within their local NHS trust. That is something that the Association of Directors of Public Health is very keen on. If the Bill and the direction of travel are about an integrated system, those kinds of integrators are a very good model of doing that.
These are critical roles. We have seen that in challenging times, but in more general times, as we push on in order to have a healthcare system that is more preventive, that closes inequality gaps and which delivers excellent services to our population, directors of public health will be really key players in it, so I hope that this attempt to put them on a slightly stronger and more consistent footing will be welcome.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Ms Elliott.
My understanding, in the light of what the shadow Minister has said, is that one of the underlying aims of the new clause is to ensure that the public’s health is at the fore as we reform the health and care system. I have the utmost sympathy with that an aim
The Government recognise the importance of a robust public health system that works to improve the health and wellbeing of the nation and to prevent disease. That is why we have taken decisive steps to reshape our national public health bodies so that we are well equipped to face future challenges. Furthermore, we agree that directors of public health and their teams should have a crucial role at the heart of the new system.
The shadow Minister is absolutely right to say that although directors of public health are hosted by local authorities, they represent the whole system, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. In our past lives, he and I would have worked with DPHs in our local authority contexts, and of course, as Members of Parliament, we have all seen what our local DPHs have had to do over the past year and a half. I suspect that Members who did not know their local DPH have probably got to know them and their work in the community a lot better, which is no bad thing.
This fits naturally with the strategic emphasis on population health that we expect of integrated care systems. Both the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England have set out in published policy and guidance documents our expectation of directors of public health having an “official role” in integrated care systems. Officials in the Department are working closely with the Association of Directors of Public Health and others to help describe further the place of these roles, the outcomes that we hope collectively to achieve, and the ways in which they can best add value to the system’s impact on health overall.
Although we entirely understand the motivation behind the new clause, I am not sure that it is strictly necessary. It seeks to clarify the roles, powers and duties of DPHs, but their roles and responsibilities are already clearly and accurately set out in legislation and current guidance. The requirement for the recruitment to the role of director of public health, for example, is already clear on professional qualifications, and the registration and regulation requirements are clearly laid out. The new clause may have the effect of reducing the flexibility of the post, although I am sure that the shadow Minister would say that that concern is unfounded.
Furthermore, the current system already provides independence and influence for directors of public health, and that is strengthened by several provisions in the Bill, which includes, for instance, a duty on ICBs to seek advice from persons with the appropriate expertise on prevention and public health, including directors of public health, complementing the existing duty, in the section 6C regulations of the National Health Service Act 2006, for local authorities to provide the NHS with public health advice.
Additionally, we do not believe it necessary to make directors of public health officers of the NHS, as the Bill already provides opportunities for DPHs to link into and influence NHS bodies in their current guise. Integrated care partnerships, for instance, must develop an integrated care strategy to which integrated care boards must have regard in drawing up their commissioning plans. The intended result is to create a plan to meet the health—including public health—and social care needs of the population within their defined geography. That will provide directors of public health with the opportunity to influence NHS commissioning plans to meet wider public health aims.
It is also possible that the new clause would create a number of undesirable consequences—I suspect that the shadow Minister will allay some of those fears in his response. Rather than bringing clarity, the new clause could create confusion and complexity in a system that is already functioning effectively with a clear understanding of the role and how it operates.
The new clause would put a host of prescriptive new requirements on DPHs, including a requirement for them to be officers of the NHS, NHS consultants in public health, and officers of the Crown, while retaining independence of thought and action.
While we certainly understand the motivation of wanting to knit together the system through an individual post, that approach would add a layer of complexity. I believe that it would be challenging for an individual holding that office to seek to balance those complex responsibilities, accountabilities and potentially competing priorities within various organisations. That would also complicate the lines of accountability
My concern is that the new clause is overly prescriptive about the status and nature of the role, which would go against the overall aims of the Bill in terms of permissiveness. Although we hope and expect that directors of public health will act as a nexus for bringing coherence to the local system’s focus on population health, we are not convinced that this level of prescription over permissiveness is appropriate. That reflects a thread of the debate throughout the passage of the legislation on where the appropriate balance should be struck.
Proposed new paragraphs (e) and (h) would weaken the ties that directors of public health have with local authorities. Since the 2012 reforms, there has been widespread consensus that local authorities are best equipped to deal with a wider range of public health matters for their population’s needs. In that context, I pay tribute to local authorities for their role in tackling the pandemic, including those in elected roles. If I recall correctly, the wife and partner of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, is active as an elected councillor in a local authority. Many Members of this House will have served in that role, too, and will recognise what local authority councillors and officers do in that space.
From their home in local government, DPHs have been able to maintain an independent mindset while playing a critical role in improving and protecting the public’s health. Although it may well evolve in future, that system is working, and we have a strong and solid base that is understood by all system players. I therefore encourage the shadow Minister to continue to work with me and others to make that system work, rather than seeking to press the new clause to a Division.
Alex Norris
I certainly did not intend to add complexity; I was hoping for clarity and consistency. Nevertheless, as the Minister says, those roles are currently functioning effectively, so I will not divide the Committee.
I would say to the Minister and his colleagues, however, that we need a real watching brief on this matter, because assuming that the Bill continues its onward journey and establishes those ICS footprints, there will be a range of different outcomes and organisational cultures. The stronger systems will be those in which the DPHs are at the heart of insight and decision making, and the reverse will be a defining characteristic in systems that are not as good. I certainly hope that we consider the Care Quality Commission reviews that were included in an earlier new clause, and any sector-led improvement, as well as the work those systems do to reflect on what they do and do not do well.
One of the criteria for both streams of improvement ought to be what the DPH does, how central they are, and how sighted they are on decision making. As I have said, in good systems that will be good, and in weak systems it will be weak. Those criteria would be a bellwether of how good the local ICS footprint is. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 45
Duty on integrated care boards to have regard to net zero commitment
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 14Z43 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert—
“14Z43 Duty to have regard to net zero commitment
When procuring or commissioning goods and services on behalf of the NHS, integrated care boards must have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040.””—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would place a duty on integrated care boards to have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I will be brief in speaking to the new clause. What we are seeking to achieve is pretty clear: for integrated care boards procuring or commissioning goods and services on behalf of the NHS to have regard to NHS England’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2040.
We can assume that the Government fully support the commitment made by NHS England. We were all transfixed by the goings-on in Committee yesterday, so we may have missed the part in the Chancellor’s statement about investment in net zero and in the NHS, but perhaps the Minister will say a little more on that. I suspect that although he will accept that ICBs should have regard to the overall commitment, he will say that the new clause is unnecessary as NHS England already has a commitment that will percolate down to ICBs. We would say that NHS England can achieve that target only by working through ICBs, which will, of course, have the ability to commission more than £100 billion-worth of services.
We may end up yet again in the realms of the permissive versus prescriptive debate, but the power of public sector procurement is a massive issue, and there is no bigger part of the public sector than the NHS, which is the responsibility of the Minister’s Department. We should be very much on the front foot in using that to deliver the commitment to net zero.
Of course, we have yet to see what will replace the public contracts regulations in Government procurement as a whole. It is hoped that the same commitment to green issues will be in the mix somewhere, but until we know what that looks like, the new clause presents an opportunity to enshrine in law a commitment that I think most if not all Members want to see delivered.
Edward Argar
There is no doubt that the climate emergency is also a health emergency. Climate change threatens the foundations of good health, with direct and immediate consequences for our patients, the public and the NHS.
The NHS accounts for around 4% to 5% of UK emissions, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to highlight the critical role the NHS has to play in achieving net zero. Although I have some sympathy with the intention of the new clause, I remind the Committee of the commitment. The commitment to be net zero by 2040 applies only to NHS direct emissions, such as those from building energy and does not apply to supply chain emissions that are the target of the new clause. While ICBs should and will consider the environmental impact of their procurement, that consideration must go wider than the commitment made by NHS England to net zero direct NHS emissions.
To support that work, NHS England is already leading the way on the agenda through a dedicated programme of work, which includes ambitious targets for achieving net zero for the NHS carbon footprint plus by 2045 and for its direct emissions by 2040. We fully welcome and endorse those ambitions. As part of that programme of work, under the 2021-22 NHS standard contract, every trust is expected to have a green plan. As NHS England has made clear in its guidance on green plans, published in June 2021:
“Every trust and every ICS is expected to have a Green Plan approved by that organisation’s board or governing body. For trusts, these should be finalised and submitted to ICSs by 14 January 2022. Each ICS is then asked to develop a consolidated system-wide Green Plan by 31 March 2022, to be peer reviewed regionally and subsequently published.”
On the question of procurement, the NHS is already publicly committed to purchasing only from suppliers who are aligned with its net zero ambitions by 2030. Earlier this year, NHS England set its road map giving further details on the expectations of suppliers to 2030. That work is supported by a broad range of additional action on NHS net zero. NHS England will publish the world’s first net zero health building standard; it will apply to all projects being taken forward through the Government’s new hospital programme, which will see 48 new hospitals built across England by 2030—I can almost see the slightly cynical smile through the hon. Gentleman’s mask.
I know the shadow Minister will argue that the new clause would give impetus to the NHS to move towards net zero in the work it is already doing. I am afraid I am not convinced that it is necessary, given the substantial work already under way. The NHS is already showing its commitment, backed up by clear plans.
Justin Madders
I wonder whether the Minister’s nickname in the Department is Steady Eddie, given his consistent responses to many of my new clauses and amendments—consistent, but not always correct. It is very important that the commitment is delivered. We are clearly going to have a disagreement about the best legislative framework in which to do that, but I am not going to push this to a vote. It is clearly an issue that all Members are very keen to see delivered.
I am sure that we will debate the new build programme on a number of other occasions—we may get beyond how many new hospitals it is and on to some of the wider issues. It is a matter we will come back to on a number of occasions.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Exclusion of NHS bodies from ability to withhold information requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on commercial grounds
“(1) Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3), insert—
‘(4) Subsection (2) does not apply to information held by NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts except to the extent that subsection (5) applies.
(5) Subsection (2) applies to information held by NHS England, integrated care trusts, NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts relating to another organisation if disclosure of the information would in the opinion of the organisation pose a real and significant risk to the commercial interests of that organisation.’” —(Justin Madders.)
This new clause would prevent NHS bodies from withholding information on commercial grounds unless the information related to another organisation and that organisation considered that its disclosure would pose a real and significant risk to the commercial interests of that organisation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 46 would amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is a recognition that, as a result of the move to integrated care systems, the whole concept of the NHS being run as individual businesses really ought to go. We have already pointed out in our discussions the apparently contradictory duties placed on NHS bodies in this regard. Some consider themselves as quasi businesses and refuse to disclose their business plans or provide information about their business dealings under the Freedom of Information Act. That makes it difficult for staff to understand the precise nature of proposals. I will come to some examples of that later. I have to say that they take their lead from the Government a bit in that respect. As we are no longer in the era of markets and competition, and NHS bodies no longer have to compete with one another, commissioners really do not need to enter into complicated contractual arrangements. So there is not really the need for them to cite commercial confidentiality as a reason not to comply with FOI inquiries. The interests of trusts, the public and patients should be aligned. They should not be subservient to wider commercial interests.
The Minister may say that this is not an issue, that the NHS is already open and transparent and that everything is sweetness and light in the garden. It certainly should be, but we think there are occasions when that has proven not to be the case. It might also be argued that NHS trusts and foundation trusts have to have some protection from FOI requests so that they can conduct their affairs properly when they are properly engaged in commercial activities such as procurement. That might well be the case, but we can illustrate from the experience of trade union colleagues, especially in the case of contracts for clinical services placed with private providers in the outsourcing of facilities to subcos, that the reality is somewhat different. We often hear that the staff representatives hear that the trust they work for is considering outsourcing some service. Of course, these are the staff who carry out that particular work. Rumours and leaks slip out before there have been any discussions with trade unions, but the trust has already made the decision to outsource and starts talks on TUPE transfers before any real dialogue has taken place.
There is a great deal wrong with that approach, given the requirements that we have talked about previously with regard to the NHS constitution. The point here is that, where management have refused to discuss anything other than the results of a decision that they have already made, staff and trade unions often have to resort to FOI to get answers to the questions they are asking. They put in their FOI request relating to how the trust has made its decision to outsource the service. Then they get the reply, “We’re not going to tell you, because it is commercially confidential.” I think the fear of trusts is not that a commercial interest is endangered but that its reputation is going to be damaged. They are not confident about negotiations with staff representatives and know that the cases that they have built are painfully weak and will not stand up to rigorous external examination.
Staff, understandably, are anxious and curious because they know that their terms and conditions are often tucked away in the business case under the heading “Savings”, which is where the debate really ought to be. That is why we never get to the truth of these things. So it is not really an issue of commercial confidentiality. It is about refusing to be open and transparent about the true intentions. This has been well documented with the subco sagas. In around 20 cases, trusts had decided to form subcos to deliver facilities management services. We could look at all the tax implications of that and the ducking and diving that follows, but we are not going to do that. We need to point out that in those cases the subcos are fully owned by the parent trust. There is no intention for them to procure anything, because that is what forming the subco delivers. There is no information or collection of details on bids from other organisations. There is no commercial competition aspect to this at all. In many cases, trusts are asked by the staff to provide the business case for going down the subco road and the answer they get back is, “Well, we are not giving you that because it is commercially confidential.” The trusts may have at least pretended to look at options, and even scored them, to arrive at the decision they have already made, but why is that process secret? Who would receive a commercial advantage from seeing that information? The trusts might argue that disclosure of the financial case might give the bidders information that they could exploit, but if there is a proper competitive tendering process, that should not be an issue at all. Even if it were, the recourse is to redact the numbers in the one or two places where they are most sensitive. The rest of the business case ought to be disclosed, but that is not what happens.
Let us assume for a moment that the trust has made a strong case, as it will have to do under the new provider selection regime. Will the new regime set out disclosure requirements in respect of business cases and so on? Looking at what NHS trusts do, are they actually put at a disadvantage by having to disclose their business case? We know what will be in those business cases, as the Treasury sets out guidance as to what is required, and most of the cases are about a rationale for change. That should not be a secret, and the old Office for Government Commerce set out guidance that covered how FOI requests were to be dealt with during the various stages of a public procurement. That guidance said clearly that business cases can and should be disclosed.
I will briefly address the wider issue of FOI requests. As the Minister may or may not be aware, I am a regular submitter of FOIs to his Department—indeed, all Government Departments and the wider NHS—and I have to say that over the past few years I have been more disappointed than delighted by the responses I have received. Many are rejected for a variety of reasons. It seems I am not alone in that respect: only this week, openDemocracy issued a new report on FOIs, called “Access Denied”, so I think we can all guess what they found. I will run through a few highlights from that report anyway: it said that 2020 was the “worst year on record” for FOI transparency. The Government exploit legal loopholes to deny access to information and, most controversially, the clearing house that openDemocracy reported on last year does not simply advise Departments on their responses, but plays a much more hands-on role, which includes drafting responses to FOI requests. I do not think that is because they want to help Departments to be as transparent as possible, but because they want to help them to avoid revealing the truth. Transparency and a commitment to the principles of freedom of information start at the top with the Department, and it should be leading on this subject.
On a slightly more positive note, there are better examples. There are trusts that work with their staff and even with the wider public and patients. They have open discussions. They do not hide their case; they make their case. If they have to engage in a tender process, they involve staff in specifications, options appraisals and questions to bidders at every stage of the process. If they can do it, why can’t every trust do it? The answer is that trusts can wriggle out of their obligations by using these loopholes in the Freedom of Information Act request procedure, and nobody is able to challenge that. It is time that changed, which is why I ask the Minister to support this new clause.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Elliott. I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend and echo everything he has said. I have spent a great deal of my time in this place looking at the issue of wholly owned companies, trying to stop them from happening and questioning why they are happening. I think I remember sitting opposite the Minister in an Adjournment debate talking about the excitement of VAT rules and tax exemptions, a subject that is beyond the individual ken of most of us, but once we dig into it we find that the mixed messages the Government gave were not very helpful, and that underlying this problem is the culture of secrecy.
We have alluded to why this is so important: we need the openness provided by agenda meetings and locally accountable people—people we can actually talk to about our health services—and setting that culture from the top is really important. Ultimately, this is about patient safety, because once we have a culture in which there is a presumption of denying information and having to jump through hoops to get it, that permeates the entire organisation. That, sadly, is why we continue to revisit problems with patient safety. This issue is therefore really important, and I hope the Minister will look favourably on the new clause.
Edward Argar
I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, that I am not aware of how many FOIs he tables, which is possibly as it should be; it suggests that they are handled in the appropriate way by officials, and not by me. I am sure he keeps officials busy with those requests.
I think we can all agree that transparency and openness are of key importance but—this is where the hon. Gentleman and I may diverge slightly in our views—it is also vital that genuinely commercially sensitive information is adequately protected. Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act recognises the balance that needs to be struck. It exempts from disclosure any information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding the information. It is, however, as he will be aware, a qualified exemption. Merely identifying that the information is commercially sensitive is not enough. The public authority holding the information must weigh up the “genuine public interest” arguments in favour of and against disclosure.
I remind the Committee that there is a robust system in place for testing such decisions. We have an independent commissioner who can scrutinise the decisions, who has the right to see the information in question and who is more than capable of challenging public authorities where he believes that disclosure is in the public interest. Beyond that, of course, those requesting the information have a right of appeal to the tribunal.
There genuinely needs to be a level playing field between public and private contractors, but the new clause would, I fear, place NHS bodies at a disadvantage in some commercial negotiations. It could mean that the NHS was not able to protect its commercially sensitive information, whereas other parties could. I struggle to see how an uneven playing field would benefit the general public and protect taxpayers’ money. I fear that the new clause would also place a significant additional burden on NHS bodies at a time of real strain and, as I have highlighted, there are already remedies in place that meet its stated aim.
I am also concerned about the power the new clause could place in the hands of those conducting commercial negotiations with the NHS. It would be for them, not the public authority, to decide if and when the release of information would pose a real and significant threat. It is difficult to see how the opinion of the organisation could be tested or challenged through the usual route of appeal, as they would not be a public authority within the scope of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office would be assessing an NHS body on the basis of judgments reached by a third party. I also point out that
“pose a real and significant risk”
is not a test used elsewhere in the Freedom of Information Act, and so could be open to novel interpretation by the originator of the material. For those reasons, I do not think that the new clause would achieve in a fair way what the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Justin Madders
I am relieved to hear that the Minister is not personally dealing with my FOI requests. I know he is very busy dealing with all the foundation trust applications in his in-tray. He made some fair points about ways in which the new clause might cause unintended consequences, but we wanted to put on record our concern about the way the Freedom of Information Act has been used by some trusts to avoid proper scrutiny. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South said, this is unfortunately part of a pattern in patient safety issues, and that is obviously something we have discussed in this Committee. I will not put the new clause to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 49
Protection of the title of “nurse”
“(1) A person may not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word “nurse” unless that person is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and entered in sub part 1 or 2 of the register as a Registered Nurse or in the specialist community public health nursing part of the register.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any use of the designation ‘veterinary nurse’, ‘dental nurse’ (for which see section 36K of the Dentists Act 1984) or ‘nursery nurse’.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.”—(Justin Madders.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Justin Madders
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is another Ronseal new clause: it does exactly what it says on the tin—it seeks to create legal protection for the use of the title “nurse”. The title “registered nurse” is protected, but “nurse” is not, meaning that, legally, anyone can call themselves a nurse. Under current legislation, people could operate under that title even if they had no nursing qualifications or experience, or had been struck off. To protect the public, the title should be limited to those, such as registered nurses and dental nurses, who are registered with professional regulators. That would put it on a level with other titles, such as paramedic and physiotherapist, which are limited to those on professional registers.
The issue of the title of nurse not being protected in law has long caused concern to the profession. There are many examples where the title has been abused. We have seen people campaigning for election calling themselves nurses when they were not—I appreciate that that is outside the Minister’s responsibility, but it shows the power of the title, its significance and the risk we are trying to deal with through this new clause.
Earlier this month, an anti-vaccination campaigner who denies the existence of covid-19 told Nursing Times that she planned to continue to call herself a nurse despite having been struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for putting the public at risk of harm. Professor Judith Ellis, chair of the Tropical Health and Education Trust and former interim chair of the NMC, has campaigned for years for protection of the nurse title, and we commend her for her work. She said:
“It is totally unacceptable that when someone in the UK describes themselves as a ‘nurse’, the patient or their relatives have no way of knowing, or indeed checking, if that individual has the knowledge or skills to safely care for them or their loved ones. The title ‘nurse’ needs to be protected.”
Nursing is the most trusted profession in the UK, yet someone ill or vulnerable could trust a person calling themselves a nurse and that person might be nothing of the sort. NHS England’s chief nursing officer, Ruth May, has committed her support to protect the title of nurse in UK law. She said:
“The protection of a professional title provides assurance that someone using that title is competent and safe to practise”,
adding that she is
“committed to doing all we can to strengthen protection of the public.”
I welcome anything the Minister can say about this issue; I do not know whether the Department is considering it, but I have heard rumours that it might be. We have talked on a number of occasions about patient safety, transparency and openness, and this measure would be entirely consistent with those aims. Can the Minister give us some comfort or confidence that we might be able to make some progress on this important issue?
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I rise to support what the shadow Minister said. It has indeed been an area of contention for many years not only that nurses who have been struck off can use the title but that the title is used loosely. We touched on the same issue when we talked about regulation and about aesthetic procedures: when these titles of doctor, and particularly nurse, are used the public have a perception of what that means. They assume it means a registered and regulated practitioner, and therefore the patient is given far too high a degree of trust in the person simply from the use of that title. It should be a protected title.
Edward Argar
As has been set out, the new clause would protect the title of nurse by making it an offence for a person to use that title unless they were registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I entirely understand the intention behind that; as the shadow Minister and the SNP spokesperson have set out, a title such as that comes at any time, but particularly after the past year and a half, with an expectation of the qualifications and duty of care that sit behind it, and brings with it trust. Therefore, it is extremely important that that trust is not in any way abused. I am sympathetic to the intent behind the new clause; I know it is something my constituency neighbour the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), has also spoken about in recent weeks.
The title of registered nurse is protected in law but, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston rightly says, the title of nurse itself is not, given its use across multiple professions, including dental nurses, school nurses, veterinary nurses and so on. As the interim chief nursing officer for Scotland has pointed out, the impact of any change on other groups currently using the title of nurse outside healthcare settings would need to be carefully considered. Quite rightly, the interim CNO said that there is an issue, but it needs to be carefully considered and calibrated.
I am sympathetic to the principle that protection of the title of nurse would be seen as a positive step by the profession, stakeholders and the public. I am also aware of concerns about the potential for confusion in this regard, as highlighted by the petition brought forward by Alison Leary, and I can see the benefit in providing reassurance and clarity to patients and professionals. Given the complexities inherent in making “nurse” a protected title, we need to do further work and gather further evidence to better understand the case for change and the potential impact on some of those other perfectly legitimate professions that use the title.
Dr Whitford
I recognise that the term is also used as highlighted—for example, “nursery nurse”. However, veterinary nurses and dental nurses are registered professionals, and therefore that is outwith the group we are talking about. I can see that there needs to be discussion around the more social “nursery nurse”. School nurses are also nurses.
Edward Argar
They are, but my point was the difference between registered nurses and just using the title “nurse”. The question is how, in legal terms, we catch that. I accept the hon. Lady’s point that they are all registered nurses. However, we have to make sure that, in drafting, the legislation would not inadvertently catch people who may well be perfectly legitimately registered, as she says, but could potentially be caught if we did not draft or consider the measure carefully.
Dr Whitford
I recognise the importance of drafting, but obviously the new clause is seeking to establish that the title “nurse” could be used only by nurses registered with the NMC, dental nurses and veterinary nurses—so that it could not just be used as a title by someone who is not on the register.
Edward Argar
I go back to the point I made: there are some perfectly legitimate professions—where there is an expectation and understanding of what they do and a respect for what they do—who use that title, as she alluded to. That is why we have to think a little more carefully about how we might do that, and whether it is the most effective way of assuring and enhancing patient safety.
Protection of title is only one part of the protection regime; it is important, of course, but there are other parts. We should also look at prosecutions of protection of title offences, which are extremely rare; we need to look at that in the context of how that might be enforced. Part of the reason for that is the availability of offences such as fraud by false representation that carry more substantial penalties including custodial sentences, which, I suspect, are sometimes the mechanism used to prosecute in such cases. Depending on the context in which the title is used, other legal action could be taken against a person, including criminal proceedings, civil proceedings and employment disciplinary proceedings, particularly where the person used the title to gain work or employment. There is also the opportunity to prosecute employers who hold their staff out to be regulated healthcare professionals when they are not.
To give some succour to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, we are committed to reviewing the protection of titles as part of the ongoing Government review of the regulation of healthcare professionals.
Edward Argar
Just one more sentence, then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before I sit down.
We need to gather further evidence to better understand the case for change and whether it represents the most effective and enforceable way to promote patient safety. However, I will certainly carefully consider the proposals he has put forward, in that context, as will my colleagues. I have a few sentences left, so I will give way while I can.
Justin Madders
The Minister is sympathetic and has highlighted why the issue needs careful consideration throughout the debate. Are we able to get a formal commitment to public consultation on the issue from the Minister today?
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister pushes me a little further than I can go today. However, what I can say is that I have considerable sympathy with what he has said. I will undertake to look at what he and the right hon. Member for Leicester South have said in the context of that review.
Any subsequent change from that review and from consideration thereof probably sits most effectively, in terms of legislative reform, as part of the reform programme for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is most effectively taken forward via secondary legislation under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. In the context of that review, and any secondary legislation flowing from it under section 60, we will look at what he set out in his new clause.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for his positive comments. We were probably pushing our luck with getting a formal commitment from him, but it sounds like we are probably as close as we are going to get to progress on the matter without pushing the new clause formally to a vote. We will keep a close eye on the issue and will, no doubt, come back to it if progress is not made in orderly time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 50
Access to innovative medicines and medicinal products review
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake and publish a review of the use by the NHS of innovative medicines and medicinal products.
(2) The review must—
(a) conclude before 31 December 2022;
(b) consider ways to improve the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products within the NHS in England.
(3) The review may consider—
(a) the creation of a specific pathway to assess medicines and medicinal products for rare and less common conditions;
(b) improvements to the way in which patient and clinical experience is accommodated when considering the adoption of new medicines and medicinal products.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the assessment and use of innovative medicines and medicinal products, and to consider how to improve access to medicines and medicinal products for people with rare and less common conditions in particular.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would put a helpful requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the assessment and use of innovative medicines and medicinal products, which I believe would be a positive step forward. Medical innovation, including new drugs and cutting-edge treatments, produces life-saving and life-changing results, and those benefits are particularly felt by those with rare and genetic diseases.
Dr Whitford
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman shares my concerns after leaving the European Union about access for clinicians, and indeed their patients, to the European reference network, which helps to provide advice and treatment and has co-ordinated research, through the European Medicines Agency, into these rare, often childhood, diseases? They can be studied much more easily in a population of 500 million than one of 60 million.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that contribution. It is axiomatic that, if we are talking about diseases that affect small populations in this country, growing the field of people who are affected so that we can undertake better research, trials and treatment can only be a good thing. I hope that the Minister might touch on how he is ensuring that we are not disadvantaged in that way. When we add up the nearly 8,000 diseases, we are talking about 3.5 million people—one in 17, so one person on the Committee, basically—who will in their lifetime be affected by a rare disease. So actually they are not so rare at all. It is really important that we are meeting that group of people’s needs, but access to medicines and medical devices remains a problem, which is why such reporting for rare conditions is so important.
At the moment, approved medicines are available for only 5% of rare diseases and, even where licensed treatments exist, patients can face an uphill battle in accessing them on the NHS. I am sure that most of us will have at least one case of a young constituent who desperately needs medicinal cannabis to treat epilepsy. There is a political consensus that this is the right thing to do, and we ought to do it. That has been a settled matter for at least three years now, but frustratingly it is still not getting through, and that is a pattern across rare diseases. Perhaps that points us to the conclusion that the current assessment process is not quite accounting for the unique challenges presented by rare and ultra-rare diseases.
I do not think that the Minister will want to be drawn on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods review, because we are in that process. I have spoken in multiple debates about my enthusiasm for NICE, and its processes and expertise, but clearly something is missing. My working theory is around evaluation. Again, if we have a small patient population, the data is noisy and there are higher degrees of uncertainty due to the small sample sizes. That leads us nicely to the point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about trying to grow those pools. At the moment, we are unable to get first-in-class treatments in many cases, which we should want to do something about.
Herein lies the squeeze, as the medicines for rare and ultra-rare diseases are often assessed by processes that were designed for drugs with larger target populations. The statistics are a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, which creates a severe disadvantage. The purpose of the new clause is to get the Secretary of State to report generally on how we are ensuring that we are world leading and meeting population need, and then to drill down within that on how we are ensuring that the system for rarer conditions is fit for purpose. As I say, I am conscious that the methods review is ongoing, but I hope that the Minister might at least give us a sense of the general policy direction in this area, and what we might look to do differently in the future.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for this discussion. I reassure members of the Committee that the Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that UK patients, including those with rare diseases and less common conditions, have access to the most promising medicines and medicinal products. Hon. Members raised some important points, which I will seek to address in my broader response to the new clause.
The first part of the new clause asks the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the use by the NHS of innovative medicines and medicinal products. We have existing reporting tools at our disposal to monitor that. Indeed, NHS Digital publishes a bi-annual report on the use of innovative medicines by the NHS in England, known as the innovation scorecard. The latest publication from June 2021 shows that uptake of over 70% of the NICE-approved medicines reported in the scorecard has increased over the past 12 months. I can assure the Committee that we are committed to further strengthening these innovation metrics and to improving our understanding of the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products in the NHS.
The accelerated access collaborative—the umbrella organisation overseeing the health ecosystem—is also continuing to develop the AAC scorecard that monitors the impact of the programmes, and is scoping the development of an overarching innovation metric.
In the second part of the proposed new clause we seek a review to consider ways to improve the use of innovative medicines and medicinal products in the NHS in England. As I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the accelerated access review, an independent review published in 2016, set out detailed recommendations to increase the uptake of proven and cost-effective new treatments and technologies in the NHS. The report identified several strategic barriers to UK health innovation, including fragmentation across the system, alongside a lack of horizon scanning and insufficient commercial flexibility in NHS England.
Following publication of the AAR, the Government, the NHS and partner organisations have worked closely together to increase the use of proven and cost-effective medicines. The Government established the accelerated access collaborative to bring together leaders from across the life sciences sector to tackle the barriers to the adoption of innovations in the NHS. It is delivering real success. Last year alone it helped over 300,000 patients to access proven innovations, resulting in 17,000 fewer hospital admissions and 140,000 fewer days spent in hospital, delivering more than £100 million of savings for the NHS. That is thanks to AAC programmes, such as the rapid uptake products programme, which offers bespoke support to NICE-approved innovations to address the systemic barriers that inhibit their widespread use across the NHS, and the early-stage support programme, which supports categories of new, potentially highly effective products that need support through the regulatory and approvals process.
However, the Government acknowledge that there is more we need to do to tackle unwarranted variation in the uptake of clinically proven and cost-effective treatments. This is why we recently published our ambitious life sciences vision, which was co-developed with industry following extensive engagement with stakeholders from charities, patient interest groups, the NHS and the devolved Administrations. The vision lays out our priorities to improve the use of cost-effective innovation, including new medicines and medicinal products within the NHS, with a particular focus on identifying and addressing any unwarranted variation in uptake. The AAC will continue to be at the forefront of that agenda, and work is under way to consider how to best utilise regional, local and frontline delivery partners to support the adoption and spread of proven innovations.
It is important to note that there are already mechanisms in place to assess and support medicinal products for rare and less common conditions. The innovative licensing and access pathway—ILAP—brings together the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the NHS and the devolved Administrations to provide tailored, joined-up regulatory and access guidance to businesses. The scheme began operating in 2021, and over 50 applications for innovative medicines have been received so far.
NICE also plays an important role in ensuring that patients have access to promising new innovations, including for patients with rare diseases. Through its technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies programmes, NICE makes recommendations for the NHS on whether new medicines represent a clinically effective and cost-effective use of NHS resources. Where NICE makes a positive recommendation, NHS England and Improvement and clinical commissioning groups are under statutory obligations to fund the technology. It is our intention to extend that obligation to integrated care boards.
Patients with rare diseases are already accessing effective innovations through the NICE programmes. For the drugs for rare diseases—known colloquially as orphan drugs—appraised since 2013, 87% of NICE’s technology appraisal recommendations and 100% of its highly specialised technologies programmes recommendations were positive. That is a significant and positive outcome for patients. However, I am aware of the long-standing challenges, which were alluded to by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, where evidence relating to a medical technology is uncertain. That is a particular challenge regarding rare diseases where, as he said, the population is small.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his full answer. He mentioned reviews around the innovative medicines fund and NICE methods, and it is probably wise for us to let those processes play out before looking at anything else, so I do not intend to press the new clause to a Division. However, I will leave the Minister with some final thoughts on NICE methods.
First, I hope there will be a parliamentary moment for us to engage with that and have those conversations. The process has independence for a very good reason, but we should still have views on its overall direction. I want to flag ahead of that—with a focus on combination therapies, particularly in the cancer space—that we are understanding better every day how different therapies used together can have an incredible aggregate impact on the individual.
I do not think it is breaking any great state secrets to say that the problem is that the way we pay for drugs in this country is an imperfect market. Do not get me wrong; it has found a balance, but one problem is that the treatments are—funnily enough—often priced to what we can afford to pay for. That is fine until we need to combine two different treatments from different providers, when it becomes really challenging to work out how to apportion that. If we are to achieve the innovations that we need, particularly in cancer, we will need a good answer to come out of that review.
I hope that the Minister has a watching brief on that review, and that when NICE has finished, we can have a good conversation about the outcome to ensure that it supports the goals that I think we all have. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Duty on integrated care partnerships to prepare and deliver a Best Start for Life strategy
“(1) The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) After section 116B (substituted by section 20 of this Act) insert—
‘116C Duty on integrated care partnerships to prepare and deliver a Best Start for Life strategy
(1) Each integrated care partnership must—
(a) assess the needs of expectant parents, infants and young children in its area;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy to improve outcomes and reduce inequalities among expectant parents, infants and young children;
(c) consult parents and carers in the area when developing the strategy;
(d) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.
(2) Local authorities, NHS bodies and other relevant partners must—
(a) cooperate on delivering the strategy;
(b) have regard to the strategy when exercising their functions.’”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require each Integrated Care Partnership to prepare and deliver a “Best Start for Life” strategy, in cooperation with relevant bodies.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I cannot quite remember on what day this new clause was submitted; it is towards the end of the new clauses but not at the very end, so that probably carbon dates it by 10 days or so. Nevertheless, we had some news in this space from yesterday’s Budget. We are in the strange situation of having seen effective early intervention services, such as Sure Start, take a clobbering for a decade, and then getting paid back pennies on the pound and being supposed to feel grateful for it. We are not. Nevertheless, there needs to be a commitment at all levels of Government and local government—and, in this case, integrated care boards—to have a real focus on early years.
The first 1,001 days of a child’s life, from conception to age two, are crucial. Getting things right in this period can determine what kind of life a child has and their health, wellbeing, cognitive function and psychological make-up. During those early years, a baby’s brain grows rapidly, and it doubles in size within the first year of life. As is so well established, child development is influenced by early experiences and environment, which means that it is so important to ensure that little ones in our communities get what they need—care, nurture and support—while ensuring that they are protected from neglect, harm and stress.
As the Government’s strategy in this space recognises, getting things right impacts not just on the lives of our children, but on our entire society. By ensuring that children get what they need at an early age, we can target some of the big issues that we have talked about for the last two months in this Committee: physical and mental health issues, pressures on the NHS, crime and antisocial behaviour, and drug and substance abuse. So much of that leads back to the early stages in life, and this is a matter of established science. There is no doubt that in this country, we are not very good at doing something about that. Six months or maybe even a year ago—time flies—we had a fantastic Westminster Hall debate, led by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who chaired a very good review in this space.
There is barely a leaf’s width of disagreement on this issue between right hon. and hon. Members of all political persuasions. The common diagnosis for why we have not made more progress is that we know that such things save public services money in a generation’s time, but we cannot demonstrate that in a cashable savings way that passes Treasury processes. I am afraid that I did not see anything yesterday to suggest that that fight is yet being won, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues are doing everything in their power to argue for early interventions. Frankly, I would argue that for pretty much all Members present, the bulk of the returns will come when someone else is sitting in our seats and our roles are somebody else’s dreams, but that should not stop us acting, because it is so significantly in the national interest and in the interests of our communities.
There are huge inequalities. The most basic health statistic is that a child born in my city will live for seven fewer years than one born in the City of Westminster—never mind the yawning chasm of almost twice that in healthy life expectancy. That is the result of smaller inequalities that all add up to different life paths: family income, financial stress, smoking and alcohol use, and access to care and services. We know that the 1,001 critical days from conception are the moment to offer really good-quality support. Families receive support from a wide range of services, including maternity, health visiting and early years, and perhaps children’s social care, mental health and paediatrics.
As well as the inequalities, there is complexity. I have mentioned five different organisations with five different uniforms, five different organisational plans and five different organisational cultures. Someone has to pull that together. We have been told throughout proceedings on the Bill that that is exactly what integrated care partnerships are here to do, so let us put a responsibility on them to do so, and to have a plan. I dare say—the Minister might say this himself—that they are more than likely to want to do that themselves, and that would be a very good thing, but I do not think we can allow variance. This should be important for everybody and all footprints should be doing it, so that the first 1,001 days are given priority in new health systems. That would have a significant impact on the long-term health and wellbeing of our country.
Dr Whitford
I rise in support of the new clause. It is important to shift the narrative from what is often a structural focus on the NHS, and catching people when they fall, to looking at wellbeing and population to allow people to be healthier and live higher-quality lives for longer.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North mentioned the slowing down of improvement in life expectancy and the variation in life expectancy, but the bigger issue is the failure to improve healthy life expectancy. The 20 years of unhealthy life expectancy faced by many across the UK, particularly in more deprived areas, put pressure on the NHS, and we have seen that come home to roost over the last decade.
A lot of those health issues, or unhealth issues, are laid down in childhood. I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for health in all policies, which conducted an inquiry into the impact of child poverty. A figure from the Faculty of Public Health that has stayed with me is that the UK loses 1,400 children a year as a direct result of poverty, including by immature birth, small birth weight, foetal alcohol syndrome, fires, road traffic accidents, alcohol and drugs, violence and suicide. That is the number of students in a large secondary school, and if the roof of a large secondary school were collapsing every single year, we would do something about it.
Often, the time to do something about that is in the 1,001 days from conception forward, as the hon. Gentleman said. That means looking at maternal health and nutrition, which is why the early years collaborative in Scotland led to the Best Start grants to mothers and children at birth, on entering nursery and on entering school.
One internationally used measure on the health of our youngest children is infant mortality—death perinatally or in the first year. In 2014, England and Scotland had the same rate of 3.6 per 1,000 live births. In Scotland, we have managed to drive the rate down to 3.2, but in England, it is currently at 3.8. In some poorer areas of the UK, the rate is worse than in parts of the global south and the developing world. That is a brutal statistic.
We talked yesterday about maternal and infant deaths, but this also relates to the attainment gap and other issues faced throughout life by those who struggle in childhood. Investing in early years saves money in the long term. That might be the pitch to the Treasury: if we gave more children a decent start in life, fewer would struggle in the education system, fewer would struggle to get jobs, and fewer would be trapped by addiction or caught in the criminal services system. Instead of picking up the pieces later through the NHS or other public services, surely we should be investing in the best start in life for all our children.
Edward Argar
We believe that the creation of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships represents a huge opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to ensure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of expectant parents, parents, infants and young children.
We acknowledge that new clause 51 is intended to ensure that the needs of expectant parents, infants and young children are expressly considered by ICBs and ICPs through the development of a tailored strategy. We are working on bespoke guidance, which will set out the measures ICBs and ICPs should take to ensure that they will deliver for babies, children and young people. That will cover the importance of the ICP integrated care strategies having measurable objectives for babies, children and young people.
The strategy must also set out how assessed needs for the area are to be met. The Department is working with NHS England and NHS Improvement and the Department for Education on the drafting of this bespoke guidance, and we will work with stakeholders in the upcoming months on refining the guidance prior to publication.
As per our general approach to the Bill, although we are clear about the statutory functions that will be conferred on ICBs—as they are currently on clinical commissioning groups—including on children’s safeguarding and special educational needs and disabilities, when it comes to implementation, we want to provide local areas with the flexibility to determine what will work best for their systems. We fear that over-prescribing system approaches in the Bill will make it harder for systems to design the approaches that will work best in their areas. That is why we believe the wording, as currently drafted, is appropriate.
Alex Norris
The point that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made about the UK losing 1,400 children a year is sobering. Whatever comes out of the process that the Minister mentioned must to be different from what we have today, or we will keep repeating that mistake. I shared the hon. Lady’s view about the pitch to the Treasury, but we will have to demonstrate that planning cycles in this country are mature and flexible enough to reflect the fact that not everything can be delivered, and show immediate returns, before the next general election. It is a challenge, and we will have to do better in that space. I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and he addressed my concerns very well. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Plan for implementing recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices review
“The Secretary of State must, within six months, publish a report containing a plan for the implementation in full of the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices review that have hitherto not been implemented.” —(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the implementation of any remaining recommendations from the IMMDS report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In February 2018, the noble Baroness Cumberlege was asked to carry out the independent medicines and medical devices review into the experiences of people—generally women—who had been treated with Primodos, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh implants. In very many cases, they had to battle for decades to be heard. They were gaslit, belittled and ignored at every turn. Some of the ways in which they were treated were just astonishing, and so upsetting. However, through that report they got their deliverance. They were vindicated: what they said had happened to them had happened to them—even though they had not been believed—and it should not have done. Acknowledging the pain that had been caused to these families was a big start in helping them come to terms with what they had experienced.
The excellent review team set out nine ways in which things would be made better, or at least a little bit easier, for those people now, and to try to prevent future incidents. Those nine recommendations should have been accepted in full. Instead, we have seen from the Government a pattern of accepting things that I suspect they were already keen to do, but otherwise taking the families for a long walk when it comes to the harder and more significant things that the Government clearly do not want to do. In aggregate, it has become a refusal to do right by these families, and that is a really poor decision.
This new clause seeks to attend to that by saying that within six months, the Secretary of State must publish a report containing a plan for the implementation of the recommendations in full. Of the nine, only four are being implemented in full and, frankly, that is not good enough. I am pleased that there has been an apology, and the families were too. I was also pleased to see legislation for a patient safety commissioner. We were lucky that the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 was in front of us at that time, because it gave us a moment to introduce that and a devices database, which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I pursued during proceedings on that Bill. Those things have a bit further to go, but they were significant, as were the promises of cultural reforms at the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. We will wait to see meaningful change there. With the remaining five recommendations, there has been a mixture of in-principle acceptance, partial acceptance and, in some cases, outright denial. I do not think that is good enough, and the new clause seeks to change that.
These are the bits that we are still missing. Recommendation 3 calls for:
“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices”.
The Government responded that they did not accept that. The problem is that families are therefore left to rely on conventional civil and legal routes. Those are expensive and long, and who do the families sit against in the courtroom? Very big companies with very big legal teams, so there is a significant imbalance. The whole point is that, as recommendation 3 goes on to state:
“The Redress Agency will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systemic failings, rather than blaming individuals.”
That would have been really significant, but we do not have that. Instead, families are left stuck in the court system for as long as they can stick at it.
Recommendation 4 states:
“Separate schemes should be set up for each intervention—HPTs, valproate and pelvic mesh—to meet the cost of providing additional care and support to those who have experienced avoidable harm and are eligible to claim.”
Again, the Government do not accept that. These families meet exceptionally challenging needs day after day. Some have lost their house; some have had failed relationships; and all struggle with mental health, or certainly distress, as a result of what has happened, and we are not doing enough to help them. This should have been done, if not on day one, at the very first possible moment for support, rather than us expecting them to fall back on the conventional system, as they did. What have they gained by their vindication?
Recommendation 5 states:
“Networks of specialist centres should be set up to provide comprehensive treatment, care and advice for those affected by implanted mesh; and separately for those adversely affected by medications taken during pregnancy.”
The Government accept that only in part; it is particularly with regard to valproate that those affected will not get those centres. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s justification for that. I understand that valproate is different, in the sense that its use is ongoing in certain situations where that remains medically appropriate. However, the lack of specialised knowledge is a real issue. If there is not specialisation, we need a real sense that there is a universal step change in knowledge and experience in this area to give us greater comfort.
Recommendation 8 states:
“Transparency of payments made to clinicians needs to improve. The register of the General Medical Council (GMC) should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors”.
That is very basic. There were relationships between clinicians and big drug companies that were unknown to the families when certain treatments were suggested. The Government accept the recommendation in principle, but will not use the General Medical Council model, preferring to go practice by practice. That is big mistake. Our constituents can go to one easy, obvious place—our website—to find out our exact financial interests if they have concerns or just want to know them. We ought to be able to do the same, through the GMC, when it comes to doctors. Again, there is an unwillingness to move quickly enough to resolve these issues.
Finally, it remains surprising that the Government have not availed themselves of recommendation 9. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response on this point. It states:
“The Government should immediately set up a task force to implement this Review’s recommendations. Its first task should be to set out a timeline for their implementation.”
Of course there should be a taskforce, including families and the broader aspects of the state, to do that. Again, the Government say they accept the recommendation in part, but the reality is that they have no plans to establish an independent taskforce. There is a patient reference group, and we of course support its work, but it is not in control; it is not at the table. The problem is that these things were done to families; they had no agency and no say. The solutions that come out of this cannot follow that same model. Once again, families are having things done to them, rather than being worked with.
I meet representatives of these groups frequently, as I know colleagues do. I like meeting them. These are good people who have been through incredible things and have extraordinary dignity and courage, not to mention that they are brilliant campaigners. They are probably sick of seeing me, and I would rather see them in happier circumstances. When I ask them what is next, they say that they are campaigning again. They campaigned over many years to be listened to, and were proven right in the most absolute terms, but they feel they have to campaign again to get the justice that should flow from that report and from their vindication. What an extraordinary demonstration of how we have let them down. They fought for too long. It is time that we stood up for them and did right by them by implementing the recommendations in full; otherwise we fail them again. I hope to hear of significant progress from the Minister.
Dr Whitford
I support the new clause. For a surgeon, knowing that an operation that they were trained to carry out, and performed in good faith, has caused harm is one of the worst things that can happen. I remember how I felt in the mid-1980s when we began to realise the impact of contaminated blood. It had a huge impact on how I operated. I used special diathermy techniques to avoid blood transfusion in all elective circumstances, and that is something I carried on throughout my time doing breast cancer surgery.
In this case, there may well have been doctors who were dealing with device companies and so on—that regulatory declaration is absolutely needed—but there will be a much greater number of surgeons who were using a device that was licensed and was given to them as the correct, safe device to use.
I find it shocking that although the report was commissioned by the Government, they have accepted fewer than half of its recommendations. The others directly relate to patients who have suffered harm, whether that is the women who had vaginal meshes inserted, or the mothers of children who were harmed by the use of Primodos or sodium valproate.
Sodium valproate is still an excellent anti-epileptic and will not disappear, but it is not a matter for specialist centres. It is so widely used that it is critical that within primary care and on product boxes it is made clear that women who are looking to conceive or who are of child-bearing age should not be left on Epilim; that should be discussed with them right from when they are young teenagers, so they can think about the impact later on.
The recommendations that have not been accepted are not to do with reorganising licensing, or a yellow card system; they are all recommendations that relate to women. That is really disappointing. The redress for them—the setting up of specialist centres to try to repair the damage as far as possible—is what is not being provided. The Government should look at the fact that those are the recommendations they have skirted around and not accepted. These women and the children affected have gone through enough.
Edward Argar
It is quite right that we articulate once again the suffering that was the genesis of the review. The hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Central Ayrshire spoke with passion on the issue. We are talking about procedures that had a dreadful impact on individuals and their families.
The Government recognise the effect that the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, and the lived experiences behind it, has had on all the women and children impacted, and their families. That is why, on the day after the review was published, the Government issued a full and unreserved apology on behalf of the health and care sector for the time it took to listen and respond.
I am grateful to Baroness Cumberlege for all the time and effort she put into her report. As hon. Members will be aware, that sentiment was expressed at the time by the Minister responsible for responding to the report, who is now of course the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
The Government published our response to the review on 21 July this year, after carefully considering each of the review’s nine strategic recommendations and the 50 actions for improvement in greater depth. Our response set out an ambitious programme for change that, at its core, is focused on improving patient safety.
The Government accepted the vast majority of the strategic recommendations and actions for improvement. I reassure the Committee that we are committed to making progress on all accepted recommendations at pace. That is why, in our response to the review, we committed to publishing an update on our progress in implementing the accepted recommendations 12 months after the initial response. I know that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House will rightly vigorously continue to hold the Government to account on that. I reassure them that the Government take very seriously our responsibility to implement the accepted recommendations at pace.
Many of the recommendations will introduce large-scale changes to patient safety, and we have a duty to get their implementation right. I hope it will encourage hon. Members to hear that the Government have already made strong progress on implementing many of the accepted recommendations of the review. I will turn to those in more detail, because I think it is important that we update the Committee and the House.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for colleagues’ contributions. The comments of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire presaged what the Minister said: yes, the Government have been able to do the more strategic aspects of this, but they have done half a job. The half they left out relates to people who have fought for so long just to get a little support, and recognition that they have been badly wronged in a way that significantly changed their life. They really do not ask for much—just a bit of support. It is not a nebulous or open-ended ask; it is just for what was in the report, and that does not seem too much to me.
The Government have been in defensive mode for a long period on this issue, but I desperately hope that they do not think they have done the job, because they really have not. I also hope that they do not think these women will go away, because they absolutely will not, and a lot of right hon. and hon. Members in this place want to help them and give them a platform from which their voices will be heard. A good way to act would have been through the new clause. With that in mind, I intend to press it to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a fitting follow-up to new clause 52, in the sense that the theme of the report was that, yes, dreadful things happened, but—as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said—largely with a complete lack of knowledge among clinicians, who were just following the guidelines, as they were supposed to and had been trained to. A common theme beyond that is that this happened to women, and when women tried to express their concerns, the system was not geared up to listen. Instead, the response of the system was to write them off—some of the name calling will probably not amaze us, but it should.
The new clause seeks to ensure explicitly that local care boards take into account the views of women on reproductive health. High-quality reproductive healthcare should be accessible and individualised at each stage of a woman’s life, from puberty and through the years of menstruation to the menopause and beyond. This is something that we will discuss tomorrow through the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). She will put the case well, I have no doubt.
The system should enable women to decide whether, when and how often to have children by informing them about, and providing easy and timely access to, the full range of contraceptive methods. Maintaining good reproductive health and wellbeing has profound and positive long-term effects for women and wider society. However, at the moment, inherent system fractures in the commissioning and delivery of reproductive healthcare services mean that many women are left struggling to access basic reproductive care, including contraception and gynaecological cancer screening.
The impact of the current situation is stark. Almost half of British women have experienced poor sexual and reproductive health, and that figure should give us pause. We know that since the Health and Social Care Act 2012—again, this is something in that Act that we should want to change—reproductive healthcare has been compromised by a lack of strategic prioritisation and prevention, a deeply fragmented commissioning landscape, and of course that ongoing theme of significant cuts to public health, which in this case include a 14% real-terms reduction for sexual and reproductive health services. Again, that has been felt more by poorer communities, and all those factors have resulted in gaps in the reproductive care pathway, creating disconnected and disjointed care for women. For example, in many areas of the country, women are not able to access a fitting for an intrauterine device—one of the most effective contraceptive methods—or cervical smear tests in a similar healthcare setting, meaning that they have to go through multiple invasive exams in different settings. Of course, it is important that those tests take place, but we should seek to make it the easiest process that it can possibly be.
Women approaching the menopause are not able to access treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding at community clinics or GP practices, because many are not commissioned to provide that service or lack the funding or trained staff, resulting in those women being bounced around the system while living with obviously debilitating conditions. This Bill is an important moment to tackle long-standing structural challenges in reproductive healthcare. If we are truly moving towards greater integration and collaboration within the healthcare system, this is a really good chance to implement holistic women’s reproductive healthcare services at a regional and local level. Through listening to women and integrating care around the needs of the individual, rather than the institutions, we can deliver holistic care across the breadth of reproductive healthcare.
I know that there is a broader duty in this Bill for integrated care boards to promote the involvement of their patients and carers in decisions about the provision of health and care services, as well as having regard for inequalities. This new clause builds on that by wiring in engagement with women, because it is not happening. Again, if we just keep doing things in the same way, we will get the same outcome, so this is an opportunity to design a healthcare system for women that listens to women and builds in accountability. That will help ensure that reproductive healthcare pathways fully meet the needs of those who they are meant to serve, which would be a very positive outcome.
Karin Smyth
I rise to support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. He is absolutely right that this new clause follows neatly from the previous one, because I am in no doubt that if women were more involved and more listened to and had more power within the healthcare system, the debacle around vaginal mesh would not have got so far, and we would not sadly still be in a state where the recommendations have not been implemented. This is about power, listening, and having a voice in the system with regards to reproductive healthcare planning.
In the Chamber last week, I said regarding my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East’s menopause revolution that when we worked on a women’s health strategy in the late 1980s, we barely mentioned the menopause. We were looking at reproductive rights even then, and for those of us who have followed this issue over a period of 30-odd years, it is deeply worrying to see where we still are. Again, this comes back to very basic patient care. I will certainly be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East tomorrow to start the menopause revolution, which is going terribly well. We are hoping for serious improvements in healthcare over the coming years, and this new clause highlighting reproductive healthcare planning is really significant for the voice it should give to women at this important stage in their lives.
Edward Argar
It is possibly lucky for the Government that the hon. Member for Swansea East is not on this Committee, because she can be extremely persuasive. In my role at the Ministry of Justice, she managed to get a number of things out of me by persistent campaigning.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate today. Women’s reproductive health remains a priority, and it is vital that women’s voices are listened to, particularly when it comes to their own healthcare. That is why we are developing a new section of the reproductive health strategy, which will of course sit alongside the developing women’s health strategy. They will both seek to address issues relating to women’s reproductive health.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady may be about to agree with me; she is welcome to do so.
Dr Whitford
When we debated vaginal mesh, Primodos and valproate in the Chamber, one of the big issues that came up—I certainly spoke about it—was the issue within medicine, with doctors. What work will be done with Health Education England and medical schools to ensure that young student doctors, and doctors in early training, recognise this terrible dismissal of women’s concerns about all aspects of their health? The menopause is a classic, but there are many others.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. We need to get across, loud and clear, to our future clinicians almost right from the start—from their training and early education—the message that everyone’s health concerns matter equally, subject, obviously, to clinical decision making. I hope and believe that HEE and others will engage with that process in the context of the women’s health strategy. We do not want it to be a document that just sits on a shelf, or want it to look at issues in a siloed way; it should look at them across the piece. Over many years, there have been strategies on particular aspects of health. In the strategy, we seek to bring together a whole range of factors, so that we can look at how women interact with the healthcare system, and how to meet their needs holistically.
We want to maximise the independence of ICBs, so that they function in the way that best suits the needs of their patients and their organisations. We are therefore keeping their legislative obligations proportionate; that brings us back to a debate that the Committee has had multiple times about the permissive nature of the legislation. I agree that appropriate representation is essential in healthcare planning. I fear that the new clause is overly specific and not necessarily in keeping with the obligations on ICBs set out in clause 19 on general functions.
The Bill already puts obligations on ICBs that will help to ensure that relevant groups are fully represented and consulted in decision making. In particular, ICBs will need to ensure that they have taken appropriate advice from a broad range of those with professional expertise. As the work of ICBs will inevitably cover reproductive health, that requirement ensures that relevant groups are included in this work. Furthermore, as we discussed in the opening sittings of the Committee, local areas will have the flexibility to determine any further membership of the ICB beyond the minimum for which we have legislated. That discretion will allow local areas to ensure appropriate representation.
On working in partnership with the non-profit sector and local community groups, I recognise the essential role that those organisations and groups play, and agree that they should be involved in strategic decision making where appropriate. Each ICB and their partner local authorities will be required to establish an integrated care partnership. We expect the ICP to bring together organisations from across health, social care and public health, and representatives from wider areas where appropriate. That could include organisations from the voluntary and community sector. The ICP will be tasked with promoting partnership arrangements and developing a plan to address the health, social care and public health needs in its area. As that will include reproductive healthcare needs, we would expect relevant local groups to be represented. The ICB and local authorities will have to have regard to that plan when making decisions. That will enable more joined-up planning and provision, both in the NHS and by local authorities, which will enhance the services that people receive.
Existing and proposed duties already address the concerns underlying the new clause and ensure effective public involvement. We have concerns about imposing additional duties on individual services. Our approach enables local NHS bodies, supported by national guidance, to decide how best to involve patients and the public in the planning of commissioning arrangements, and in developing and considering proposals to change them, so we are not convinced that the additions in the new clause in respect of reproductive healthcare are necessary.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Many people will be looking with great interest at what happens tomorrow. She spoke about the menopause not having been on the political agenda for such a long time. I think that that has changed, and not before time, so we are all very much looking forward to what will happen.
We have tested the Minister on the permissiveness point quite a lot, so by this, the 22nd sitting of the Committee, I think it is possibly an established fact, and I do not intend to divide the Committee, but I do want to come back on what he said about the sufficiency of the duties as drawn. When we have pushed for individual plans for each ICB—say, on inequalities, on the first 1,001 days and on drugs and health—there has almost been a sense of, “Well, of course these bodies will want to do that. It will be their local decision, but of course the evidence will drive them to do that.” I do not think we can say, on women’s health, that that is an “of course”, because we know that actually, historically, it can be very much an afterthought.
The thought that I might leave colleagues with on this issue is that we are having a growing conversation in this country about misogyny, and one of the things that you will hear men say a lot—I have said this myself, because I mean it—is, “We have to hold one another to account for the things we say and the way we act.” I completely agree with that. In that spirit, we have to understand that if a lot of the basic reproductive healthcare things that we are talking about today happened to men, we would be doing them in McDonald’s drive-thrus. It is as simple as that. Therefore, if we are to have an honest conversation with one another about misogyny in this country, it is that sort of thing that we mean. It is not always about pointing fingers and blaming, or policing jokes, which I think is important; it is actually about saying that services are different because these things do not happen to us and we should be more mindful of that and should want to change. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 54
Enhanced data collection
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 14Z43 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert—
“14Z43A Duty to develop data collection systems
Integrated care boards must—
(a) develop single whole-system IT systems across the whole of their integrated care system with the explicit purpose of supporting data collection and sharing;
(b) prioritise the use of those data systems for streamlining patient pathways;
(c) establish mandatory standards for patient-initiated follow ups; and
(d) use the data systems developed under paragraph (a) to report on a regular basis performance against improving patient outcomes in line with the standards established under paragraph (c).””—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires ICSs to develop digital data collection and sharing systems, and use them to track performance against mandatory standards, with specific regard to patient-initiated follow ups.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
I keep going, Ms Elliott. Again, you can perhaps file this under gluttony for punishment. I do not intend to talk for very long about this new clause. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us comfort easily on the point of new clause 54. It is just to develop the point about data one last time before our carriages turn into pumpkins.
A specific part of the Bill deals with data, and we had some very good conversations at that point. I will not repeat any of that. I will explain what I am chancing my arm at in new clause 54. I talked previously about systems and the problems with systems talking to one another. Here, we are asking integrated care boards to develop
“single whole-system IT systems”.
That is perhaps at the top end in terms of what should be aspirational and what is in fact achievable, but I do want to pursue the point a little.
Data is critical, as we have said before, in driving improvements. NHS England’s own website talks about the need to use it to improve services and decision making, to identify trends and patterns, to draw comparisons, to predict future events and outcomes and to evaluate services. But to do that, we have to have some sense of consistency. I will not repeat the arguments around the General Data Protection Regulation—we had those at length—but that shows the challenges if we do not get it right.
Going down to ICS level, if we are going to have a system that really does harness all the information, we need systems that talk to one another. Therefore, the prescription in proposed new subsection (a) is that it is a single system. As I have said, that is the stretch target. What I am hoping to get from the Minister is a sense of where he thinks this will land. Is it the same organisations using the same systems but trying to find a new way to do them, or will there be some new, novel approach to how we support footprints to do that? It is an established fact that data is going to be really important to local systems, so we want to give them the fairest wind to make the best use of it that they can.
Dr Whitford
On new clause 54, I just want to speak to proposed new subsection (d)—the use of data to assess performance against outcomes. Between 2009 and 2019, there was really no significant national audit of quality of breast cancer services in England, even though some of that audit had been carried out in previous years. Part of that was due to the fracturing of the system from the social care Act. There might be only one breast unit within an area, and quality was left to commissioners. How can commissioners measure whether a local breast unit is treating people properly or achieving the aspired-to targets?
In Scotland, 19 of the commonest cancers are audited; I was involved in developing the breast cancer standards in 2000, and they have been updated many times since. They are assessed annually with an annual peer review conference, where clinicians will openly discuss the challenges they face and therefore will share the solutions many of them have come up with. The clinical things that we know will affect the survival and outcomes of our women in the future are all set as national benchmarks. It is important that, while data would be collected locally, it is benchmarked against national standards.
The Getting It Right First Time project was restarted in England a few years ago but, to my knowledge, although the Getting It Right First Time for breast cancer report was completed at the end of 2019, I have not seen it published. That appeared to be due to the election in December 2019; perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the breast cancer GIRFT report has now been published, when it might be published and what other GIRFT reports have come out.
The problem is that, even if that report were published now, two years after its completion, it would largely be based on data from 2018, and therefore clinicians would shrug their shoulders and say, “Out of date.” It is important that data is used in a timeous manner to audit as quickly as possible, so that the audit loop can be closed and services improved. Having led on this process in Scotland, I saw the change in standards between 2001, when we began the first assessment, and 2005, and it is an incredibly satisfying, not frightening, thing for clinicians to see year on year the quality of care delivered by their unit driven up. There must be national standards, but local audit.
Edward Argar
This new clause would create an obligation on ICBs to develop system-wide data-sharing IT systems. It would also require them to set and report on targets linked to outputs from this system. I recognise the importance of effective IT systems for the efficient delivery of services and for holding systems to account. However, we must set that against seeking to maximise the independence of ICBs to function in a manner that best suits the needs of their patients and organisations.
The obligations set out in the Bill are designed to establish a framework which ensures that ICBs fulfil their functions properly, while granting them as much discretion as possible in how they do so. The provisions in the Bill strike the balance between conferring the necessary duties and functions on ICBs to operate safely and effectively, and avoiding being overly prescriptive in any specific area. By placing too many statutory duties on ICBs, the risk is that innovation and locally led solutions may be stymied and focus may be taken away from their primary function of arranging for the provision of health services.
Of course, ICBs should be committed to improving patient pathways. However, we believe the duties already set out in the Bill are sufficient to ensure this happens. Further to the requirements set out in the Bill, there are already specific relevant provisions elsewhere in legislation. Section 251B of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 places a duty on certain health or social care organisations, which would include ICBs, to share information about an individual with certain persons where this will facilitate the provision of health services or care to the individual and is in the individual’s best interests.
In addition, there is significant work already under way on data strategy, which will have a direct impact on ICBs. The data strategy “Data Saves Lives: Reshaping health and social care with data” sets out commitments to transform the way that data is used across the health and care system, giving patients control of their health data and enabling staff to save more lives through improved care and treatment. It recognises that ICBs will help the NHS to join up data and delivery more seamlessly, working side by side with local government, third sector partners, and the wider health and care system to address long-term challenges, and sets out that each ICB will be expected to use digital and data to drive systems working, connect health and care providers, improve outcomes and put the citizen at the heart of their own care.
The data strategy was published in draft for engagement in June and a final version will be published by the end of the year. It sets out a range of commitments to ensure that health and care professionals have the data they need to provide the best possible care, that local and national decision makers are supported with data, and that data for adult social care are improved. It also includes commitments on every ICB having shared care records in place, and commitments in relation to data sharing between NHS organisations and supporting the underpinning infrastructure in order to ease data sharing.
Alex Norris
This is not something that we will be able to resolve with top-down prescription, but I have made the point that I hope we will do everything we can at a national level to model best practice, to demonstrate best practice and to give our local systems access to best-practice systems, because that will be very important. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 56
Domestic violence training for GPs
“(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 83B (inserted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 of this Act) insert—
“83C Duty concerning domestic violence and abuse
(none) Integrated care boards must ensure that specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes are universally available to all general practitioners.””—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause adds a requirement for specialist domestic violence and abuse programmes to be available universally throughout general practice.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Domestic abuse is an issue of significant interest across this place. We know that two women a week are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales alone. As we mentioned the other day, a quarter of women will experience domestic abuse in the course of their lifetime, which has devastating effects. It impacts on both the physical and mental health of survivors and their children, and it has a terrible cost in general to everybody, including a financial cost.
New clause 56 would impose a duty at a local level to ensure that GPs have access to specialist domestic violence and abuse training. It is something that would be very welcome, and we are proposing a duty for integrated care boards to provide that. GPs are a credible point of contact for people in violent relationships. Some 80% of women in a violent relationship seek help from health services first. In some cases, that is their only contact. Training for GPs is vital to ensure that such contact is of the best possible quality. A study of women in violent relationships in the Netherlands found that 50% of women who did not speak to their GP about the matter would have done so if the GP had been in a position to approach it. Moreover, 50% of the women who did talk to their GP did so because they hoped to be referred on, so they wanted to have a high-quality conversation with someone who knew the system.
From my time prior to this place and my experience in Nottingham, I have a lot of enthusiasm for the IRIS programme—the identification and referral to improve safety programme. A trial carried out by Bristol University found that the training programme led to up to six times more women receiving the help they needed, and that it boosted the number of referrals to specialist domestic violence agencies. After IRIS training, GPs reported being better able to assess domestic violence risks and a greater awareness of services, while 99% of service users felt listened to and 87% felt safer.
The evidence is that such training works. This is of course not the way in which we should write a new clause, but I am saying that IRIS should be universal or something like it. I would leave the “something like it” to the provider market and to commissioners but, in general, the principle is that all GPs should have training so that they can understand and act on domestic abuse and have the right resources to provide support and make skilful onward referrals, so that the system can wrap its arms around an individual who is trying to get out of an abusive situation. That would be exceptionally important for such women, and I hope the Minister will have some thoughts about how we can get to a universal, IRIS-like level of engagement with our GPs.
Edward Argar
The new clause would require ICBs to provide specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes to all GPs, with the aim of strengthening the health response to domestic abuse and improving links between the NHS and voluntary sector support for victims. We have concerns about the new clause, which is why we cannot accept it, but I hope that I can set out to the shadow Minister my reasoning.
Domestic abuse, as we discussed yesterday when considering another proposed new clause, is a terrible crime, and it can have a devastating impact on victims and survivors. It is also important that we remember that children are often just as much victims as the victims themselves, through the experiences that they have of domestic abuse and domestic violence. The Government are clear that there is absolutely no excuse for abuse. Tackling domestic abuse and supporting victims, survivors and their children is a key priority for Government, now more than ever.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the forthcoming domestic abuse strategy will help to provide a whole-system approach to protect and support victims and their children. The measures in the 2021 Act seek to promote awareness by introducing a statutory definition of domestic abuse, and to recognise children, as I alluded to, as victims in their own right, in order to protect and support both, tackle perpetrators, transform the justice response, and drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse.
The 2021 Act also sets out the convening of local domestic abuse partnership boards, with healthcare representation. We recognise the key role that healthcare services play within a whole-system approach to tackling domestic violence. Healthcare services must identify signs of risk and harm, enable victims and survivors to come forward, and provide timely integrated care and support. We know how important it is that statutory agencies and professionals properly understand and react to domestic abuse. However, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that placing in the Bill a formal duty on ICBs to ensure that specialist domestic violence and abuse training, support and referral programmes are universally available to all GPs is not necessary.
General practice is delivered by multidisciplinary teams, rather than just GPs, and existing Care Quality Commission registration requirements include a review of practices’ safeguarding processes. In addition, NHSEI’s ICS people guidance sets an expectation that ICBs will foster learning and continuing professional development. Going further, the Bill, in proposed new section 14Z41 of the National Health Service Act 2006, imposes a duty that each ICB
“must, in exercising its functions, have regard to the need to promote education and training for the persons mentioned in section 1F(1)”
of the 2006 Act.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Again, I break the convention that Whips do not speak, because this issue is close to my heart. I listened carefully to the discussions yesterday, and to what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, and the Minister have said on the new clause, but if we looked at domestic abuse as a disease or virus, given the fact that it kills women, it kills people in their homes, and has mental and economic impacts that affect people’s overall health, we would certainly ensure that GPs were trained on it. Why can we not do the same thing with domestic abuse?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. In part, the reason is because this is sadly not a well drafted new clause. It is very narrowly drafted to GPs, not recognising the multidisciplinary nature of how healthcare is delivered in GP practices. I suspect that we all have correspondence from constituents—whether happy or unhappy—going to doctor associates, practice nurses and others. That is one of my key concerns, but let me articulate a little more what is already being done. I see where she is coming from. As I mentioned yesterday, I was the Minister with responsibility for victims of domestic violence, and of crime in general, when I was in the Ministry of Justice, so it is something that I am very familiar with. It is about raising awareness not just with GPs, but within the police and a range of agencies. My challenge, just before she intervened, was partly about the way the new clause is drawn, but let me articulate a little further our views on it. I am keen to do so before the business possibly collapses early in the House, and we have to adjourn in order that I can respond to the Adjournment debate.
Section 1F of the 2006 Act defines a wide group of people, covering persons who are employed, or who are considering becoming employed, in an activity that involves or is connected with the provision of services as part of the health service in England. That duty on ICBs would already cover general practitioners, but it goes wider. I appreciate that the new clause goes beyond training, so I will also discuss the support and referral elements that the hon. Member for Nottingham North talked about.
The NHS provides care and support to victims of domestic abuse through a range of healthcare services. This response is centred around ensuring that healthcare professionals are trained to spot the signs of domestic abuse and those at risk; to make safe and sensitive enquiry of the issue; to know where to refer people to get further support, and to know when and how to share information appropriately with colleagues and other organisations.
All NHS staff must undertake annual mandatory safeguarding training, which includes focus on domestic abuse. NHS England, NHS Improvement and Health Education England are reviewing mandatory safeguarding training for all health professionals to ensure that they are fully equipped with the key skills, knowledge and principles to protect all citizens. The Government published an online domestic abuse resource for health professionals and have developed a number of training modules with the Institute of Health Professionals, the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
From 2018 to 2020, the Department managed £2 million of funding for the domestic abuse pathfinder programme, which created a model health response for survivors of domestic violence and abuse in acute, community and mental health services. The pathfinder toolkit was published in 2020 as the result of emerging promising practice at our pilot sites, coupled with the expertise of the pathfinder consortium of specialist domestic abuse organisations, to encourage best practice across the health system. Pathfinder has given us a model for our response to domestic abuse in healthcare. It is a model for integrated, joined-up and trauma-informed care and support, with healthcare settings and the voluntary sector working together.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, the Department of Health and Social Care has also funded the IRIS programme, to which I pay tribute. IRIS is a training, referral and advocacy model to support clinicians in better supporting patients who are affected by domestic violence and abuse, and to increase the awareness of domestic violence and abuse within general practice. IRIS is recognised by the DHSC as good practice, and via the National Institute for Health Research we funded a study that demonstrated the effectiveness of the IRIS programme at scale. I am delighted to note that the study won the 2020 Royal College of General Practitioners research paper of the year award.
I am proud that the Government have championed the building of that evidence base. I believe that it would not be best or appropriate, however, for the legislation to require local health and care systems to adopt specific programmes. Indeed, such detailed requirements would reduce local health and care partners’ flexibility to meet the needs of their local populations or to engage with particular local organisations and expertise in delivering their programmes.
Beyond ICBs, I see a huge opportunity for integrated care partnerships to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm, through better partnership working and joint planning of services. The Government have also developed a cross-Government strategy for tackling violence against women and girls, and will develop a cross-Government domestic abuse strategy.
As committed to in the tackling violence against women and girls strategy, the DHSC will continue to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement to promote evidence-based approaches to tackling violence and abuse through guidance and engagement with the new system.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am more than happy to wait for the domestic abuse strategy, but I really hope that such measures will feature in it, and that when the strategy goes around various Departments for their comments, the Minister will make a commitment—
Edward Argar
May I make the offer to the hon. Gentleman that I or the relevant Minister leading on this—whoever is more appropriate—will engage directly with him?
Alex Norris
That is very welcome, and in that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 57
Cancer strategy
“Within 12 months the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish a new cancer strategy; and
(b) either designate a minister or appoint a national lead with responsibility for enacting its implementation.” —(Alex Norris.)
This new clause requires the publication of a new cancer strategy, with a minister or other person made responsible for its delivery.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 64—Cancer treatment data reporting—
“(1) Beginning within 6 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish each month data on—
(a) the number of patients awaiting treatment for cancer,
(b) the number of patients with a cancer diagnosis, and
(c) what NHS’s previous estimate was of the number of patients who would have a cancer diagnosis at that point in time.
(2) Six months after the publication of the first report under subsection (1), and every six months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the action being taken to reduce the number of patients awaiting treatment for cancer.”
Alex Norris
I am conscious of other business, so if I am interrupted, I will not take it as rudeness.
Alex Norris
New clauses 57 and 64 both relate to cancer. It is not quite possible to quantify the damage done by cancer in this country because we end up just throwing big numbers around. In the UK, there are 375,000 new cases and 166,000 cancer deaths each year. Each of those numbers represents a person with a devastated family. I lost my father to cancer in my infancy—35 years ago in January—and that loss is something that lives with a family for the rest of their lives.
We know that one in two people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with cancer. Our investment in cancer services is £5 billion a year, but the cost dwarfs that, at over £18 billion. Nearly 40% of cancers are preventable. Happily—this is something we should be proud of in this country—the developments that we are making in medical and technological areas mean that cancers are increasingly survivable, with the survival rate doubling in the last four decades. Better diagnosis and treatments mean that nearly 50% of those diagnosed with cancer in England and Wales now survive for 10 or more years, and there is no reason for that to stop increasing.
Edward Argar
New clause 57 seeks to commission, as the shadow Minister has said, a new cancer strategy and to designate a Minister or appoint a national lead with responsibility for enacting its implementation. The Government’s current cancer strategy is incorporated in the NHS long-term plan, published in 2019. That plan sets out ambitions that by 2028 the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2 will rise from around 54% to 75% of cancer patients, and 55,000 more people each year will survive their cancer for at least five years after diagnosis. The shadow Minister is right to highlight the importance of the issue as something that touches everyone in some way, directly or indirectly. In the midst of the pandemic last year, I lost my uncle to cancer, and I suspect families all over the country are experiencing something similar among their family and friends. That is in the nature of the disease that we are talking about.
The NHS long-term plan contains a series of commitments to support the ambition. It focuses primarily on fast and early diagnosis, raising greater awareness of the symptoms of cancer, lowering the threshold for referral by GPs, accelerating access to diagnosis and treatment, and maximising the number of cancers that we can identify through screening. That ambition was intentionally set at a stretching level. Achieving it requires material progress in all of the long-term plan’s activities as well as successful innovation. The covid-19 pandemic has made the ambition even more challenging because of the additional pressure it has put on the NHS. It is still too early to assess the extent of the pandemic’s effect on that ambition in the long term. We remain absolutely committed to the need to prioritise earlier diagnosis to improve cancer outcomes. This ambition was strongly supported by the many cancer charities that worked with us to agree the priorities for the NHS cancer programme, and I pay tribute to them all.
I understand the intention behind the new clause. The covid-19 pandemic affected all NHS services in creating an environment unforeseen at the time by the long-term plan. In response to the pandemic, NHS England and NHS Improvement set up the cancer recovery taskforce, which provided advice and guidance on the national strategy for the recovery of cancer services. It monitored progress against the aims of restoring demand, reducing waiting times and ensuring sufficient capacity for cancer diagnosis and treatment. The taskforce published the cancer recovery plan in December last year, which fed into NHS operational and planning guidance outlining how the NHS would return to its pre-pandemic cancer performance within the long-term plan. It is thanks to the taskforce and forward planning that the CQC’s “State of Care 2020/21” report says that cancer services have achieved the best response and recovery, generally closing the gap in access on pre-pandemic levels more than any other area, although it notes that this still leaves a large backlog, which the recovery plan is focused on tackling.
The long-term plan commits NHS England and NHS Improvement to speed up the path from innovation to business as usual, spreading proven new techniques and technologies and reducing variations. I therefore consider the new clause, while it covers an important issue and quite rightly draws it to the attention of the Committee, not strictly necessary, because an ambitious cancer plan is already embedded in the long-term plan, with clear plans in place to support the recovery of cancer services from the pandemic specifically. We are fully committed to the actions within these plans and to seeing the long-term plan to its conclusion.
Dr Whitford
The Minister has not mentioned the workforce, specifically in radiology, which is very much the central specialty in diagnosing cancer. The data show that, once someone has been recognised as a cancer patient, they are still being treated relatively quickly—as he highlights, there is a shorter gap—but the problem is actually diagnosing someone, and the radiology workforce has a drastic shortage.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is distinguished in this field herself, from her previous career. She quite rightly highlights the importance of the workforce. Since 2010, in both radiology and radiography, there have been significant percentage increases in the workforce of those specialist professions. However, she is right to highlight that, while we have seen a significant percentage increase, in absolute terms we still need to do more to grow those professions. We have plans in place to do that, but that is a slow task; it can, in some cases, take up to 10 or 12 years to become an experienced specialist in that field.
On those increases since 2010, the Government would argue that we put measures in place, but it is also important to recognise that the previous Labour Government were working on this as well, hence the pull-through; those radiologists and radiographers did not magically appear immediately after 2010. There were programmes in place before and after that, so it is right that we recognise the contribution of the Opposition when they were in Government.
Finally, the new clause also seeks to place a Minister or national leader in charge of that new cancer plan. My ministerial role includes responsibility for elective recovery and recovery from the pandemic—our plan to tackle those waiting lists. As the shadow Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, who briefly sat on this Committee, had responsibility for cancer services specifically, as does the new Under-Secretary. Dame Cally Palmer is the national lead as the national cancer director at NHS England and NHS Improvement. She has a distinguished career as chief executive of the Royal Marsden Hospital in parallel. We are jointly responsible for the current cancer plan. It is therefore unnecessary to include that new duty when we already have those accountabilities.
I will move on briefly to new clause 64, which we are considering with new clause 57. It seeks to legislate for an additional duty on the Secretary of State to publish data on cancer waiting lists, cancer diagnoses and action being taken to reduce the number of patients waiting for cancer treatment in England. Again, I understand the intention behind the new clause. Cancer is one of the greatest challenges to people’s health, as we set out. I would like to highlight first the fact that the Government are already delivering on the request for monthly publication of cancer performance data. Ensuring transparency of data is a priority. Each month, we publish official statistics on waiting list data, including the number of patients who began cancer treatment and waited longer than 62 days for treatment. NHS England also publishes monthly management data on the number of people currently waiting longer than 62 days for diagnosis or treatment. The new clause calls for data that is very similar to what is already published, and we therefore consider that it would be duplicative.
Secondly, on the request to publish predictions—that is not something that is currently done. Doing so would likely result in unhelpful poor-quality assumptions or modelling that could lead to expectations or an understanding that is not reflected in the reality of the data that comes through. While we look at all data sources internally, it would not be in the best interests of scrutiny and, potentially, patients to publish poor-quality predictions with a limited confidence factor.
Thirdly, there is no evidence of need. Following the success of campaigns such as Help Us, Help You, we have seen the public seek medical attention for symptoms that might be cancer, while cancer referrals from GPs have been at record levels since March. At the same time, the NHS has been delivering high-quality and innovative solutions to improve cancer care and treatment. We have announced funding for elective recovery, including cancer services, of £2 billion this year and £8 billion over the next three years, which will increase activity and deliver millions more checks, scans, procedures and treatments. We will continue to publish and review the monthly official statistics to monitor progress.
Finally, on the request for the Secretary of State to publish a report every six months on the actions taken to reduce the number of patients awaiting cancer treatment, I should state that the NHS has already undertaken extensive work to reduce the number of patients waiting for treatment and to continue progress in delivering the long-term plan ambitions for cancer. We will publish the elective recovery delivery plan later this year, which will set out how the NHS will deliver increased elective capacity and how cancer patients will be prioritised for access.
Furthermore, the NHS cancer programme already regularly reports on progress through both NHSEI and DHSC governance structures, through publication of monthly data on cancer waiting times and through regular communications products. We would therefore argue that the new clause is duplicative. While I assure the Committee that we are taking urgent action to reduce cancer waiting lists, we consider the new clause to be unnecessary.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that answer, which reflects the current difference in public policy between the Government and the Opposition. At oral questions to the Health Secretary, I always ask and will continue to ask whether the Government’s position is that the current plans and status will be sufficient to meet the challenges and the backlog—we think they are not. While the system was overheated before the pandemic, it has been distressed by the last 18 months. We do not think that asking that system to meet both emergent and old problems will work. However, that is probably a point for oral questions and future debates, rather than this Public Bill Committee. On that basis, I will withdraw the clause.
As we are coming to the end of the debate, I might gently say to the Minister, on his point that the Government do not make predictions because they might be unhelpful in the future, that it feels as if, every time he goes on the news, the Health Secretary puts waiting lists up by another million in an extraordinary attempt to manage expectations. Was it 13 million last time? It just goes up and up. I do not think it is quite fair to say that Ministers do not do that—the Health Secretary, at least, certainly does. Nevertheless, that is no reason not to withdraw the clause, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Steve Double.)
Health and Care Bill (Twenty Second sitting)
Tuesday 2nd November 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2021 - (2 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
As Members have possibly worked out, I am a last-minute stand-in for Peter Bone, which has always been my ambition in life. [Laughter.] Seriously, Peter has been caught up in some kind of road traffic incident. I think he is fine; he has just been delayed, so that is the reason for the delay in proceedings.
I remind Members of all the usual things: please switch electronic devices to silent, and remember that no food or drinks are permitted. I encourage Members to wear masks, as per the House of Commons Commission rules, and to give their notes to Hansard or to send them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
New Clause 58
Duty on NHS England to promote evidence-based public health programmes
“(1) NHS England must promote to integrated care boards the value of evidence-based public health programmes.
(2) NHS England must publish a report each year on the state of evidence-based public health programmes within England and their impact.”—(Alex Norris.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I have heard about the fastest gun in the west; I think you might be the fastest-moving Chair in the west midlands, Mr McCabe. Turning to the substance of the new clause, covid-19 has shown the value of public health programmes in building this country’s resilience and improving public health outcomes, yet there is no duty in the Bill on NHS England to promote such public health programmes to integrated care boards or to evaluate their impact. New clause 58 seeks to change that.
During proceedings over the past couple of months, I have highlighted on multiple occasions the damage caused by the short-sighted health cuts we have seen over the previous 11 years, so colleagues will be relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat those points. However, we should be looking to do better now and to use this Bill as a watershed moment. As the Association of Directors of Public Health noted when the White Paper was published, there is a limited focus in the Bill on the health inequalities that have been exposed and exacerbated by covid-19 and, again, this new clause seeks to improve that situation. With the changes to Public Health England and the announcement of the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, it is vital that the Government make a belated recommitment to public health and prevention.
There are a number of ways in which that commitment could be manifested. Public health programmes are particularly crucial to the prevention agenda, and it is right that NHS England promotes the value of those programmes, looks at them, assesses them and reports on their impact. To draw on one example that is linked to an item we will be discussing later—dental services—community dental services and oral health public health programmes have shown that significant savings and significant improvements in individuals’ lives can be generated through effective, evidence-based public health programmes. Social enterprises such as those can bring a number of additional benefits. They exist not to make a profit but to deliver on a social mission and to reinvest any surplus in improving local services.
That is what the public health grant traditionally funded. When I first had responsibility for the public health grant in 2014, 85% of that money went into commissioned services. That funding will have been diluted by the cuts in recent years, but largely that money went to community-based, not-for-profit, evidence-based schemes. Public health programmes really improved our communities, but we have lost them, and that is a sadness. We need to recommit to them and have a real focus on getting integrated care systems to commit to them, demonstrating what works in one part of the country and promoting it across the rest of the country. That is what this new clause seeks to achieve.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Mr McCabe, it is a particular pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, allowing us to get going.
I very much welcome the opportunity to debate and put on record again the Government’s commitment to improving and protecting the public’s health and to supporting evidence-based interventions. Like the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North, I can think of no better example than the remarkable speed of this country’s roll-out of covid vaccinations and the response to the pandemic, saving lives and supporting our economic recovery. That, of course, is testament to the hard work and dedication of our NHS and public health professionals in rising to the greatest infectious disease challenge of modern times.
Our commitment to evidence-based public health is also writ large in many of the Bill’s provisions, our wider programme of public health reform and the proposals set out in the Government’s recently published plan for health and care, “Build Back Better”. We made it clear in that document that although the Government’s immediate priorities for the NHS must be dealing with covid and recovering from the elective backlog, the long-term priority is to shift the NHS towards prevention. Prevention must be a central principle in delivering a sustainable NHS and levelling up. That means fixing the underlying causes of ill health, which is at the heart of the mission of the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the new UK Health Security Agency.
As new clause 58 hints at, a focus on prevention, coupled with a strategic approach to population health more generally, will also be at the heart of integrated care systems. The new triple aim will bind NHS bodies to consider wider effects on health and wellbeing, alongside a duty to reduce inequalities in access and outcomes. Integrated care boards will be required to seek advice from persons with a broad range of professional expertise on public health and prevention, complementing the role, already set out in regulations, of local government and directors of public health to provide advice. Moreover, each integrated care partnership’s strategy will be clearly rooted in, and draw extensively on, local place-based joint strategic needs assessments so that real needs and priorities can be addressed at local level. The ICB’s plans must have regard to that strategy.
I entirely concur with the shadow Minister that evidence-based public health practice is always desirable, and a learning culture essential, but the Government do not see the need for a specific legal duty on NHS England to promote that to ICBs—as envisaged by the new clause—although it undoubtedly will have a role in exhorting and supporting them to their best efforts. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the UK Health Security Agency will also have an important role in this regard, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence will continue to issue evidence-based guidance on public health topics referred to it.
There is already a broad obligation on NHS England and NHS Improvement to promote continuous improvement in the quality of services provided across the NHS and, in doing so, to have regard to evidence-based public health quality standards. That includes having regard to quality standards prepared by NICE.
It follows from the rejection of the first limb of the new clause that the Government cannot support the second. However, as set out in “Build Back Better” the Government will bring forward separately from the Bill a new requirement for NHS England
“to introduce a yearly prevention spend, outcome and trajectory reporting criteria, including an assessment of the 10-year spend and outcome trajectories…of the major preventable diseases such as diabetes.”
It may not, but I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the intent behind the shadow Minister’s new clause.
There is a somewhat different matter where public health programmes are commissioned directly by the NHS itself, in exercise of the Secretary of State’s public health functions. That is the case with, for example, national screening or immunisation programmes. These programmes are currently commissioned by NHS England but are rooted in expert advice from the UK National Screening Committee and the Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunisations respectively. NHS England is already prepared to report to the Secretary of State on its performance against these functions.
Were any of these functions to be delegated to ICBs to deliver in future, we would expect NHS England to clearly convey the requisite standards and performance expectations for those evidence-based programmes, and overall information about performance and effectiveness will be provided to the public.
In summary, there is a good deal of unity of aim and objective, but I fear there is a difference as regards methods. On that basis, I encourage the shadow Minister not to press the new clause to a Division.
Alex Norris
I share with the Minister the desire for a shift to prevention. My anxiety, from the Government action we have seen over the last decade, is that that is a rhetorical shift rather than a substantial shift in policy, and definitely not a substantial shift in resourcing. Nevertheless, the Minister’s answer on the documentation that NHS England will be asked to publish is a suitable substitute for a provision being on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 63
Young carers’ needs assessments following hospitalisation
“In the Children Act 1989, after section 17ZC, insert—
‘17ZCA Young carers’ needs assessments following hospitalisation
(1) An NHS trust or NHS foundation trust must ascertain during hospitalisation whether a patient when discharged will be cared for primarily by a young carer.
(2) Where an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust ascertains that a patient when discharged will be cared for primarily by a young carer then the NHS trust or NHS foundation trust must give the local authority where the patient lives notice that a young carer will require a needs assessment.
(3) The local authority receiving notice under subsection (2) must carry out a needs assessment, and in doing so must—
(a) ascertain whether it is appropriate for the young carer to provide care, and
(b) identify what support or services need to be in place for safe discharge of the patient.
(4) The needs assessment required by subsection (3) must be conducted before the patient is discharged.’”—(Karin Smyth.)
This new clause would ensure that the needs of young carers are assessed before a patient who they care for can be discharged.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I will not delay the Committee too long on this new clause, but it is an important one to consider. We had a good discussion last week on the needs of carers, although I am not sure we resolved it satisfactorily. Carers do a huge amount of work on behalf of their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham so eloquently said, they want to do that work, but many of them essentially keep our services going. Without them, the demands on our services would be so much greater.
[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]
All of us who have met or who know young carers recognise the particular stresses and strains on them from caring for their relatives. They do astonishing work. Again, as my hon. Friend said, many feel that they are doing it because these are their loved ones; they do not feel like they are carers in many cases, but they are. Often people then do not come forward, if they are not known to the authorities, to make that clear. That is often because of fear of what that might mean for the family set-up they find themselves in.
The new clause draws attention to the needs of young carers, particularly following hospitalisation. It would require trusts and local authorities to be cognisant of who is caring for a person when they are discharged, particularly where young carers are involved. When the issue was first drawn to my attention—particularly the need to highlight the different needs of young carers—I must confess that I thought that these things were routine in good care settings. Obviously, the situation into which someone is being discharged should be fully known and recognised, and their needs met. We had a good discussion about that and we know that that does not happen, but the pressure on young carers is particularly acute. As part of that discussion last week, I almost intervened on the Minister to ask that when we are considering carers more generally, we highlight young carers separately. A hospital needs to know and understand that the person going back home will be in the charge of a young carer, and the local authority needs to make sure that a needs assessment is conducted.
The new clause suggests that should happen before the patient is discharged. Clearly, the Bill is instigating a new process, which will look at post-discharge. We had a good debate about that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said from the Front Bench, doing that assessment differently may be better in the long run—we do not know. In particular, when it comes to young carers taking up that role, it is even more acute that it is recognised in the new arrangements.
I will not move the new clause to a vote, but I would like the Minister to be cognisant of young carers and assure us that these needs will be highlighted to hospital trusts and local authorities in the discharge planning process.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South for introducing the new clause. She set it out very well and she is right to highlight the interplay with the section 78 provisions in the Bill, because there is a risk of some jarring if we do not get this right.
As we know, the 2011 census reported that there are almost 166,000 young carers between the ages of five and 17 in England. However, research carried out by the University of Nottingham and the BBC in 2018 suggested the figure could be much higher, with around 800,000 children providing care. It is estimated that nearly 260,000 of those carers are providing high levels of care, so there is certainly an issue out there.
As we know, being a young carer has a significant impact on children and young people. Caring for other family members inevitably affects school attendance and exam results, with many young carers paying a heavy price for their dedication to their families. It often limits their ability to take up their full academic options. On average, young carers achieve a grade lower than their peers in their GCSEs and are less likely to go to university. Every single classroom in the UK is likely to have at least one young carer.
As my hon. Friend said, the new clause would ensure that arrangements for discharging patients without a care needs assessment do not unduly impact on young carers. Their needs must still be identified when an adult is discharged from hospital. But the new clause goes further than that: it applies to all discharges, so there must always be a check to see if a young carer is involved. One might think that a check ought to done anyway, but evidence shows that it is patchy at best. Before covid, hospitals were struggling with the many issues we have discussed in relation to staffing. It is not always easy for people to do everything they would want to do before discharge. The new clause would put into law what is already being done in the best-practice examples.
There is already, in theory, a general right to an assessment under the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Care Act 2014. The Children and Families Act states that all young carers under the age of 18 have a right to a needs assessment as a responsibility of the local authority, which
“must take reasonable steps to identify… young carers within their area who have needs for support.”
However, Barnardo’s 2017 report “Still Hidden, Still Ignored” identified that young carers were “slipping through the net.” The report led to many recommendations, including Barnardo’s calling for hospital staff to actively ask questions to identify young carers at the point of discharge. Hospital staff are in a key position to ask questions to ensure young people do not slip through the net, and it is clear that more needs to be done in this area. The new clause offers one way of reducing the possibility that young carers slip through the net.
As my hon. Friend said, young people are often reluctant to identify as young carers. They do not want to get their parents into trouble sometimes, and it can be a difficult conversation. The new duty would take a lot of that pressure away because the responsibility would sit with the hospital professionals to ask the patients on discharge. That would stop the young person feeling responsible for involving official services in family life. Of course, we want local authorities to be able to identify these people to ensure the right support is in place.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone. The new clause would introduce a requirement for an NHS body to notify the relevant local authority once it had identified that a young carer had primary responsibility for caring for a patient on discharge. The local authority would be required to carry out a young carer’s needs assessment before discharge to establish the appropriateness of the young carer providing care and what support should be in place to enable safe discharge.
I entirely understand the sentiment and intention behind the new clause, which the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol South set out very clearly. We have touched on the importance of this issue in previous debates about carers. Young carers often do not even realise that they are carers. They undertake their caring responsibilities, go to school, come back again and undertake caring responsibilities again. They are arguably some of those most in need of support and identification. These young people are essentially having caring responsibilities for a loved one, family member or friend thrust on to their shoulders at a very early age. However, I am not convinced that the cause is best advanced by the new clause and I will try to explain why. In her response, the hon. Member for Bristol South may agree or say she is unconvinced by my explanation, as is her right.
Existing legislation already requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of need for all young carers on request or on the appearance of need. That assessment must consider whether it is appropriate or excessive for the young carer to provide care for the person in question, in the light of the young carer’s needs, wishes and circumstances. Regulations already provide a detailed framework, including the matters to be considered in such assessments and the skills of the person undertaking it.
As members of the Committee will be aware, the discharge clause in the Bill, which we debated some days ago, revokes the existing requirements for hospitals to issue assessment and discharge notices as part of the discharge process for adults, because they contribute to lengthy discharge delays. The current requirements trigger local authority duties to assess the person’s long-term social care needs, prior to the person’s discharge. We know delayed discharges have a negative impact on patient outcomes.
My concern about the wording of the new clause is that making young carers’ assessments a requirement of discharge would risk reimposing further significant delays, at a time when supporting the safe hospital flow of patients has never been more important. I am also unclear how such an assessment system would be enforced.
Current discharge guidance clearly sets out that, as part of discharge planning, consideration must be given to any young people in the household who have caring responsibilities or may have some on discharge. Guidance states that they may be entitled to a young carer’s needs assessment or to benefit from a referral to a young carers service.
We will work with the Department for Education to ensure that protections for young carers are reflected in new statutory discharge guidance, accepting the sentiment behind the new clause. That will include setting out as part of the discharge planning process how young carers should have a needs assessment arranged, where appropriate, before a patient for whom they provide care is discharged. That is the more appropriate way to capture or operationalise, for want of a better way to put it, the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s new clause. It is up to her whether she feels that that is sufficient, but I have set out our response to the new clause she proposes.
Karin Smyth
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I do not think that is sufficient. I will not press the matter to a vote, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, when it comes to things being on request it is problematic, and that is the crux of the matter, as in the guidance that the Minister read out. I understand the need for hospitals to not have lengthy discharges—and it is not good for the patient—but sorting out the hospital’s problem on the backs of young people and carers is not a good message that we want to send from here.
I appreciate that the Minister in his final comments said that this would be very much part of the thinking about discharges, but we should also remember that these young people have really had the most shocking experiences in the last two years with covid, and are already—again, as my hon. Friend said—falling massively behind. Added to the destruction from covid, many young carers live in some of the most disadvantaged families, really keeping those families together, so they are further left behind.
On the Minister’s exhortations to the service and local government, it would be helpful to further underline the strength of those, and I am sure that most of the Committee feel that. Young carers have had probably the worst of times during covid and for them now to have to shoulder more responsibility because of the discharge problem and the need to get people out quickly would further exacerbate the situation. They need more help, not less, and I hope that that will be communicated back to the service. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 65
Review of the surgical consultant appointment process
“The Secretary of State must review the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and its most recent guidance and, within six months of the passage of this Act, publish a report on the surgical consultant appointment process.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new clause requires a review of the legislation which governs the NHS surgical consultant appointment process.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—Appointment of surgical consultants—
“(1) The National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/701) are amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) In paragraph (1) of regulation 2, in the entry for ‘relevant college’, in sub-paragraph (d), for ‘and its associated Faculty of Dental Surgery’, substitute ‘, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and each of their associated Dental Faculties’.”
This new clause would add the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and each of their associated dental faculties to the colleges who may be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants.
Justin Madders
The proposed new clause was inspired by the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, who made representations about what we think is a lacuna in the current regulations that needs filling. According to the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and subsequent guidance issued by the Department in 2005, only the Royal College of Surgeons of England is permitted to review surgical consultant job descriptions and send a Royal College representative to the advisory appointment committee. Although the process applies only to non-foundation trusts, the 2005 guidance encourages foundation trusts to follow that process as it provides a structured, quality approach to consultant appointments. Given that the 2005 guidance remains the most up-to-date advice available to trusts, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges continues to recommend that foundation trusts follow the process.
The net effect of the regulations and guidance has been to formally exclude the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh from the entire surgical consultant appointment process. Given its size and the distribution of its fellowship throughout England, it is keen to help trusts, whether they are foundation trusts or otherwise, in their ability to appoint and retain senior surgical professionals. I understand the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh has raised this anomaly with the Department on a number of occasions—I can see the Minister nodding—and it has been told that any changes to the regulations or the guidance would require legislative approval, so the opportunity has been taken today to slip the new clause in to try to resolve that.
As we know, we have record waiting lists of some 5.7 million—probably rising. It is clearly an important priority for everyone that the backlog is tackled, and the new clause would go some way to ensuring that the NHS is a resilient and sustainable surgical body to be able to meet the challenge. We see it as a tidying-up exercise that is long overdue.
New clause 70, tabled by the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, goes a little further than new clause 65 in terms of the requirements put on the Department. I hope the Minister understands the sentiment behind our tabling the new clause. This long-standing issue needs legislative remedy, and I hope that this is the opportunity to put it right.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I rise to speak to new clause 70 and in support of new clause 65. I agree with the shadow Minister that these are very much technical new clauses to correct an anomaly. There are three royal colleges of surgeons in the UK: the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. Consultant surgeons may be appointed from among the fellows of any of the three colleges. The exams they sit and the qualifications they carry are considered absolutely equal.
The challenge when recruiting a new consultant, as the shadow Minister highlighted, is that the appointment panel, which must review the job description and take part in the interview, is limited purely to those who have graduated with their fellowship from the English college. The appointment panels have a mix of representatives from local organisations, specialty bodies, if it is a specialty surgical appointment, and the royal colleges, so while fellows of all the royal colleges may be involved in appointments to English trusts as specialty representatives—such as breast cancer, which was my specialty—some are excluded from being college representatives. It is often really challenging to bring these panels and committees together.
The aim of the new clause is simply to widen the pool of assessors available to trusts in England and, indeed, as the shadow Minister highlighted, to foundation trusts. It is simply an anomaly that two of the colleges in the UK are not included. The new clause aims to correct that and to make the appointment of new consultants easier for trusts and foundation trusts in England. I hope that the Minister will accept both the spirit and the detail of new clause 70.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this issue before the Committee: I think we have all received correspondence on it from the various royal colleges. New clause 65 would amend the Bill so as to require that a review is undertaken of the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and its most recent guidance. It is important that the regulations governing consultants and the accompanying guidance ensure that prospective consultants are highly capable and safe to practise while not hindering effective recruitment.
The current regulations govern the appointment of all consultants to NHS trusts and special health authorities. Reviewing the regulations only in relation to surgeons would risk diminishing consistency in the regulations. We believe the current regulations ensure consistent standards across all specialties. Those regulations are kept under review, and we therefore do not believe that this new clause would improve what already exists under the current policy. Similarly, responsibility for reporting on recruitment practices relating to a specific specialty would fall to the royal colleges rather than the Department. Should the royal colleges recognise an issue with recruitment and appointment to a particular specialty, the Department would expect the relevant royal college to report on that, which we would always consider in detail.
New clause 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, would amend the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 to confer authority on the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and each of their associated dental faculties to sit on the panel concerned with the appointment of consultants in England. I sympathise with that. The Government agree that including those colleges would potentially be significantly advantageous. However, the challenge is that the National Health Service Act 2006 stipulates that consultation with affected parties must be undertaken before any changes to these regulations can be made. As such, our concern is timing: it would go against normal practice and not necessarily be appropriate to make such a change without consulting the relevant parties.
Dr Whitford
I have no objection to the need to consult. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow would indeed like section 2(1) of the regulations changed so that its members could be involved in the appointment of consultant physicians. I was unable to consult with the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in time to allow the new clause to include that. I totally recognise that there is a role for consultation in order to get the change to those regulations right. However, surely with such legislation going through, this is the opportunity to agree to correct this anomaly, and therefore make appointments of new consultants in English trusts simpler.
Edward Argar
I think that is where the hon. Lady and I slightly diverge; we do believe that it is right that we follow the normal process of consultation before bringing any changes forward. I hope, in my final paragraphs, I can give her a little reassurance in respect to her intent. I hope that I can reassure her that, although the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow are not formally named in the regulations as relevant colleges in relation to the appointment process, the regulations do not prevent trusts from seeking alternative members to contribute to the process. That does provide discretion to involve these colleges where appropriate.
My further reassurance, which I hope will go some way towards satisfying the hon. Lady, is that the letters and requests came in relatively late in the Committee’s proceedings: I will undertake to review that request with my officials. I will look at whether what we have already got is sufficient, or whether there is merit there that does not require that consultation and those changes—
Edward Argar
I have one sentence to go, so the hon. Lady gets in just in time.
Dr Whitford
A trust could include other members of the panel, but they could not be recognised as the Royal College representative. That is often one of the challenging roles, because the panel cannot go ahead if it does not have a Royal College representative.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that in respect of the specific request that the two Royal Colleges have made, I will take that away, look at it and consider whether it works now, or whether there is something we can do. That will be either in this legislation, or following consultation, via another mechanism to address the underlying issue that they have drawn to our attention.
Justin Madders
Thank you, Mr Bone, but I am sure you would not want me to attempt any medical procedures.
I have heard what the Minister has said; clearly it is still under active consideration by the Department. As we know, there will be many more legislative opportunities in the coming months and years—I hope we will get an opportunity to crack this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Dr Whitford
I accept the Minister’s reassurance that they will finally look at correcting this anomaly; I hope that he will take that forward. It is something that we will be looking for. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Support provided by the NHS to populations at risk of malnutrition
“(1) Each integrated care board must—
(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for patients and/or populations at risk of malnutrition, including social and clinical/disease related malnutrition, using their services;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in its area;
(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy; and
(d) designate a malnutrition lead.
(2) An integrated care board that publishes a strategy under this section must, in carrying out its functions, give effect to the strategy.
(3) Before publishing a strategy under this section, an integrated care board must consult—
(a) any local authority for an area within the relevant Integrated care board’s area; and
(b) such other persons as the relevant local authority considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), ‘local authority’ means—
(a) a county council or district council in England; or
(b) a London borough council.
(5) An integrated care board that publishes a strategy under this section—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may alter or replace the strategy; and
(c) must publish any altered or replacement strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the preparation and publication of strategies under this section.
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (6) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—
(a) the procedure to be followed by an integrated care board in preparing a strategy;
(b) matters to which an integrated care board must have regard in preparing a strategy;
(c) how an integrated care board must publish a strategy;
(d) the date by which an integrated care board must first publish a strategy; and
(e) the frequency with which an integrated care board must review its strategy or any effect of the strategy on the provision of other provision in its area.
(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) all integrated care boards; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” —(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require integrated care boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for patients and/or populations at particular risk of malnutrition using their services, and designate a malnutrition lead.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause would put responsibility on integrated care boards to take the lead on tackling malnutrition in their community. We spoke about malnutrition in the context of hospital food standards, and we were not able to move the Minister to extend those hospital food standards to other care settings. I thought that was a shame, and I hope the Government will continue to look at the issue. I want to broaden the conversation on malnutrition to try, via another way, to improve the standing of our communities.
Malnutrition is a serious condition that occurs when a person does not get the energy or vitamins that their body requires to function properly. It affects at least 3 million people every year, and it costs the health and social care system £23.5 billion each year. The condition is particularly common amongst certain groups. Those groups are: older people; hospital patients; people in mental health units and care homes; people living in sheltered housing; and those living with chronic diseases, such as cancer. Malnutrition can seriously threaten patients’ health. Hospitalised malnourished patients are three times more at risk of infection than the well-nourished, while hospital patients at high risk of malnutrition are 12 times more likely to die early than those at no risk. It is a very significant issue. Unfortunately, the figures are not moving in the right direction. The number of adults being admitted to hospital with malnutrition has more than doubled in the last decade—that is the bill for austerity. The evidence is clear that malnutrition impacts a wide range of people in different health settings; again, those are hospitals, mental health units, care homes and sheltered housing. It has a knock-on effect on other conditions.
Earlier this year, the media reported the death of a young disabled woman after a routine operation. Her death was partially caused by malnutrition, and the coroner said there had been a gross failure of care in managing her nutrition. A July 2021 report on malnutrition called it a widespread yet historically overlooked and undertreated issue in the NHS and social care, and attributed that to two factors that block progress—a lack of understanding, and a lack of systematic leadership. The new clause seeks to address that at a local level, which is why we think it is a good one.
The tragic case that I have mentioned shows how important it is to have a clear strategy to tackle malnutrition, to have designated leads and to have targets and co-ordinated policy. The Government say that integrated care boards are about ensuring proper integration between health staff and community services, and this is a really good example of a way in which that could be done. I am keen to hear the Minister’s assessment of the new clause, which should be included in the Bill. We have a significant issue that we are not addressing and that is getting worse, so what are we going to do differently?
Edward Argar
We recognise and know that malnutrition can be a significant problem that can be both a cause and a consequence of ill health. We remain committed to improving the NHS and public health systems, which is helping to improve health and secure early diagnosis of major diseases, tackling some of the root causes of malnutrition. That is backed by the development of the outcomes frameworks covering public health, the NHS and social care, and the development of specific disease outcome strategies.
Individuals, carers and professionals all have a role to play in tackling malnutrition, and there are tools and guidance in place through a range of organisations to help health and social care professionals identify and treat the problem of malnutrition, and to access appropriate training. I note that e-learning modules are currently in place through the Royal College of General Practitioners and the managing adult malnutrition in the community pathway, which was set up by a multidisciplinary group and is widely endorsed by professional bodies aimed at healthcare professionals.
I hope I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we all agree that the NHS can play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people. As part of that, it should have strategies and processes in place for supporting patients and vulnerable people in the community who are at risk of malnutrition. I hope I can reassure the Committee that placing in the Bill a formal duty on ICBs to develop a separate strategy is not strictly necessary, as there is a range of ongoing activity across health and care.
As we have previously discussed, there are already significant existing duties, and duties proposed in the Bill, to prepare plans, including joint local health and wellbeing strategies made at a local authority level by health and wellbeing boards, the integrated care strategy that is to be developed by the integrated care partnership, and the forward plan that is to be developed by the integrated care board. All those plans should be informed by local joint strategic needs assessments, or JSNAs. All the strategies can, where appropriate, consider malnutrition and populations at risk of malnutrition. We have previously debated the range of guidance available to inform thinking on both JSNAs and strategic plans, and we will of course work with NHS England to consider whether it is necessary to include specific references to malnutrition in the guidance.
Should the Bill pass into statute, we expect clinical commissioning groups and ICBs to consider the needs of patients and vulnerable people in their communities, including people who may be at risk of malnutrition. That includes working across health and social care partners to undertake needs assessments on malnutrition, and developing and implementing a work plan to maintain high standards of nutrition through integrated pathways of care. NHSEI’s enhanced health in care homes implementation framework sets out best practice guidance for primary care networks and others in relation to hydration and nutritional support for care home residents. The framework supports the implementation of minimum standards in relation to enhanced health in care homes in the Network Contract Directed Enhanced Service for 2020-21.
The malnutrition task force has also published a series of guides offering expert advice on the prevention of and early intervention in malnutrition in later life, which will support health and care bodies. Alongside that, we have published an independent review of hospital food, which made recommendations for addressing malnutrition in hospitals, and a review of what works in supporting older people in the community to maintain a healthy diet. This “what works” review included a range of examples of good practice at local authority level that others can learn from, and we have provided in the Bill for powers to impose requirements on hospital food standards.
We are helping to raise awareness of malnutrition among individuals and carers through the nhs.uk website, and through the NICE quality standard on malnutrition, which gives a clear and authoritative statement of a quality service. There are ongoing inspection requirements, including for unannounced inspections of health and care settings by the Care Quality Commission, which will continue to ensure expected standards are met.
The new clause would place a requirement on ICBs to have a malnutrition lead. The Bill intentionally allows for flexibility in the make-up of ICBs above the minimum membership requirements that we have previously debated in Committee. They could, if they wished, include condition-specific officers, but we do not want to bind their hands by specifying that they must. That once again returns to the permissive versus prescriptive thread that has run through many of our debates.
However, I do see a huge opportunity for ICPs to consider how best to improve services for people at risk of malnutrition through better partnership and joint working and planning of services, given the complementary services that the NHS and local authorities offer in this context. The new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is committed to improving the diet of the population and supporting people to maintain a healthy weight.
I hope I have given the Committee some reassurance that we are taking this issue extremely seriously and are committed to enabling the NHS and the wider health and care system to effectively tackle malnutrition.
Alex Norris
I was a little surprised to hear the Minister defend the status quo. The state of play in this country is not good enough and is getting worse, so I dare say that more of the same will beget more of the same. The Minister said that the new clause was not necessary because of the range of ongoing activity, but I reiterate that what is happening is not sufficient and is not addressing this really important issue.
The two areas for development that were offered were local prioritisation through integrated care strategies and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. They are obviously relatively new actors in this space, so it is probably right that we give them time to see whether, as the Minister says, they will prioritise this, choose to make it a top-rated issue and do something about it. I am very sceptical of that, and I suspect that we will be back at this sooner rather than later. However, in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 67
Review of the capacity of the dental laboratory sector
“The Secretary of State must within six months of the passage of this Act publish a report assessing the capacity of the dental laboratory sector in the UK to meet the needs of patients.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the capacity of the UK’s dental laboratory sector.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 68—Access to NHS dentistry—
“The Secretary of State must within one year of the passage of this Act publish a statement setting out what measures the Government is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of what measures it is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.
Alex Norris
The two new clauses refer to two linked but distinct sectors of the heath service—dental laboratories and dentistry. In each case, we are seeking for the Secretary of State to publish a report about the health of these important sectors.
On new clause 67, the dental laboratory industry manufactures dental appliances to assist in the provision of oral care, such as crowns, bridges and dentures. The British dental laboratory industry plays an important part in the wider oral health landscape, and it is vital for patients, dentists and other registered dental care professionals. This is an unheralded industry, but it touches all our constituencies, and enables our constituents to live without pain. It also provides skilled work in an economy that has too little of it. It is based in communities all over the country, not concentrated in big cities or in London and the south-east. In many ways, it is a towns industry in a country that desperately needs more towns industries.
However, the industry is struggling. It was struggling prior to the pandemic, but it has particularly struggled during it. In the early stages and indeed even today, dentists have rightly—we supported this—been paid full contract for reduced output to reflect the challenging circumstances in which they are operating, but there has never been an obligation to pay this forward to their suppliers. Whereas we might normally expect dental labs to account for 6% to 7% of a dentist’s outgoing, as output has fallen so has that outgoing, so the sector has suffered, but dental labs have needed to stay open to meet need, so they have not been able to completely avail themselves of support.
The messaging around dentistry at a local and national level has also had knock-on impacts for dental laboratories trying to make insurance claims for business disruption, because there has been a misunderstanding, shall we say, about whether they are operating, and how they are operating or not operating.
Justin Madders
As my fellow shadow Minister quite rightly points out, this is a huge issue for most constituency MPs. I am not surprised to hear what he said about this being the No.1 complaint to Healthwatch, because behind GP access, dental access is now a huge issue. Before the pandemic, dental services in the Cheshire area were contracted to attend to 55% of the local population’s dental health needs. Clearly, that is insufficient, but the challenges of the pandemic have only made matters worse. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to raise this very important issue.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. It is sobering to hear that 55% was what we started with; we know that it will be less than that now. That rather picks away at the idea of a universal healthcare service.
To finish where I was going with my previous point, if I am wrong about where recovery funding for the NHS is going, and there is to be investment in dentistry, I hope that the Minister will correct me. I would be delighted if that was the case, because the BDA is warning—again, this is something that we will have picked up on in our constituencies—that morale among NHS dentists is at an all-time low. Almost 1,000 dentists in England have stopped providing NHS services in the last financial year. There was the failed contract—I know there is enthusiasm for contract reform in the Department and we will support the Department on that, but we are running out of time to have anything ready for April. In fact, we are probably already too late in that regard. The shambles of the negotiations before Christmas last year that led to the breakdown and the imposition of targets really whittled away at good will and caused a lot of upset.
Almost half of NHS dentists are saying that, unless things change, they intend to hand back their contracts or reduce their NHS commitment. This exodus of dentists from the NHS will have a disastrous and lasting impact on our ability to access NHS dentistry. If 55% is the summit of our ambition, goodness me, where will we go from there? The British Dental Association talks about the last-chance saloon; it is not hyperbole to say that we will not have NHS dentistry in the medium term if we do not have a course change.
More and more people are being pushed into the private sector. That creates market forces that mean that it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that dentists—both new ones entering the profession and those who have come to the end of their tether with their NHS contract—go into the private sector. We are seeing significant growth in that space as people living in pain seek drastic action. We will see more pushed on to dental insurance if people do not want to be worried about their finances. That is what privatisation looks like. We will not have NHS dentistry in the medium term unless we do something about this issue—that is the wrong way forward.
New clause 68 makes a very modest ask; it asks the Secretary of State to do what any Secretary of State should want to do: commit to universal access to NHS dentistry and say how it will practically be achieved. At the moment, we have a yawning gap. In that lack of leadership, we will see the drip, drip, drip of the loss of NHS dentistry, until we no longer have it.
Dr Whitford
I rise to support new clause 68, which is linked to new clause 67. We are aware of the impact of the pandemic, particularly on dentistry. Using a drill on someone’s teeth generates aerosols in their mouth, and that would vastly increase the risk of spreading covid to the dental staff, or to any patient who entered the space soon afterwards. Despite that impact, there has not been significant funding from the UK Government for the dental industry in England to fund the establishment of ventilation and air purification systems. The Scottish Government have committed £5 million specifically for this. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North highlighted, the pandemic impact comes on top of an underlying issue, the core of which is the 2006 dental contract in England and Wales, which breaks provision down into units of dental activity. It does not reward preventive dentistry. It does not reward any practice for taking on someone who already has dental issues, because it will not be properly funded for that.
Out of that comes the failure to focus on child dental health and making sure that this generation of young children grow up with good dental health. Scotland set up Childsmile in 2007, and Wales set up Designed to Smile in 2011. There is plenty of data from both of these programmes to show that providing free dental treatment to children—along with supported tooth brushing at school, fluoride coating and so on—can decrease caries found in children in primary school and at the beginning of secondary school.
Poor dental health has a big impact on general health and self-confidence, yet we hear repeated reports of families and children struggling to access an NHS practice. In the last five years, NHS practice numbers in England have dropped by over 1,250. BDA surveys suggest that almost half of remaining NHS practices are planning to reduce their NHS commitment over the next 12 to 24 months. There was a promise that the contract would be changed by next April, and 100 practices have been trialling a new method of contract. According to the BDA, it has been warned of a return to using units of dental activity from next April. This would be an enormous missed opportunity to improve NHS dental access for everyone, and particularly to take the further step of ensuring that every child in England does not just have access to a dental practice, but is involved, as they grow up, in a programme promoting good dental health.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to hon. Members for highlighting issues relating to new clauses 67 and 68 for debate.
I reassure the Committee that the Government continually assess the capacity of the dental laboratory sector in the UK. It is an important issue, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister, and one we already take seriously. However, it is not necessary to include a specific report requirement, especially as that could focus activity away from addressing the recovery of activity in the sector.
As colleagues will know, and as the hon. Member for Nottingham North set out clearly, dentistry has been significantly impacted throughout the pandemic due to the specific risks associated with aerosol-generating procedures, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire set out. The steps we have had to take during the pandemic to ensure the safety of dental patients and staff has led to a reduction in the number of NHS patients who can be seen, although activity continues to grow quarter on quarter. This reduction in NHS dental activity, including for band 3 treatments such as crowns, bridges and dentures, has had a knock-on effect on the laboratory sector. The Government recognise this, and we are already taking steps to secure the capacity of the sector.
First, throughout the pandemic, dental laboratories, where eligible, have been able to access a range of financial support that Her Majesty’s Treasury has made available to private-sector businesses and individuals affected financially by covid-19. Dental laboratories that satisfied the eligibility criteria were able to access financial support through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and bounce back loans. In addition, up to September 2021, technicians and lab workers had been able to access the coronavirus job retention scheme, known colloquially as the furlough scheme. The recovery loan scheme, now open until 30 June 2022, supports access to finance for UK businesses as they recover from the pandemic.
During the pandemic, we carefully considered the impact on the sector, including on dental laboratories and their important role, partly through work led by the chief dental officer. We continue to work closely with all relevant parts of the sector. I am happy to confirm that officials from the Department, together with the chief dental officer and others, will be happy to again meet representatives from the dental laboratory sector to better understand their concerns on capacity, what they are seeing in terms of the recovery of their business and trade, and what further action may be needed as we work to recover from the pandemic and safely increase levels of dental activity, for patients, the profession and the industry surrounding it.
Secondly, we are committed to building and maintaining a robust dental workforce and appreciate the important role played by laboratory technicians as part of that. In September, Health Education England released their “Advancing Dental Care” review, which provides recommendations on the reform of education and training for dental care professionals, including dental technicians.
Although this is not directly in my portfolio of responsibilities, I have asked officials to work closely with HEE on the recommendations and actions of this report, including, where it falls into my area of work more broadly, how apprenticeship places for clinical dental technicians are developed, based on an assessment of the role they could play in the delivery of NHS care. The Government are therefore already taking action to help secure the capacity of the dental laboratory sector and ensure it continues to meet the needs of patients in this country.
I turn to new clause 68. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement on measures taken to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry. In addition to the actions I have highlighted, I assure the Committee that this Government are taking action to ensure access to NHS dentistry and, again, I do not consider it necessary to include a requirement to make a statement on this issue on the face of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will give way to the hon. Lady—not least so that I can have a glass of water.
Dr Whitford
That is not the least of my reasons for intervening. Rather than just stating that the Government are taking action, does the Minister plan to explain what action they will be taking?
Edward Argar
I am very touched by her medical concern for my welfare.
In light of the reduction in activity within dentistry due to the pandemic, dental practices have been asked to deliver as much care as possible, with their first priorities being urgent care, care for vulnerable groups and for children, and then delayed planned care. I put on the record my gratitude to the profession for its hard work and efforts during this time, and I am pleased to note that the levels of urgent care being delivered have now returned to pre-pandemic levels, because of the over 700 urgent care centres established in practices to improve access for people during the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we have worked closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement to consider the level of NHS dentistry that can be delivered safely. Activity thresholds for full renumeration are based on data showing what is achievable while maintaining compliance with infection prevention and control measures.
The pandemic has reinforced the fact that transformation in NHS dentistry is essential. As has been alluded to, NHSEI is leading ongoing work on reforming the current dental system, working with a wide range of stakeholders and system partners. We acknowledge that, even before the pandemic and the imposition of limitations that it necessitated, access to NHS dentistry was sometimes a challenge in some areas and for some people. Putting that right will require action to both reform contractual arrangements and ensure that there are trained and qualified dental teams providing NHS services throughout the country.
Since the announcement in March that NHSEI is leading on the next stage of dental system reform, it has continued to work closely with system partners and stakeholders, including the British Dental Association in particular. The NHSEI dental system reform will deliver against a number of fundamental aims, including delivering improved health outcomes, an increased focus on preventive dental work, affordability for patients, and recognising that changes need to be supported by the profession. Making the NHS dental contract more attractive to the profession is a key part of helping with vital recruitment and retention. I know that will be particularly welcome to hon. Members from rural and coastal areas, as it has been highlighted that there is a particular challenge in some of those communities.
A key objective of this work is to improve patient access to NHS care, with a specific focus on addressing inequalities. We will set out our proposals in that area next year, in addition to the provisions in this Bill that will allow the Secretary of State to expand water fluoridation schemes. In addition, Health Education England’s “Advancing Dental Care” programme will, over the next four years, deliver its blueprint for change to reform education and training, develop skills, enable modernised flexible working, and widen access and participation among the workforce.
Together, we believe these measures will address the key challenges that impede the delivery of NHS dentistry, and improve patient access to NHS care. The Government will carry on with this essential work, and will continue co-operating with HEE and external stakeholders on this important issue. For that reason, I ask—possibly in vain—that the hon. Member for Nottingham North considers withdrawing the new clause.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to colleagues for their contributions. I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire brought up units of dental activity, which are a Treasury way of understanding activity, not a public health way of understanding oral health. Although they are effective for setting balanced budgets on an annual basis, they are really bad for saving money—in fact, they have cost money. There is broad consensus that UDAs are long out of date, and that after 15 years, it is time to move away from them.
Dealing with new clause 68 first, I was glad to hear the Minister at least suggest that this is an active process, because it was the first sign I have seen that the move away was not just a conceptual one. On that basis, I will not press the new clause to a Division, because we will not prejudge that process. However, I gently say that we really need to get on with this, because lots of dentists are waiting on the outcome of that process before making their judgment as to whether or not NHS dentistry is in their future. I was also glad to hear the Minister acknowledge that the system was not good enough before the pandemic. In response, I would say that removing a third of the real-terms funding was perhaps a significant reason why it was not very good anymore, and in future the answer may lie in tackling that point.
Turning to new clause 67, I was of course glad to hear the Minister say that this issue is being taken seriously. However, I was not clear on what “taken seriously” means beyond the existing support there is for businesses generally, not least because dentists have operated in this half space of still being open but not having the fullest demand on their order books, which has often meant that they have fallen between stools. However, I think the offer of that meeting is better than the new clause and, on that basis, I will pursue the route of that kind offer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 69
National lead for policy related to allergies
“Within 6 months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must direct NHS England to designate a national lead for policy related to allergies.”—(Alex Norris.)
This new clause brings in a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure the appointment of a NHS England allergy lead.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 69 is very important indeed. It requires the Secretary of State to direct NHS England to appoint a tsar to lead on policy related to allergies.
In 2016, 15-year-old Natasha Ednan-Laperouse tragically lost her life after suffering an allergic reaction to a Pret A Manger baguette. Since then, her parents have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that her death was not in vain and to stop other parents and loved ones having to suffer as they are suffering. They set up the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation and their campaigning has already successfully led to Natasha’s law, which was implemented just last month and requires food retailers to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on foods made on premises and prepacked for direct sale. That is a tremendous achievement, and it will make a significant difference to lots of people. I have met the Ednan-Laperouse family, with their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter); they are inspiring people and tremendous campaigners. The new clause is very much in the spirit of their latest campaign—I certainly would not bet against them.
The World Health Organisation has described allergic disease as a “modern epidemic”, while Allergy UK estimates that up to 21 million people in the UK are affected by allergies. Allergic disorders can have a detrimental impact on patients’ quality of life, as they not only have the obvious health effects, but can mean that social interactions that others take for granted—such as eating out, or even going to work—are a major health risk. Allergies can be complex: patients can suffer from several disorders at the same time, each triggered by different allergies.
In the 20 years to 2012, hospital admissions for anaphylaxis rose by 615%. Despite that, allergies are not particularly high up the political agenda for conversation and there is a perception of poor management across the NHS due to a lack of training and expertise. At the root of that is the fact that we have a very small number of consultants in adult or paediatric allergy and the fact that GPs receive basically no training in allergy.
Following the inquest into the death of Shanté Turay-Thomas—another tragic teenage death—the coroner highlighted the lack of a national allergy lead in her prevention of future death report, which was sent to the Department of Health and Social Care. I think today is a chance to make good on that, and I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on those suggestions. Natasha’s foundation, with the support of Shanté’s mother, subsequently made the call for an allergy tsar.
Two weeks ago, the all-party parliamentary group on allergy, in conjunction with the National Allergy Strategy Group, launched its report, “Meeting the challenges of the National Allergy Crisis”. The report
“calls for an influential lead for allergy to be appointed who can implement a new national strategy to help the millions of people”
suffering. There is a real coming together across our communities of people in this space calling for this measure, and this the moment to do it.
Otherwise, as I have suggested, NHS allergy services will continue to get little attention, little prominence and little investment. Care is patchy and we know that people deserve much better support. An allergy tsar would act as a public champion for those with allergies, helping to deliver a national plan to join up GP and hospital services so that patients have a consistent and coherent NHS care pathway, and helping to promote the training of more specialist allergy doctors, consultants and GPs. It would make a difference to millions of people. I hope that the Minister will look upon the new clause favourably and give the answer that millions of people are waiting for.
Edward Argar
As the shadow Minister set out, the new clause would place a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State, requiring him or her to direct NHS England to appoint an allergy lead. The shadow Minister rightly highlighted that tragic case that demonstrated to the country the issues and challenges in this space. I entirely sympathise with the intent of the hon. Gentleman, but I hope I can provide him with some reassurance that the amendment is not necessary, because NHSE is already able to appoint an allergy lead, or allergy tsar—call it what you will.
There is no specific national clinical director or specialty adviser for routine allergy services, but I am advised that NHS England and NHS Improvement keep their clinical leadership, including the national clinical director and national specialty adviser roles, under review to ensure alignment with the strategic priorities of the NHS and need. I am sure that NHSE will reflect carefully on the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and I will undertake to acquire a copy of the Hansard to pass on to NHS England and request that it considers the points he made in this context.
I also recognise that, more broadly, it is vital that NHS England and commissioners receive appropriate clinical advice in this area. That is currently provided by the clinical reference group for specialised immunology and allergy services. The CRG covers specialised treatment of certain immunological and allergic conditions. The allergic conditions include severe, complex and/or rare sub-groups. People with allergies continue to be supported through locally commissioned NHS services but, to support patients with more complex conditions, NHSE also directly commissions some specialist services. To support the implementation of coherent care pathways, NICE has also published guidance on a range of allergy conditions, including food allergy in under-19s, anaphylaxis and drug allergy.
We therefore do not believe that the new clause needs to be included in the Bill. Notwithstanding whether the hon. Gentleman decides to press it to a Division, I undertake to ensure that his comments and the case he makes for the role are passed on directly to NHS England. NHSE already has the power, should it wish to exercise it, to put such a person in post.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that offer. I hope that when NHS England has a chance to consider what has been discussed in Committee, that will generate an offer to meet campaigners to understand what they are after and, we hope, to move positively on it. Beyond that, I am afraid that the Minister’s answer was too much in defence of a status quo that does not work for too many people for me to accept it. In the spirit of elevating the matter up the political agenda and creating that blinking light on someone’s dashboard to generate action, I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
The final question that I must put is that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Edward Argar
On a point of order, Mr Bone. Craving your indulgence, may I take this opportunity as we complete the lengthy passage of this legislation through Committee to put on the record our gratitude to the Clerks of the Committee, to the Hansard team and to the Doorkeepers? I also thank you and your fellow Chairs, and colleagues on the Committee. It would be remiss of me not to put on the record my gratitude for the amazing work done by my officials in the Department in preparing the Bill and in helping us to be ready to take it through the detailed scrutiny that has rightly happened in Committee. Thank you, Mr Bone.
Justin Madders
Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. I echo the Minister’s thanks, not only to you and the other Chairs, Mrs Murray, Mr McCabe and Ms Elliott, but to the Clerks, who have been described to us as very patient and helpful—great qualities in such a long Bill Committee—and to the other parliamentary staff, the Doorkeepers and the Hansard Reporters. As the Minister said of his officials, we too have a great team—though probably a smaller one—of researchers who have been fantastic in giving us the information that we need to make the arguments. I also thank the Whips—it would be remiss of me not to—without whom none of this runs as smoothly as it does. On that note, I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 22nd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 22 November 2021 - (22 Nov 2021)
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 272 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 195 / Noes: 302 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 192 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Cigarette pack inserts—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require tobacco manufacturers to display a health information message on a leaflet inserted in cigarette packaging.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to require manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services inside cigarette packaging.
New clause 4—Packaging and labelling of nicotine products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
New clause 5—Sale and distribution of nicotine products to children under the age of 18 years—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products to those aged under 18 years, and prohibit the sale of all nicotine products to those under 18.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include an exception for medicines or medical devices indicated for the treatment of persons aged under 18.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit the free distribution or sale of any consumer nicotine product to anyone under 18, while allowing the sale or distribution of nicotine replacement therapy licensed for use by under 18s.
New clause 6—Flavoured tobacco products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations remove the limitation of the prohibition of flavours in cigarettes or tobacco products to ‘characterising’ flavours, and extend the flavour prohibition to all tobacco products as well as smoking accessories including filter papers, filters and other products designed to flavour tobacco products.”
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit any flavouring in any tobacco product or smoking accessory.
New clause 8—Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—
(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme under section [Tobacco supplies: Statutory schemes], or
(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.
(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—
(a) record and keep information,
(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.
(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with subsection (2);
(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.
(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, the Secretary of State may make any provision the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”
This new clause and NC7, NC9 and NC10 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 9—Tobacco supplies: enforcement—
“(1) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of regulations or directions under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.
(2) The penalty may be—
(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million,
(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.
(3) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.
(4) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of provision made under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (3)) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.
(5) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and this section.
(6) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (5) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (c. 40), reading—
(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision,
(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.
(7) In subsections (5) and (6), ‘enforcement decision’ means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—
(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him,
(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,
(c) refuse to give approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer,
(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to the Secretary of State,
and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the decision.
(8) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes], may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.
(9) Subsection (8) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] or this section.
(10) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (2).”
This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC10 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 10—Tobacco supplies: controls: (supplementary)—
“(1) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] may be exercised by—
(a) making regulations, or
(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection ‘specific’ means specified in the direction concerned.
(3) In this section and section [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes] and [Tobacco supplies: statutory schemes (supplementary)] and [Tobacco supplies: enforcement]—
‘tobacco product’ means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;
‘manufacturer’ means any person who manufactures tobacco products;
‘importer’ means any person who imports tobacco products into the UK with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”
This new clause and NC7, NC8 and NC9 would enable the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to regulate prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers.
New clause 11—Age of sale of tobacco—
“The Secretary of State must consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21.
New clause 14—Implementation of Restrictions on advertising of less healthy food and drink online—
“The regulator shall put in place a mechanism for the delivery of the requirements under Part 2 of Schedule 16 which shall require that advertisers—
(a) apply media targeting filters, based on robust audience measurement data, to ensure the avoidance of children’s media or editorial content of particular appeal to children;
(b) use audience targeting tools and, where available, proprietary audience or other first-party data to further exclude children; and
(c) use campaign evaluation tools to assess audience impacts and use any learning to continually improve future targeting approaches.”
This new clause would require the regulator to put in place a three-step “filtering” process for restricting online advertising by managing the targeting of an online advertising campaign for foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar, as developed by the Committee of Advertising Practice of the Advertising Standards Authority.
New clause 15—Alcohol product labelling—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or in future versions of that guidance, display—
(a) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,
(b) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption,
(c) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant,
(d) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer, and
(e) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation on alcohol product labelling.
New clause 16—Annual report on alcohol treatment services: assessment of outcomes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament at the start of each financial year a report on—
(a) the ways in which alcohol treatment providers have been supported in tackling excess mortality, alcohol related hospital admissions, and the burden of disease resulting from alcohol consumption, and
(b) the number of people identified as requiring support who are receiving treatment.
(2) Alongside the publication of the report, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the level of funding for alcohol treatment providers on their ability to deliver a high-quality service that enables patient choice.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by alcohol treatment providers has supported their work to improve treatment and reduce harm.
New clause 17—Minimum unit price for alcohol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure alcoholic drinks, as defined by the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance published in 2018, or in later versions of that document, are liable to a minimum unit price.
(2) The regulations must provide for the minimum unit price to be calculated by applying the formula M x S x V, where—
(a) M is the minimum unit price, expressed in pounds sterling,
(b) S is the percentage strength of the alcohol, expressed as a cardinal number, and
(c) V is the volume of the alcohol, expressed in litres.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce secondary legislation that applies a minimum unit price to alcohol.
Amendment 14, in clause 138, page 118, line 5, after “drink)”, insert
“and section [Minimum unit price for alcohol]”.
This amendment would bring NC17 into force at the same time as section 129 and Schedule 16 (advertising of less healthy food and drink).
Amendment 3, in schedule 16, page 222, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, or provide sponsorship, if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the advertising restrictions on television programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.
Government amendments 31 and 32.
Amendment 11, in schedule 16, page 222, line 26, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is ‘less healthy’ if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.
Amendment 111, in schedule 16, page 222, line 28, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 30 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
This amendment, and Amendments 112 and 113, aims to define companies to whom the advertising restrictions imposed by this schedule would apply as medium-sized companies within the meaning given by section 465 of the Companies Act 2006.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 6, in schedule 16, page 222, line 38, after “unless”, insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted on television programme services between 5.30 am and 9.00 pm.
Amendment 4, in schedule 16, page 223, line 4, at end insert—
“(3) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship as a brand, if the advertisement or sponsorship does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes explicit exemptions from the advertising restrictions on on-demand programme services for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.
Government amendments 34 and 35.
Amendment 12, in schedule 16, page 223, line 24, at end insert—
“(da) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services.
Amendment 112, in schedule 16, page 223, line 26, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 27 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.
Government amendment 36.
Amendment 7, in schedule 16, page 223, line 36, after “unless”, insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted on on-demand programme services.
Amendment 106, in schedule 16, page 224, line 8, leave out “must not pay for” and insert
“must not market, sell or arrange”.
This series of connected probing amendments is intended to create parity in treatment of television and online advertising. The platform carrying the advertising, rather than those paying for advertising, would be responsible for the placing of advertisements. The wording to denote a platform mirrors that used by Ofcom in its recent regulation of Video Sharing Platforms consultation.
Amendment 110, in schedule 16, page 224, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) in relation to advertisements placed on distributor or retailer websites which are associated with the sale of food or drink”.
This amendment aims to ensure paid-for branded HFSS product advertisements are treated as equivalent to HFSS own-brand products on retailer-owned spaces.
Government amendment 37.
Amendment 5, in schedule 16, page 224, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) A brand may continue to advertise, and provide sponsorship as a brand, if the advertisement does not include an identifiable less healthy food and drink product.”.
This amendment makes an explicit exemption from the restrictions on online advertising for brand advertising and sponsorship, where there is no identifiable less healthy food and drink product.
Government amendment 38.
Amendment 13, in schedule 16, page 225, line 10, at end insert—
“(fa) a drink product is “less healthy” if it is an alcoholic product in accordance with the Department for Health and Social Care’s Low Alcohol Descriptors Guidance, published in 2018, or future versions of that guidance;”.
This amendment ensures that alcohol is considered a “less healthy” product and therefore liable to the online ban.
Amendment 113, in schedule 16, page 225, line 12, leave out from “meaning” to end of line 14 and insert
“given in Section 465 of the Companies Act 2006 (Companies qualifying as medium-sized: general)”.
See explanatory statement to Amendment 111.
Government amendment 39.
Amendment 8, in schedule 16, page 225, line 24, after “unless”, insert
“a public consultation has been carried out on the proposed change to the relevant guidance, and”.
This amendment requires a public consultation to take place before any change can be made to the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance under which a food or drink product may be identified as “less healthy” and its advertising restricted online.
Amendment 107, in schedule 16, page 225, line 28, leave out “made a payment for” and insert “marketed, sold or arranged”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Amendment 108, in schedule 16, page 225, line 30, leave out “made” and insert “received”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Amendment 109, in schedule 16, page 227, line 3, leave out from “with” to end of line 4 and insert
“the person marketing, selling or arranging advertisements published on the internet”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 106.
Mary Kelly Foy
Before I address the amendments tabled in my name, I want to briefly voice my support for amendments 11 to 13 and new clauses 15 to 17, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), which call for improved regulation of alcohol marketing and labelling, for minimum unit pricing in England and for better assessment of treatment outcomes. Sadly, my hon. Friend cannot be here today, as he is with his family and his father Mike, who is receiving palliative care after many months of treatment for lung cancer. I know how important these issues are to my hon. Friend; I express my love and solidarity, and that of the whole House, at this difficult time for him and his loved ones.
Smoking is one of the biggest causes of ill health. It has a devastating impact on our population: it killed approximately the same number of people in 2019 as covid 19 in 2020, and one in every two smokers will die from smoking-related illnesses. The Government and the Opposition both support a smoke-free 2030, but without meaningful action, that ambition will be missed by seven years—or by double that number of years, in the case of the poorest in society.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Professor Marmot’s work on social and health inequalities shows that 0.5% of GDP should be spent on health inequalities such as those she describes?
Mary Kelly Foy
I could not agree more. Michael Marmot is one of the most important health inequalities experts around.
To make matters worse, smoking rates among young adults have surged to 25% above pre-lockdown rates. However, despite the damage that missing the 2030 target would cause, there is nothing in the Bill that would help to achieve the Government’s ambition to make smoking obsolete. That is why the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, of which I am the vice-chair, is fighting to get the 2030 ambition back on track. I was delighted to hear the Minister say in Committee that the Government would review the APPG’s proposals as they developed their own tobacco control plan, but that plan, which was due this year and expected in July, is now likely to be delayed beyond the end of the year. If the Government are serious about creating a smoke-free England by 2030, they will implement the APPG’s recommendations as soon as possible, and the Bill provides the ideal opportunity for them to do so.
Let me quickly summarise new clause 2. It gives the Secretary of State powers to add health warnings to cigarettes and cigarette papers. The Government are reviewing the proposal, but have said that more research is needed. Health warnings such as “Smoking Kills” have been shown to be effective on billboards and tobacco packs, so why on earth would they not be effective on individual cigarettes? At least eight peer-reviewed papers have been published in the last five years showing that the measures are effective. Similarly, new clause 3 would give the Secretary of State powers to require health information messages to be inserted in cigarette packs. That has been a legal requirement in Canada since 2000, and there is substantial evidence to show that it works there. Research carried out in the UK supports its use here as well.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The hon. Lady will, of course, understand that one of our key aims must be to stop younger generations taking up smoking in the first place. Does she believe that her proposals—which I fully support—will help to achieve that key strategic aim?
Mary Kelly Foy
Most of my new clauses are indeed intended to prevent young people from starting to smoke in the first place.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The hon. Lady has said that these measures apply to England, but they will of course have an effect throughout the United Kingdom—and rightly so—contributing to our aim to bring about a smoke-free Wales as well.
Mary Kelly Foy
Again, I could not agree more.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Department could already legislate under the Children and Families Act 2014 to require the insertion of such information messages. In that case, why do the Government not commit themselves to doing so now?
New clauses 4 to 6 address loopholes in current legislation. Now that those loopholes have been identified to the Government, they should be fixed without delay, and today we have the opportunity to do so. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State powers to remove child-friendly branding elements from nicotine products. There are e-liquids on the market that are given sweet names, such as “gummy bears”, and that have branding that is in garish colours and features cartoon characters. Surely more evidence is not necessary to prove that such branding risks attracting children.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is this not one of the most important of the hon. Lady’s new clauses? As people age and die—events often driven by cigarettes—or perhaps manage to give up, the tobacco companies must recruit the young, with the indefensible aim of persuading them to start smoking.
Mary Kelly Foy
I entirely agree. Tobacco is the only legal product that kills one in two of those who use it, and most people start smoking at a young age. These new clauses are therefore extremely important, because they would tackle that problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The figures back up what the hon. Lady says. Two thirds of smokers in the UK start smoking under the age of 18, and over a third—39%—start under the age of 16. What she proposes will address that issue in a substantial way. We need legislation in place, and there needs to be punishment as well; that is the only way forward.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I will address that issue.
New clause 5 would close another loophole in the law, which allows the free distribution of e-cigarettes and other consumer nicotine products to children under 18. The Government rejected the proposal, saying that there was no evidence of a serious problem, but the Minister sympathised with the argument for preventive action. Prevention is precisely our intention. Fixing this loophole is an appropriate application of the precautionary principle.
New clause 6 would remove the limitations on the ban on flavourings in tobacco products. That ban currently applies only to characterising flavours. The new clause would extend the flavour ban to all tobacco products, as well as to smoking accessories, including filter papers, filters and other products designed to favour tobacco products. In Committee, the Minister claimed it was unclear how a ban could be enforced in practice, as it would include a ban on flavours that did not give a noticeable flavour to the product. I suggest that he seek advice from Canada on this point, where a complete ban on flavours is already in place and has been highly effective.
The new clauses on the tobacco levy would give powers to the Secretary of State to implement a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers. The Minister dismissed this in Committee as a matter of taxation for the Treasury to consider. However, we are not proposing additional taxation. Our new clauses are modelled on the American user fee and on the pharmaceutical pricing scheme in the UK.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that prevention is much better than cure, because so many adult smokers have a terrible experience when trying to give up, and it comes at a huge cost to their health?
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A theme throughout these new clauses is that most people start smoking when they are children or when they are young, and most of them say that they wish they had never started. The new clauses would tackle young people’s access to tobacco-related products.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
It is often vulnerable children, and often those in care, who start smoking early, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is incredible that the Government have so far said that they will not support these new clauses?
Mary Kelly Foy
Yes, it is absolutely incredible. We have heard that a tobacco plan might be on its way, but every day that goes by without our putting these recommendations in place is another day on which someone dies of tobacco harm, and on which more young people become addicted to nicotine products.
Discussions with the Treasury on the “polluter pays” levy would not be necessary. The Food and Drug Administration administers the user fee in the United States, and the Department of Health and Social Care could and should administer such a scheme here.
New clause 11 has been revised in the light of the Government’s response to our proposal in the Committee, in which they cited the need to
“review the evidence base of increasing the age of sale to 21 in more detail”.––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 816.]
They also stated the need for a public consultation. I agree that a consultation is the appropriate next step, so the new clause has been revised to require the Government to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21 within three months of the passage of this legislation.
To sum up, my new clauses address loopholes in the law. They would take incremental and obvious next steps to strengthen tobacco regulation still further, and they would provide the funding that is desperately needed to deliver the Government’s smoke-free 2030 ambition—funding that the spending review failed to deliver. When I was chair of the Gateshead tobacco control alliance, I saw the damage that smoking can do. It shortens life expectancy, increases the pressure on our health services, drives down productivity and drains wealth from our poorest communities—and for one in every two smokers, it will kill them. Eventually, the Government will have to accept that the measures proposed are necessary. The only question is how long they will wait, and how many lives will be ruined by tobacco in the meantime. I urge the Government to accept these new clauses in full.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I rise to speak in this debate to outline the case behind amendments 106 to 109 in my name, and to speak in favour of those in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (John Stevenson) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I am also grateful from the outset for the time that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have afforded me in recent weeks to discuss these matters.
First and foremost, I want to set out that in principle I am opposed to the expansion of the nanny state. I did not get into politics to tell people what they should or should not eat, or businesses how they should go about advertising their products and wares. However, I equally do not doubt for one moment that obesity is a serious health concern for this country. It is a question of the detail and the manner in which we go about tackling it as a country—principally, that we go about it through education and ensuring people are able to make choices for themselves, rather than using blunt tools that I fear will not work. As I highlighted in a Backbench Business debate on the obesity strategy some months ago, the Government’s own research shows that the measures in the Bill will reduce calorie intake among children by only 1.74 calories a day. If that is the outcome, we must seriously question the measures before us.
The amendments in my name, however, seek to rectify an unfairness that will exist if the Government push ahead with these advertising restrictions, which have businesses in my constituency very concerned. For example, farmers such as Morris of Hoggeston, who grow oats, are concerned that within the categories under the HFSS, or high in fat, sugar or salt, measures, products such as porridge and granola, which are hardly the choice of most children—certainly not my children—are in scope. We need to do something to sort that out. Great British broadcasters, both public service and fully commercial, also stand to lose some £200 million a year from the restrictions we have before us.
My amendments are about fundamental fairness, and seek to treat broadcasters the same way as online platforms. In the first place, research shows that children, who these measures are most prominently aimed at, do not watch broadcast television as much as they used to. They look more and more to YouTube, on-demand services and online; I can testify to that from my own home, where my five-year-old much prefers YouTube to watching CBeebies or other children’s television programmes, and I think that is the same for most children. [Interruption.] I am not sure what is causing amusement on the Opposition Benches.
In fact, 95% of viewing of broadcast television before the 9 pm watershed is by adults, not children, and there are already regulations in place during scheduled children’s programming. So I fear the measures in this Bill will not work, and the fundamental unfairness that I spoke of earlier is the manner in which broadcasters will be treated compared with the online platforms.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Given that there is this disparity between the online advertiser and the broadcaster advertiser, and if we are seeking to restrict broadcasting advertisement to children so that they do not become unhealthy, would not the logic follow that we should equally restrict the online advertiser, rather than saying, “Let’s allow more of a free for all because this is more difficult to do for the online”?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he will let me make a little more progress, I think he will find that my amendments seek to put a harsher perspective of this on the online platforms, rather than letting anyone off anything whatsoever. I repeat that my fundamental position is one of opposition to the nanny state and restrictions, but recognising that if the Government are going to push these restrictions forward, we have to have fairness and parity across broadcast and online sectors, otherwise there will be loopholes, things will fall through the cracks and the Government will not achieve their objectives.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I certainly support the argument that my hon. Friend is putting forward. Does he feel that the Government have found themselves in a position where they feel they need to react because of the genuine obesity crisis among young people and this would seem to be the highest-profile publicity effort, but that really we should be focusing on the evidence of the case and the argument, so that we can actually have an impact on it, rather than steal the headline that might just last a couple of days?
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: if we are to tackle obesity as a country, we have to look at the most successful outcomes. Fundamentally, I believe those to be ones of education, ensuring that parents are empowered to be able to make the best decisions for their children and ensuring that people are empowered to come to the right choices for themselves. The point about these amendments is to ensure that we are not giving a green light to one side while harshly penalising another for hosting these adverts.
The nub of the point is that the broadcasters will, in effect, have to pre-clear any advertising that is put on to their platform and there will be very harsh penalties, leading right up to the point of revocation of their broadcast licence, if they fail to do this. By contrast, although the Bill puts significant restrictions on the online platforms, they are not put through that same test. They are not put through the same harsh restrictions and requirements that are broadcasters are. This is especially important when we consider recent evidence that has been put into the public domain. The Advertising Standards Authority recently drew considerable attention to the mass flouting of the rules by online influencers across many sectors. This House’s Select Committee on Work and Pensions made an important point about online regulation in a report in March this year on protecting pension savers. It said:
“Regulators appear powerless to hold online firms to account”—
for online advertisements—
“in the same way they would be able to for traditional media.”
We need to bear that in mind as we consider this Bill, because if current regulations do not work in that field, I fear that the regulations on online providers proposed in this Bill will not either.
I offer these amendments as a call to those on the Treasury Bench, including the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—an excellent Minister who will consider these points carefully—to rethink the practicalities of what we are saying to the broadcast and online sectors. If the Government are intent on pushing this forward, I ask them to find that parity that ensures that broadcasters are not unfairly penalised. Great British broadcasters—ITV, Channel 4, Channel Five, Sky—already produce some incredible educational programming about diet, cooking, wellbeing and lifestyle. It would be horrendous for us to cut off their lifeline of funding.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I have put my name to my hon. Friend’s amendments because I agree with the points that he makes.
It is surely vital that those responsible broadcasters should not be penalised when they are doing the right thing—and yet there is effectively a wild west on the internet, where we are simply not able to manage the issue. I recognise that the Minister will be concerned that the online harms Bill will also deal with some of these matters, but we need to find a cross-Government way of dealing with this.
Greg Smith
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and speaks with great experience from her time as Secretary of State at DCMS. That is the fundamental point of the amendments; it is not a complex or difficult case, but purely one of fairness and treating the different platforms—the diverse media of 2021—the same, rather than pretending that the media from the old analogue age can somehow be treated differently from those of the digital age.
Let us not cut off the lifeline that funds so many good educational programmes. Let us think again about restrictions on advertisers, move forward in a way that can enable people to make the right and healthy choices about what they and their children eat without this level of restriction, and ensure that, when restriction is brought in, it is fair.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this first part of the debate on the Bill.
A decade ago, virtually to the day, I was a young activist taking part in marches, protests, online campaigns, letter writing campaigns, petitions and much more in opposition to what would become the Health and Social Care Act 2012. We argued that it would lead to more fragmentation, less integration, confused decision making and more privatisation and that it would not make anybody any healthier.
Despite significant opposition to the legislation, the Government pushed on. But as campaigners, we were right, weren’t we? The 2012 Act created a fragmented system that did not promote health and care integration. Performance against NHS targets, even pre-pandemic, was dismal and now it is even worse. Waiting lists have grown extraordinarily, and staff vacancies have grown to crisis proportions.
We are here today and tomorrow to consign that legislation to history—perhaps less the end of an era and more the end of an error. But the same Government who broke the system now offer a new package of reforms, and that should really scare us. These are the wrong reforms at the wrong time. There are no answers in them to the waiting times crisis, no answers to the capacity issues in accident and emergency or our ambulance services, no answers to access issues for our GPs or dentists, and no answers to the environmental factors that make a country with so many assets so unhealthy.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does the shadow Minister agree that the Bill gives the green light to private profit making companies sitting on integrated care organisations?
Alex Norris
Yes. That was a strong theme in Committee that we on the Opposition Benches are very much against; it is likely to be a prominent theme during our discussion of upcoming amendments. Through what we are discussing now, we at least have the chance to put something in the Bill that might improve the public’s health.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend talked about waiting lists. Would he confirm that at the moment approximately 5.6 million people are on the waiting list and that the Government’s own projections are that that figure could rise to 13 million? What in the Bill does my hon. Friend believe can address that extraordinary situation?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Secretary of State must be the first in the history of the NHS who came into that important role saying that he was expecting waiting times to grow to the extent that they are. That is of course pandemic-related, but it also has a reality far beyond this extraordinary last 18 months. There are more than 125 clauses in the Bill and the Government have proposed more new clauses in Committee and on Report, but not one of them will have a meaningful impact on waiting times, so people should be really disquieted.
Alun Cairns
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member’s comments about waiting times in England and the measures that are to be introduced here. He urged disquiet; can I assume that his disquiet is even louder when he considers my constituents in Wales who have much longer waiting times?
Alex Norris
There is a danger that the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The reality is that for a decade there has been historically low investment in our health service, which of course has Barnett consequentials for Wales. That is the reality and why the system is as distressed as it is. I do not think he can put that at the door of the Welsh Government.
Let me come back to public health. Over the past five years we have removed £1 billion in public health funding, which means that the challenges in respect of childhood obesity, smoking, sexual health and access to drug and alcohol services are all developing and growing. The sad thing is that such cuts make an immediate local government saving for the Treasury but create greater costs for the public purse later, never mind the impact on people’s lives. They are the falsest of false economies. For all the talk of the end of austerity, last month’s Budget did nothing to tackle that reality. Indeed, local authorities are under greater pressure and the cycle will continue.
Being smoke-free by 2030 is a major national prize, and with that I turn to new clauses 2 to 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). She made an excellent case and has shown tremendous leadership on this issue, in concert with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), through the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. They have given the Government a number of really good ways to improve our nation’s efforts and I hope we will hear from the Minister that they will be taken on.
Tackling smoking is a crucial part of not only improving the nation’s health but addressing health inequalities. A child born where I live, Nottingham, can expect to live seven years fewer than a child born here in Westminster. When it comes to healthy life expectancy, we can expect that difference to double. Tackling that inequality should be a core part of the business of this place. Nearly half that inequality is attributable to smoking—that is how pivotal this issue is.
Successive Governments have shown over the past 25 years that we can make inroads with public policy on smoking, but the benefits have been unevenly felt: the smoking rate among those in professional occupations is now down to just one in 10, so is well on track to meet the 2030 target, but incidence rates among those in manual or routine occupations remain a stubborn one in four, so we must now renew our efforts with that group of people who are, of course, disproportionately likely to use stop smoking services—the very services we have lost over the past decade. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, the pandemic has posed new challenges, with a new group of people who have started smoking but would not otherwise have done so.
We have been promised a new tobacco control plan by the end of this year, but that promise looks a little less secure by the day—I hope the Minister will tell me I am wrong. We could get on with impactful interventions right away. The labelling and information interventions set out in new clauses 2 to 4 have very strong evidence bases from other countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, and would be quick, easy to implement and impactful.
On new clause 4 in particular, we know that e-cigarettes and vaping are important quit aids, but we would not want them to be a gateway for children to smart smoking. We should be concerned about the 2021 YouGov research for ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—that suggests that more than 200,000 11 to 17-year-olds who had never smoked previously had tried vaping this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, we must make sure that that age group does not take smoking through that route and that products are not targeted at it.
New clause 5 would tackle the bizarre loophole, which colleagues sometimes struggle to believe is true, that would allow the egregious practice whereby e-cigarettes or similar kit could be given free to someone under 18, although they cannot be sold. That is an extraordinary part of the law and I know that the Minister agrees it is daft—he said that in Committee, but also that he did not feel there was quite the evidence that it was a risk. Well, risk or not, I think the loophole should be closed, because I suspect that eventually someone will happen on it as a bright idea.
New clauses 8 and 10 are a beautiful support to any Minister who wants to improve smoking outcomes in this country, as I know this Minister does, but is conscious about the finances. This gives the Minister a chance, through a US-style polluter pays model, to fund all these interventions, including the restoration of the lost smoking cessation services in this country. He did not close the door to that in Committee when we talked about it, so I hope that he might tell us today that it is likely to form part of the new tobacco control plan. New clause 11 promotes a consultation on raising the age of sale, as we know that the older a person gets, the less likely they are to start smoking.
Let me turn to new clauses 15 to 17 and amendments 11 to 14 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). Colleagues will have been profoundly moved to hear him speak of his battle with alcoholism, and I know that his bravery has connected with people across the country. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham regarding his entirely understandable absence from the Chamber today. With him in mind, I speak in support of those new clauses and amendments.
New clause 15 seeks to improve alcohol product labelling. This is overdue and it is popular. It is about not taking alcohol products out of people’s hands, but instead making sure that they can make an informed choice.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
While an energy drink carries not only calorific information but a health warning that drinking too much can have a laxative effect, alcoholic drinks carry no calorific information and no health warning. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a damning indictment of where we are in society and that a change, which the amendment could make, is needed?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I completely agree with him. I would be the last one to police people’s consumption habits in the night-time economy for fear of being a hypocrite, but I do think that we should all have informed choice. What we have at the moment is inconsistent and unclear. We know that that frustrates people. A recent survey has shown that: 75% of people would like to know the number of units in a product; 61% would like to know the calorie information, as he mentions; and 53% would like to know the amount of sugar. We should give people the chance to have that full information to make their own decisions.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that two thirds of people in Britain are overweight and that one in four is obese. An enormous amount of added sugar is put into processed foods that people do not know about. Men, for instance, are not supposed to have more than nine teaspoons of added sugar, and women six, which is the equivalent of a can of coke and a light yoghurt. Does he not agree that this Bill is tremendously light on the killer that sugar is, and that not only should we be labelling it, but that the Budget should tax added sugar in processed food to reduce the waiting list?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I will be coming on to the modesty of the Government’s plans for tackling obesity, but I have to finish my remarks about new clause 16.
New clause 16 compels the Secretary of State to publish an annual statement about the spend and impact of alcohol treatment funding. After a decade of reduced commitment in this vital area, the Secretary of State should seek to embrace this opportunity. At the moment, national Government cannot say they are meeting their responsibility to tackle alcohol harm with the requisite financial commitment and in the right place, which should discomfort them greatly. New clause 17 would replicate in England the minimum unit pricing restrictions that we see in Scotland and Wales, and we are all watching with great interest as evidence gathers as to their impact.
Let me now turn to the amendments and new clauses relating to advertising. The Government have included a couple of elements of their obesity strategy in the Bill. As I have already said to the Minister—in Committee and upstairs in the delegated legislation Committee—I wish that they had put the entire obesity strategy in this legislation, because there are bits that could have been improved by amendment, by debate and by discussion, as we heard in the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and as I dare say we will in that of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). We should have taken that approach to the entire document, and it is sad that we did not.
On the obesity strategy itself, it is too modest and it fails to attack a major cause of obesity, which is poverty.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying. I am a type 2 diabetic and I am well aware of the issues. As I understand it, figures that have been gathered during the covid-19 pandemic showed that the number of diabetics rose by some 200,000. That tells me that, if we are going to address the issue of diabetes, we need to have a tax process in place, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, rather than a regulation, because that is the only way that we can control diabetes.
Alex Norris
I think that a solution might be a little from column A and a little from column B, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.
We have heard about the modesty of the strategy from the hon. Member for Buckingham. The reality is that any benefits from the obesity strategy will be outstripped by losses in the nation’s health caused by the impact of the cut to universal credit. We want the strategy to succeed, but it needs to be seen in that broader category.
Obesity is an important issue, with nearly two thirds of adults carrying excess weight. Childhood obesity is also a significant issue, with one in 10 children starting primary school obese, rising to one in five by the time they leave—extraordinary at such a young age.
Catherine West
I thank the shadow Minister, who is making an excellent argument, and colleagues across the House for all their work on this important Bill. Does he agree that we could do an enormous amount for the health of the nation by looking holistically at the role of exercise and prescribing exercise through the national health service, including swimming—the statistics on 11-year-olds who can swim 25 metres are going backwards due to all the lessons they have missed during coronavirus—and other important sports?
Alex Norris
Yes, I agree. I look with real sadness at the loss of exercise-on-prescription schemes that were part of the public health grant but have gone over the last decade. Similarly, on swimming, the decisions in the Budget relating to local authorities will lead to councils, which are setting their budgets as we speak, closing more leisure centres and swimming pools. We should mourn those losses, which come as a result of a weak bit of public policy.
In the Bill, the proposed watershed with regard to high fat, sugar and salt products is broadly a good thing. With that in mind, we do not oppose Government amendments 31 to 39, which are relatively modest tweaks, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about a significant proposal; I know that colleagues have interest in this. Beyond a watershed on traditional broadcast media, we will also see a complete online ban of high fat, sugar and salt advertising. This is a blunt tool in pursuit of an important goal.
New clause 14 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire would implement a more nuanced system, as proposed by the advertising industry itself. This is mirrored in amendments 106 to 109 in the name of the hon. Member for Buckingham. We probed this point in Committee. I was surprised then, and remain surprised, that there seems to be little interest from Ministers or the Department in even having that conversation and exploring creative alternatives. The desired benefits are non-negotiables. If there are other ways to achieve those benefits, they ought to be approached with an open mind.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my new clause. We have a number of issues potentially to put to a vote later. Given what he has said and given that the Minister was a bit hazy about this issue in Committee, would he be minded to support my new clause if it were put to a vote and the Minister did not come forward with something more robust?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but my problem is that I want to know that the conversations have taken place and that the proposal has been considered as an option. I would not say today that I think it is the best option, but I am surprised that that conversation has not taken place, which is why I have highlighted it. There is still time for the Minister to reconsider, and he should.
I was less persuaded by amendments 3 to 5 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, which seek to permit brand advertising as long as it does not refer to an HFSS product. In many cases, the brand and product are so inexorably intertwined that it might undermine the goals and aims of the whole intervention. I do, however, support amendments 6 to 8, which refer to the nutrient profiling model—the model that is used to determine what is and is not considered to be a high fat, sugar and salt product. It is important that there is certainty and that it does not move around more than the science would say that it ought to.
We talked about this issue at length in Committee. If we are asking the industry to reformulate and change, companies ought to be able to base product decisions on the certainty that the Government will not arbitrarily change the criteria. Such companies may have made significant time, financial or infrastructure investments in a certain product and then could see the criteria change overnight. In Committee, we extracted a commitment from the Minister to a Government amendment on this matter. That was reiterated in a letter on 13 November, when the Minister wrote to Committee members and committed to
“introducing a Government amendment at Commons Report Stage to include a duty to consult before changing the NPM technical guidance.”
I am surprised not to see that at this point. I hope that we will get clarity from the Minister, or indeed that he is minded to accept these amendments, because this is an important development. We also want the level playing field suggested by amendments 110 to 113, so we will be listening with great interest to his reply.
This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. It does nothing to address the real causes of ill-health in this country today. In this part of the proceedings, colleagues have given the Minister a chance to change that and I hope he is minded to take it.
Richard Fuller
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). I will speak to new clause 14 and the other amendments in my name. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for amendments 6, 7 and 8 and for an industry-led alternative—in spirit, if not necessarily in voting. I think the hon. Gentleman, as well as many of my hon. Friends, will be wanting to hear something from the Minister to show that he has been listening to concerns that have been raised across the House.
I was surprised and delighted to see on some of my amendments the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but she advised me that that was an error, so I am sorry that the potential amity between me and those on the Scottish National party Benches will have to wait for another day.
Dr Whitford
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that has saved me from having to put a disclaimer at the start of my speech, as I was rather shocked to find my name on his amendments. I just reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). It is a concern that the names of companies, as we saw in F1 racing and other things, simply promote certain types of food and drink and you cannot separate the brand from the product.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making her point clear.
As the hon. Lady and other hon. Members know, my amendments relate to the ways in which the Government are seeking to restrict advertising for foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt as part of their obesity strategy. Those measures essentially ban such advertising on TV before the 9 pm watershed and ban all paid-for HFSS advertising online at any time of the day or night. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) has already done a very good job in drawing out some concerns about that.
What are the concerns about what the Government are doing? First, I should mention that I have a number of important food businesses based in my constituency, including Unilever and the cereal company Jordans Dorset Ryvita, and I think everyone would be surprised to hear that products such as porridge, muesli and granola are going to be subject to these bans. All these products have ingredients such as naturally occurring oils and sugars, as well as fibre, vitamins and minerals, and because of those natural ingredients they will be caught by the Government’s definition of “HFSS”.
It is also worth considering—I was not on the Committee and I do not know if it was considered at length—the impact on food services such as takeaways and home-delivered foods. Papa John’s, which is located near me in Milton Keynes, supports hundreds of entrepreneurs and small businesses through its franchise model, and it writes to warn me:
“These would restrict our ability to invest in our businesses and our people, at a time of significant economic uncertainty for the UK economy, and would also place our franchisees, many of whom are single owner small businesses, on an unsustainable financial footing.”
I think the Government have to do a few more hard yards in support of our small businesses, and this is not a very good way of showing any support for them.
Jim Shannon
The number of diabetics, both type 1 and type 2, across the United Kingdom and the number of children with obesity is rising. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that new clause 14 cannot address the issue of those rising numbers? If it cannot, what more needs to be done?
Richard Fuller
I absolutely do not agree. The reason why the Opposition Front-Bench team are probing on this is that we are not harnessing all the talents to come up with the solution. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, he does not have, or want, any objection to the objective—he just feels that there may be better ways to do it. That is what my amendments are trying to create. They would introduce a better way, working with established principles and with the industry—let us face it, it has the experts in this—rather than undermining issues to do with how the Advertising Standards Authority has managed how products are advertised and rather than bulldozing through the industry, which is the current process that the Government, or this Department anyway, are proposing.
Let us just remember that this pressure on our food and drink manufacturers is part of a wider effort of social responsibility that we are putting on them. The proposal does not sit alone, but with other things, in particular around environmental protection. The Food and Drink Federation has calculated that the cost of the UK Government’s proposed environmental health policies is at least £8 billion. That is equivalent to £160 a year on household food bills that we are asking the industry to take on.
It is estimated that the introduction of this policy will cost £833 million, but the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that the benefits are likely to be in the order of only £118 million. That is a real dead loss that we will be putting, let us face it, on food bills, primarily of those in lower income brackets. Members on all sides should take a moment to consider whether this is the right time and the right process for doing that. As the Government’s own assessment shows, the actual effect on diet for those who are targeted is estimated to be 1.7 calories a day, so it is a lot of effort and cost, but not very much impact.
New clause 14 proposes an alternative that would require the regulator to implement an alternative set of increased restrictions for online, but developed through the industry by the Committee of Advertising Practice. The new clause would legislate for a three-step filtering process drawn up by the industry to appropriately manage the targeting of online ad campaigns.
Another of my amendments would introduce brand exemptions. I take a different view from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who said that brands are intrinsically tied to their product. The truth of the matter is that Coca Cola is made by Coke and Coke Zero is made by Coke. Coke Zero is advertised with the word “Coke” on it. This issue is not necessarily covered by the legislation, but Coke is not tied to one thing. Brands are extraordinarily flexible in how they can assist progress in achieving some social means. The Minister should consider looking again at this area.
Finally, on the nutritional profile, the issue is consultation. I can see that the Secretary of State has tabled some amendments on that, and perhaps the Minister can talk about that. They do not seem to make the changes I would like to see, but I would be interested to hear what he has to say.
It is worrying that the Government have undermined the Advertising Standards Authority with their approach. One of the other things is targeted advertising. I am sure it has struck hon. Members here as it has me that the tech revolution of the dotcom era was 20 years ago, and two decades of technical expertise in understanding how adverts are targeted is being swept away or ignored by the Department of Health and Social Care, which would much rather have “nanny knows what’s best”. The truth of the matter is that, by harnessing technology, the Government could get a better outcome than this official ban. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, there are plenty of other ways to do it that would be hard for advertisers to get around.
I say to the Minister that I am trying to be helpful, as always, and, to be serious, as are the Opposition. The Government have made a slight misstep by adopting a top-down, state-driven model. I say to the Minister that the path of good intentions is littered with unintended consequences. The essence of conservatism is not to use the state to bully or, as perhaps the advisers in the various Departments say in modern parlance, to nudge. It amounts to one and the same thing. The Department’s attempt to censor products such as these is profoundly un-Conservative. Our party believes in individual responsibility and that families are the foundation of society where choices and power in society most naturally lie. Nowhere is that more important than in health matters, yet these proposals extend the role of the state and undermine parental responsibilities.
The measures make the Department of Health and Social Care look like a new outpost of cancel culture that denies free speech and has a predisposition that individuals should conform to what the state determines, rather than enabling informed free choice. It is desperately sad to see them being pushed through by a Conservative Administration. I say to my colleagues on the Back Benches: when will we wake up and realise that we need a Government who support free enterprise and individual responsibility, and who understand that the way to create growth in the economy is through enabling people to make free choices, rather than expecting the state to be the answer to every problem? With that question, I will wait to listen to what the Minister has to say.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for clarifying that I had not voluntarily added my name to his amendment.
Whenever we talk about such subjects, we hear a lot about the nanny state. As a surgeon working in A&E in general surgery, however, the difference when seatbelts, airbags and speed limits came in was night and day in how much time I spent dealing with people in operating theatres who had been involved in car crashes. Sometimes the state has to take action to protect people’s health and wellbeing.
The Bill focuses largely on reversing some of the most egregious aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which I welcome, but these measures focus on improving public health. There is no question that obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases associated with obesity pose not just a real threat to individual health but a threat that will overwhelm national health services in future. When I looked at the original Bill, however, I was surprised that, apart from the measures around obesity, there was little in the way of public health policy to improve and promote health, and there is also little enough about care.
It is not the national health service that delivers health. I have often said that it would be more appropriate to call it the national illness service, but who would want to work somewhere called that? The NHS spends most of its time catching people when they fall. Health comes from a decent start in life, a warm dry home, enough to eat and a decent education. Those are the things that deliver health, but there is nothing like them in the Bill.
Particularly, and surprisingly, there is nothing in the Bill on reducing harm from tobacco products and alcohol, which is why I rise to speak in support of new clauses 2 to 4, which seek to strengthen the health warnings on all tobacco products; new clauses 7 to 10, which seek to allow regulation of tobacco pricing; and particularly new clause 6, because the use of sweet flavourings to entice children and young people to take up smoking is indefensible.
Barry Gardiner
I heartily commend the hon. Lady for her comments. Does she experience in her constituency, as I do in mine, that smoking cessation services are diminishing and becoming less successful? As the tobacco industry concentrates on a core group of existing addicts, it is desperate to move down the age range and encourage new addicts. That is why that element of the new clause is important.
Dr Whitford
I agree that new clause 6 is the most important of the new clauses, because tobacco companies are driven to recruit new victims—as I would have to call them, as a doctor—and they are recruiting them from young people.
Public health is devolved, so we have not had the cuts in public health funding that we have unfortunately seen in England since 2016. Therefore, we have not had the cuts to smoking cessation and sexual health services that many local authorities experienced across England when public health moved into local government.
Smoking does not just cause respiratory problems such as chronic obstructive airway disease, but affects all the blood vessels causing peripheral vascular disease, vascular dementia, strokes, heart attacks and many forms of cancer, not just lung cancer. Stopping smoking is the best favour anyone can do themselves, but many people require the very smoking cessation services that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Christian Wakeford
Obviously, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, I know that part of the issue with treatment—I am thinking in particular of new clause 16—is the stigma behind alcohol dependency and its still being seen as a personal choice. While we need to overcome the stigma of addiction, we first need to be having a conversation about alcohol. Does the hon. Member agree that, as part of the treatment, we need to be having this conversation on a national level?
Dr Whitford
I would say that really no one who has a health problem should be stigmatised. Having dealt over 33 years in the NHS with many people who were problem drinkers, I know that the public image of someone who abuses alcohol is quite a caricature. There will be many people across this House who drink more than is healthy for them and I have met many people as patients from the middle and upper classes who had serious alcohol problems, so we should get away from the stigma and the caricature. We will not spot everyone who needs to deal with alcohol just by looking at them.
Catherine West
I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) in this regard. Does the hon. Lady agree with me that the whys and wherefores are all very well in this debate, but in the end the cuts to local government, which would primarily be providing services in relation to alcohol abuse, have been most disgraceful, and that is why we are seeing the huge increase in the number of people who have passed away from alcohol disease in the last couple of years following covid?
Dr Whitford
There is no question but that, after public health moved into local government—we can absolutely defend that because, as I have said, health is often delivered by things that are nothing to do with the NHS—the problem was that the budget was then cut, so the potential benefit of putting public health into local government was lost due to the cuts to services.
On alcohol not being classed as a less healthy food, with this Government I find it hard not to ask: why not, and what or who may have influenced that decision? I certainly support amendments 11 to 13 from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), which would include alcohol, particularly the medium and high-strength alcohols, under less healthy foods, so that alcohol is covered by advertising regulations. I also support his new clause 15, which would mandate much clearer labelling of alcohol units, or whatever measure, on labels. It is no good just saying “Drink aware” or “Drink Responsibly” when the consumer has not actually been given the tools on the product to make a proper choice, such as by asking, “How much is in this?” Why not agree to use a simple, straightforward approach? A lot of public health advice is in units, so why not actually use them? People would then learn to be aware and ask, “How many units have I already drunk today?” or “How many units have I already drunk this week?”
New clause 17 calls on the UK Government to follow Scotland, and now Wales, by introducing a minimum unit price for alcohol. The UK Government have the advantage in that they can do that by setting alcohol duty based on unit, instead of on classes of drink. In every Budget we hear about a penny on a pint of beer, or so much on spirits, but why not do it by unit? It is much more accurate, and it would still allow the raising of taxation to help fund alcohol services, as well as those public services most hit by alcohol abuse, such as healthcare and policing. Under devolution the Scottish Government, and now the Welsh Government, did not have that power.
Over the past year and a half of the pandemic we have, unfortunately, seen a big increase in both smoking and alcohol consumption, as people struggled to cope with the loneliness and boredom associated with lockdowns and pandemic restrictions. However, the initial valuation of minimum unit pricing in Scotland showed that alcohol sales fell, for the first time in many years, by more than 7% in Scotland, compared with a continued rise in England and Wales. It was not possible to demonstrate a reduction in overall alcohol-associated admissions to hospital, which may include car accidents, violence and so on, but there was a drop in admissions due to alcoholic liver disease, suggesting that the policy was working. More evaluation after the pandemic will be required, but an immediate impact was an almost three-quarters drop in the sales of cheap white cider. That product is cheaper than soft drinks, and predominantly used by young—indeed, often under-age—drinkers, who purchase it, or get someone else to purchase it, so that they can drink it at home. However, that sector is literally disappearing overnight.
It will be important to review and maintain the pressure of the unit price on a regular basis, because young drinkers also drink many other products—this is the same issue as young smokers; more people are being recruited, often into problem drinking and problem products. Minimum unit pricing does not affect good wine, high-end spirits, or what is sold in a pub, but it does affect what someone can buy in a small shop to then hang out with their mates in their bedroom. Some of those products are not affected by the 50p unit price, and that must be kept under review.
I was disappointed that new clause 30, which is listed for discussion tomorrow, was not included in this group. It calls on the Government to reform the out-of-date Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and to devolve it so to allow the devolved nations to take a public health approach to tackling drug addiction, in the same way as we take a public health approach to dealing with alcohol. Such an approach has already been demonstrated in many countries across the world, yet the Government keep sticking their head in the sand.
Hywel Williams
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning new clause 30, which I still hope against hope we might be able to discuss tomorrow. I am sure she will agree that problematic drug abuse is an illness and a social ill, not a crime, and our emphasis must be on harm reduction, treatment, and support for the problematic drug user.
Dr Whitford
That is the policy of the Scottish Government, and we would absolutely support the new clause if it is voted on tomorrow.
As Opposition Members have said, key to improving public health would be restoring the non-covid related public health budget in England. We cannot hide behind covid funding, because that is used up by the pandemic and does not help us with smoking, alcohol, or drug addiction. The biggest contribution the Government could make would be to abandon their plans for yet another decade of austerity. We hear the slogan all the time—levelling up—but it rings hollow after taking away £1,000 a year from the poorest families and most vulnerable households. Over the past decade, cuts to social security have caused a rise in poverty among pensioners, disabled people, and particularly children. Sir Michael Marmot was mentioned earlier, and his research was clear: poverty is the biggest single driver of ill health, and the biggest driver of poverty is Tory austerity.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who brings her knowledge of the medical profession to this House on every occasion. I agreed with almost everything she had to say, apart from the last comment.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, and I support all the new clauses tabled in the name of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). These comprehensive proposals are complementary and can be picked up by the Government. The new clauses were tabled in a different form in Committee. They were discussed and debated, and I think Ministers said they would take them away and have a further look. We have refined the proposals on the basis of the debate in Committee, strengthened them, and brought them back again, and they address the loopholes in current legislation. They strengthen the regulation of tobacco products still further, and they provide funding for the tobacco control measures that are so desperately needed if we are to deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition.
We had an excellent debate in Westminster Hall last week, to which the new Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup) responded. Questions were posed to the Government from across the Chamber about when we will see the long-promised tobacco control plan, which is presumably due to be delivered by 31 December this year. We got no firm commitment on when we will see it, and I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible. We can then measure what will happen.
The problem we have with tobacco control right now is that if we do nothing and none of these measures is introduced, the risk is that, as the hon. Member for City of Durham rightly articulated, we will miss the target by seven years. For those on low incomes and in deprived circumstances, it will be 14 years. We must consider how many people will die from smoking-related diseases as a direct result of the Government’s failure to achieve their Smokefree 2030 ambition. It is clear that we need to take further action, and I urge the Minister, who I know is a doughty campaigner for public health, to make sure that we deliver on the proposals.
My main focus is obviously on the new clauses that seek to provide funding for tobacco control. We all accept that not only can we implement measures, but we have somehow to fund them. That is critical. We must also consider raising the age of sale, as that, unfortunately, is a key proponent in encouraging young people to start smoking. The spending review failed to address the 25% real-terms cut to public health funding since 2015. Reductions in spending on tobacco control have bitten even deeper, by a third, since 2015. We need new sources of funding.
The Government promised to consider a polluter pays levy in the 2019 Prevention Green Paper, when they announced the Smokefree 2030 ambition. The all-party group on smoking and health has done the analysis, and we estimate that in the first year alone of a polluter pays levy, £700 million could be raised. That would benefit not only England, but the whole United Kingdom. It is more than twice the estimated cost of the tobacco control measures that we are proposing tonight, and that would then leave the Government with further funding to spend on other health priorities. The proposal is for a user fee, along United States lines, rather than an additional tax. Now that we have exited the European Union and can set our own rules, EU tobacco manufacturers’ profits can be controlled. They cannot pass the cost on to the consumer, but we can control their profits and use those for preventing people from smoking in the first place. It is quite justified that we should tax the manufacturers’ profits. This is the most highly addictive product that is legally available, and it kills those who use it for the purpose for which it was intended.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman refers to public health funding since 2015, but is he aware that in 2015, it was identified that the cost to the NHS of smoking was £144.8 million in prescriptions, almost £900 million in out-patient visits, almost £900 million in hospital admissions, and a total of £2.6 billion? Is not investing in smoking cessation money well spent?
Bob Blackman
Clearly, if we invest in public health and smoking cessation, we prevent costs in the health service later. It is estimated that most of the cost of people’s healthcare arises in the last two years of their life. Individuals who suffer from cancer or other respiratory diseases caused by smoking will cost the health service dramatic sums of money, so through cessation, we are helping the nation to be healthier and, indeed, saving money for the health service in the long run.
To quote the chief medical officer, the great majority of people who die from lung cancer
“die so that a small number of companies can make profits from the people who they have addicted in young ages, and then keep addicted to something which they know will kill them.”
The time has come to make the tobacco manufacturers pay for the damage that they do, not only to older people but to young people in particular. We need to bring forward the day when smoking is finally obsolete in this country, and I regret to say that if we do not take measures, the time before that day arrives will be lengthened quite considerably.
However, funding alone is not enough; we have to consider tough regulation. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned that since lockdown, we have seen the smoking rate among young adults surge by 25%. In the United States, raising the age of sale from 18 to 21 reduced the smoking rate among 18 to 20-year-olds by 30%. We could do the same thing here. We talk about complementary measures; giving tobacco products away is not illegal at the moment. Just imagine—tobacco manufacturers may say, “If we give tobacco products away for free, we can encourage people to become addicted, and then they will buy them, and that will lead them on to a lifetime of smoking.” We have to break that chain of events and make sure that people do not do that.
I have a passion for ensuring that women do not smoke in pregnancy. That is one of the most stubborn measures, and we have to overcome it. Some 11% of women still smoke in pregnancy. We must give them every incentive and introduce every measure to ensure that they give up smoking, and that their partners give up smoking at the same time. That is something that I passionately support.
Our revised amendment, new clause 11, addresses the concerns that the Government raised in Committee about a review of the evidence. I hope that the Government will adopt the new clause at this stage, and then look at the evidence and consult.
People start smoking at certain key points in their life. They may take it up when they are at school and their friends are smokers and they want to be part of the team or the gang. They may take it up when they go to college or university or start a new job, when they are in a new social environment, or at a dreadful time of stress in their life. We have to make sure that they understand that if they take up smoking, they will shorten their life and cause damage to their health—and, indeed, to the health of the people around them.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely. Does he agree that there is an interrelationship between the issues to do with alcohol dependency that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned and the issue of smoking? One of the things that comes out from the book “Alcohol Reconsidered” by Lesley Miller and Catheryn Kell-Clarke is that the science shows that alcohol reduces people’s inhibitions, and it is therefore more likely that they will smoke. If we had a culture of moderation in alcohol, we would probably do better on smoking.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. Clearly, the fact that people can no longer smoke in public houses or restaurants has dramatically reduced the incidence of smoking. Someone has to make a deliberate decision to go outside and inflict their smoke on the outside world rather than on the people in the public house or restaurant.
We who support these amendments tabled them in Committee—we sought Government support and we debated them in Committee—and now we are debating them on Report. I understand that we may not be successful tonight, but I give fair warning that these amendments, in another form, will be tabled in the other place, and we will see what happens. We know that there is very strong support in the other place for anti-tobacco legislation. In July 2021, the Lords passed by 254 votes to 224 a motion to regret that the Government had failed to make it a requirement that smoke-free pavement licences must be 100% smoke free. That is smoking in the open air; we are talking about measures to combat smoking overall.
Finally, if we look back over the years, the measures on smoking in public places, on smoking in vehicles, on smoking when children are present and on standardised packaging of tobacco products were all led from the Back Benches. Governments of all persuasions resisted them, for various reasons. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I know well, may resist these measures tonight, but we on the Back Benches who are determined to improve the health of this country will continue to press on with them, and we will win eventually. It may not be tonight, but those measures will come soon. I support the measures that are proposed.
Geraint Davies
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who gave an eloquent speech about smoking. What he did not include, and what the Minister is not considering, is the mass passive smoking from air pollution, which causes 64,000 deaths a year. I know that I am in danger of being outside the scope of the Bill, but I will make this point just briefly, because it is about public health.
Indoor and outdoor air pollution is endemic. It costs £20 billion a year. We could simply ban wood-burning stoves, which 2.5 million people have and which contribute 38% of the PM2.5 emissions in our atmosphere. That is particularly problematic in poorer areas. I make this point partly as I chair the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution, but this is a critical public health issue, so I feel that the Department of Health and Social Care should look at it centrally, rather than leaving it to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as an air quality issue.
I turn to the comments by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who sadly is not in his place, about free choice in advertising. Advertising is not about free choice; one would not need to advertise unless one was trying to convince somebody to do something they would not otherwise do. That is not to say that advertising is always bad—good things and bad things can be advertised—but let us be straightforward.
As it happens, I have a background in multinational marketing; I have been involved with PG Tips and Colgate toothpaste—good products. However, the reality is that if someone wanted to make money from a product such as a potato, which is intrinsically good for people, they could impregnate it with salt, sugar and fat, make it into the shape of a dinosaur, get a jingle and call it “Dennis’s Dinosaurs”, and make a lot of money out of that simple potato. That is the way a lot of processed foods work.
Going back to the point about diabetes and added sugar, it is important to remember that diabetes in Britain costs something like £10 billion a year. There is a compelling case for the Government to do more about added sugar, as opposed to natural sugar; obviously, we could discriminate between the two, though a lot of manufacturers will say, “Are you going to tax an apple?”. Clearly, when a child or adult can find a huge bar of chocolate in a shop for £1, we have problems, in terms of the amount of sugar we are supposed to have. Henry Dimbleby put forward a national food strategy, which is worth a read. He makes the key point that reducing the overall amount of money people have—for instance, through universal credit—has a major impact: we find that when universal credit goes down, consumption of alcohol and smoking go up.
It is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to have an idea of how the nutrition of particular natural foods can be increased through better farming. An app will be available next year that will enable people to test a carrot in their local shop. The carrot will have different levels of antioxidant, depending on how it is grown. If it is organic and not impregnated with all sorts of fertiliser and chemicals, it develops a natural resistance to pesticides and is much better for human health. The Government should, in this post-Brexit world, be actively encouraging local high-value, high-nutrition products for export and local consumption.
A whole range of public health measures that need to be moved forward are not in the strategy; but some are, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Christian Wakeford. Do you wish to remain seated?
Christian Wakeford
That is greatly appreciated, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I would like to put on record my support for amendments 11, 12 and 13, and new clauses 15 and 16. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). We have heard why he cannot be here; I wish him well with what is going on in his family.
These much-needed amendments and new clauses are aimed at reducing alcohol harm by introducing advertising restrictions, transparent alcohol labelling and support for effective alcohol treatment. Alcohol abuse leads to many harmful things, and deserves to be called the silent killer. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alcohol harm, and the group has heard in our evidence sessions the stories of those affected by alcohol. It has the potential to destroy individuals, families and wider society. Alcohol has a very public face, but it harms privately. Hospital admissions and deaths from alcohol are at record levels, and have been exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. Some 70 people die every day in the UK due to alcohol. Alcohol harm is a hidden health crisis that needs to be recognised.
The Bill does not go far enough to stem the rising tide of this issue. For instance, the Bill introduces restrictions on advertising for “less healthy” products, such as sugary soft drinks, but the same restrictions do not apply to adverts for alcoholic drinks, despite alcohol being linked to more than 200 health conditions, as well as having very high calorie and sugar content. There is significant evidence that children who are exposed to alcohol marketing will drink more earlier than they otherwise would. Existing laws are failing to protect children and vulnerable people. In fact, four in five 11 to 17-year-olds have seen alcohol advertising in the past month. The advertising they are exposed to builds alcoholic brand awareness and influences their perceptions of alcohol. A forthcoming report by Alcohol Health Alliance found that seven in 10 young people recognise the beer brand Guinness, including more than half of 11 to 12-year-olds. Amendments 11 to 13 would ensure that alcohol was considered a less healthy product and was therefore liable to the same proposed restrictions as sugary soft drinks when it comes to advertising on TV, on demand and online.
Awareness of the risks of alcohol is low: about 80% of people do not know the chief medical officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines of 14 units a week; only 25% are aware that alcohol can cause breast cancer; and only 20% know the calories in a large glass of wine. I need only refer you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the Six Nations championship earlier this year—you may have a slightly better recollection of it than I do. There was alcohol-related advertising on billboards around the stadiums. There were many billboards advertising alcoholic brands. There were also drink awareness campaigns, but they were not seen, due to where those advertisements were placed. People were seeing adverts for Guinness, but not for Guinness 0.0 or for drink awareness campaigns. This is something that the Government really need to look into.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I rise to support the amendments in my name: 110, 111, 112 and 113. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I have a significant number of food and drink manufacturers in my constituency, and that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for food and drink manufacturing. I also support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and fully support and endorse their comments.
In reality, I and many others would have preferred clause 125 and the whole of schedule 16 to have been removed from the Bill. I and I think many others are not convinced that that is really the way forward or that it will achieve very much. That view is shared by many of my colleagues, but also by many in the advertising industry and the food and drink sector. That is not because they are against the Government’s attempts to respond to the challenge of obesity, which is and should be a concern for all of us, but because their impact is likely to be so insignificant that it is disproportionate to what is proposed. We should also remember that the industry has already done a huge amount. It is incredibly innovative—reformulation, reductions in salt and sugar—and the reductions we have already seen are very significant. The industry continues to make changes and I believe it will continue to do so in the future. We should also remember that there is something called personal responsibility.
There is an opportunity, however, for compromise and improvements to schedule 16—hence the various amendments that have been tabled. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to compromise in their approach and see the benefits of the amendments that stand in my hon. Friends’ names and mine. I do not intend to detain the House for long, because my amendments are primarily technical rather than anything greater.
I tabled amendments 111, 112 and 113 because I believe that we want a food and drink manufacturing sector that is competitive and is based in the UK as much as possible. As presently drafted, the Bill exempts certain businesses, but the criteria are based on UK employee numbers. Large multinational companies could therefore be exempt if the UK element of their business has under 250 employees; conversely, a UK business with 250-plus employees would not be exempt. That has the potential to be unfair in many respects to UK businesses from a competition perspective, and could lead them to divert manufacturing abroad. A simple solution would be to take account of turnover as well as staff numbers. I have suggested using the definition in section 465 of the Companies Act 2006, which I believe would deal with the situation.
Under the Bill, paid-for branded adverts for products that are high in fat, salt or sugar would be prevented on retailer-owned spaces, but retailers would still be able to advertise equivalent HFSS own-brand products. That could distort competition directly between retailers’ and manufacturers’ products. Amendment 110 would ensure a level playing field, which in my view would be much fairer.
I hope that the Government will be receptive to my amendments—if not now, via changes introduced in the other place. In anticipation of such a compromise, I do not intend to put them to the vote.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I am grateful for this evening’s debate. More than once during the passage of the Bill, I have put on the record the Government’s commitment to improving and protecting the public’s health and have paid tribute to the hard work and dedication of our NHS and public health professionals in rising to the greatest infectious disease challenge of modern times. I would again like to put on the record those important points, with which I know Opposition Front Benchers agree.
Our commitment to public health is clear in the Bill, in the proposals set out in the Government’s recently published plan for health and care, “Build Back Better”, and in our wider programme of public health reform. A focus on the prevention of avoidable diseases is a central principle in delivering a sustainable NHS and in levelling up health outcomes across the country.
Childhood obesity is one of the biggest health challenges that this nation faces. The latest data from the national childhood measurement programme revealed that approximately 40% of children leaving primary school in England were overweight or living with obesity.
Catherine West
The Minister is being generous in allowing interventions. Is the Bill silent on the challenge around prescriptions for exercise? In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the impact of school swimming. Unfortunately, we are going backwards: fewer 11-year-olds can swim 25 metres—that is just an example. On childhood obesity, we need to address both: not just diet, but exercise.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, with whom I worked in London local government many moons ago on issues not dissimilar to those that we are debating. The Bill focuses on diet and the obesity that it causes, but she is right to highlight that exercise and a healthy lifestyle also play a key role in tackling obesity. We do not believe that the Bill is the right place to put that role into legislation, but I join in the sentiment underpinning what the hon. Lady says. Schools, local authorities and health bodies need to consider the issue in the round.
Nearly two thirds of adults—64%—are also overweight or living with obesity. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for gently tempting me to respond to his points about the nanny state, but I would argue that it is not being a nanny state to look out for the health of our citizens. Yes, it is about giving advice and giving people the information to make informed judgments, but it is also about putting in place a proportionate framework in legislation.
As with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I did not agree with everything that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said, particularly her concluding comments, but I listened carefully to her comments about seatbelts. She said that she, as a clinician, saw the impact that legislation on that public health and public safety measure had on reducing injuries.
John Stevenson
Does the Minister agree that the industry itself is doing an awful lot now to support the Government’s agenda? Does he also acknowledge that personal responsibility is very important?
Edward Argar
I wondered what I was about to have bowled at me there, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I entirely agree that a huge amount of progress has been made; we believe that we need to go further with our proposals, but he is right to highlight that progress. He is also right to highlight the relevance of the central role of personal responsibility and the decisions that we and our families all take.
To meet the ambition of halving childhood obesity by 2030, it is imperative that we reduce children’s exposure to less healthy food and drink product advertising on TV and online. We want to ensure that the media our children engage with the most promote a healthy diet. The Bill therefore contains provisions to restrict the advertising of less healthy food and drink products on TV, in on-demand programme services and online.
Richard Fuller
The Minister has just mentioned seatbelts, and earlier he talked about alcohol and cigarette smoking, but this is about porridge and muesli. There is a sense that there is no end to what the Department of Health and Social Care feels is its responsibility to legislate on for what people should be able to do for themselves and their family. My point is that this is overreach by the state, as well as perhaps being the incorrect process for achieving the Government’s aims.
Edward Argar
I know my hon. Friend well and entirely understand the perspective that he brings, but I would argue as a counterpoint that the Bill strikes a proportionate balance, in the same vein as with seatbelts and other issues. Alongside personal choice and giving people the information to make choices, I believe that it is a proportionate and balanced approach—not the thin end of the wedge, as he might suggest, although perhaps I am characterising his words unfairly.
Edward Argar
May I make a little more progress? I have more to say on obesity, so my right hon. Friend should not worry.
We held two consultations, the first in 2019 and the second in 2020, which have informed our policy on introducing further restrictions to the advertising of less healthy food and drink products. I welcome the devolved Administrations’ engagement and support for the policy, which is being brought forward UK-wide. The UK Government have engaged with them extensively on the matter since early 2021; I put on the record my gratitude for the spirit in which they have approached it.
Dr Lewis
I happen to agree that there is a question of proportionality on the alleged nanny state issues, but does my hon. Friend agree that where an issue is contentious—such as the fluoridation of water supplies, which has been contentious over many years in this House—it should be properly debated before the state takes control of it, not just tucked away at the end of a very long Bill? That causes me concern.
Edward Argar
I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but I would argue that we are placing the matter before the House in a Bill that has been debated and has gone through its stages, including one of the longest Committee stages of a Bill in my time in this House. There is, or was, the opportunity for Members to table amendments on Report on the aspect that he mentions, and I suspect that it will be extensively debated in the other place as well. I take his point, but I would argue that we have provided sufficient time and have brought the issue to the House in that way.
Edward Argar
All I would say—without in any way implying any criticism of right hon. or hon. Members—is that soon after I entered the House I was a member of the Procedure Committee for a year, and one of the first pieces of advice I was given was to read the legislation and go through it in its entirety. I recognise that this is a long and complex piece of legislation, but I would make that point.
Telecommunications and internet services are reserved matters. The UK Government are clear about the fact that the primary purpose of provisions on the advertising of less-healthy food and drink for TV and internet services is to regulate content on reserved media, and on that basis the policy is reserved. The purpose is not incidental. Therefore, the provisions do not fall within the competence of the devolved legislatures or engage the legislative consent process. While the Scottish and Welsh Governments have agreed with our policy ambitions, they disagree with our legal assessment, and thus far we have had to agree to disagree on this matter, but we have had extensive engagement, and I suspect that we will continue to do so. I see that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is in her place, and while she is present I would like to thank both Governments for their engagement and offer my assurances that it will continue as we implement the policy for the benefit of citizens across the UK.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It was my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire who inspired my intervention. I just want the Government to make it clear that they are not contributing to a strange paradox which seems to prevail in modern society, that of being simultaneously more puritanical and more prurient. We are prurient in that we let the tech giants corrupt our children in all kinds of ways, and puritanical in that we are censorious about the jokes people tell, the language they use, and how much ice cream—or indeed Christmas cake—they eat.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It has been a while since he intervened while I was at the Dispatch Box, so this has been a pleasure. I have never seen him as in any way a puritan; I suspect that he is rather more a cavalier in his approach to life.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire has also tabled amendments to schedule 16 which would insert in the Bill an exemption from the advertising restrictions for brand advertising. I am grateful to him, but I can reassure him that the Bill already delivers that exemption, and I therefore believe that his amendments are not necessary to achieve the effect that he seeks. We made that clear in the consultation response published in June this year, and in speeches made in Committee.
My hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 14. As I am sure he and other Members are aware, the Government consulted on different approaches for restricting online advertising in 2019, and considered alternatives submitted through the consultation process. However, it was felt that the alternatives, including the proposal from the Committee of Advertising Practice to use a self-regulatory mechanism based on targeting, were sufficiently similar to the policy options previously consulted on. These were not sufficient to meet the objective of the policy, namely to protect children from advertisements for less-healthy food and drink.
Alun Cairns
Does the Minister accept that there is a significant inconsistency between the approach to television broadcasters and the approach to those who use social media and online provision, and that a consistent approach would help? Does he also accept that a considerable array of views has been expressed by those seeking to help him to develop the Bill in a positive way, and will he maintain an open mind as it passes through the other place to establish whether it can be refined to achieve some of these objectives?
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure my right hon. Friend, and other Members, that I always seek to maintain an open mind, and always seek to reflect carefully on the contributions made by Members. I will turn shortly to the challenges posed by television, which is essentially a linear broadcasting medium, in comparison with those posed by online broadcasting. I am conscious that I must conclude my speech before 7 pm.
There is evidence to suggest that the targeting of online adverts does not account for the use of shared devices and profiles between parents and children, the communal viewing of content or false reporting of children’s ages. This, combined with concerns about the accuracy of interest-based targeting and other behavioural data as a way of guessing a user’s age and a lack of transparency and reporting data online, shows why the Government believe that we need to introduce strong advertising restrictions online. Any alternative proposals would therefore need to meet a high bar in terms of protecting children online, and we consider alternatives that rely on a targeting approach to be—currently—potentially insufficient to meet the policy objectives.
Amendments 106 to 109 are relevant to the point that my right hon. Friend has just made. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for raising these matters. His amendments mean that liability for online advertisements found to be in breach of the restrictions included in the Bill would shift to become the responsibility of the platforms rather than the advertisers, which some may see as providing parity with the enforcement mechanisms for broadcast television.
During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors in the online advertising sphere should have responsibility for breaches, alongside those of advertisers. However, we concluded that this was not the right place to consider that broader issue.
The online advertising ecosystem is complex and dynamic. The scale and speed of advertising online, as well as the personalised nature of advertising and the lack of transparency in this system, makes it difficult for platforms to have control over what is placed on them. The approach that we are taking in the Bill best aligns with the current enforcement frameworks across TV, online and on-demand programme services advertising, and is familiar to industry. It will ensure that there is limited confusion for broadcasters, platforms or advertisers, as the liable parties for less-healthy food and drink product advertising breaches will be the same as those for any other advertising breaches. The Government intend to consider this issue as part of the wider online advertising programme, on which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will consult in the coming months.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for that commitment to consider the points in my amendments, and with that commitment in place, I will not seek to push them to vote. However, may I ask him, as he makes these considerations along with colleagues in the DCMS, to ensure that broadcasters are fully consulted so that they can point out the loopholes that any online provisions could throw up?
Edward Argar
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s confirmation that he does not intend to press his amendments to a Division, and I will ensure that his point will be heard not only in the Department of Health and Social Care but in DCMS as well.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for his amendments 111 to 113 and for bringing this debate before the House. I would like to reassure him that small and medium-sized enterprises—businesses with 249 employees or fewer—that pay to advertise less healthy food and drink products that they manufacture and/or sell will be exempt from the less healthy food and drink restrictions and can continue to advertise. The definition of SMEs will be provided in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Bill, which will enable Ministers to act promptly in future years if new or emerging evidence suggests that amendments are needed. We will conduct a short consultation as soon as possible on the SME definition to be included in the draft regulations. The Government want to ensure consistency with other definitions for size of business that have been used for other obesity policies, such as the out-of-home calorie labelling policy, to create a level playing field. Our preferred definition, therefore, is a standard definition used by Government across other policies.
Richard Fuller
On the point about an industry-led alternative, on which the Minister has kindly made some comments today, I think that this discussion will continue, particularly when the Bill is considered in the other place, so would he be prepared to meet me so that I can continue to make representations about certain improvements that could be made?
Edward Argar
I am certainly happy to commit that either I, as the Bill Minister, or the relevant policy Minister will meet my hon. Friend to discuss his views in this space.
Amendment 110 would ensure that advertisements placed on distributor or retailer websites are out of scope of the less healthy food and drink advertising restrictions. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle for tabling the amendment, and I would seek to reassure him that the Government’s intention is to ensure that restrictions are proportionate to the scale of the problem. It is not our intention to prohibit the sale of less healthy food and drink products on the internet. Our aim is to reduce children’s exposure to advertisements of less healthy food and drink products, which is why the restrictions are being applied only to paid-for advertising online—namely, where an advertiser pays by monetary or other reciprocal means for the placement of adverts online.
We appreciate that there will be consumers who seek less healthy food and drink products, which is why this restriction applies only to paid-for advertising, and companies will be able to continue to use owned media in the same way as they do now. The restrictions will not apply to spaces online where full editorial control and ownership apply, such as a brand’s own blog, website or social media page. This means that retailers are able to continue promoting their own products on their own website, as this would not be covered by the restrictions.
I shall turn briefly to Government amendments 32, 35 and 37, tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Amendments 32 and 35 will amend the definition of an advertisement placed on television and on-demand programme services to ensure that sponsorship credits around programmes and sponsorship announcements respectively are included for the purpose of this Bill. Members will be aware that sponsorship announcements and sponsorship credits are required so that viewers know which product is sponsoring any particular programme. Although these are not routinely considered to be advertisements in other contexts, the Government’s view is that they could reasonably be considered to be advertising less healthy food and drink products for the purposes of the Bill’s restrictions.
Amendments 32 and 35 will therefore clarify the status of those announcements, in effect to prohibit identifiable less healthy food and drink products from sponsoring programmes before the watershed, in line with the Government’s original policy aims. Amendment 37, meanwhile, will make it clear that UK businesses producing online advertisements intended to be accessed principally by audiences outside the UK fall in scope of the exemption and will not be in breach of the less healthy food and drink advertising restrictions set out in the Bill. This amendment is needed to ensure that the legislation aligns with the Government’s policy intention to exempt advertisements made to be viewed outside the UK. We are confident that the likely frontline regulator already has a clear remit and tests in place that should allow it to apply this exemption effectively.
Christian Wakeford
I reiterate the comment I made earlier that the best way to treat alcohol addiction and dependency is to treat it like a mental health illness, because that is what it is. The best way to do that is to remove the stigma and put more money into mental health, but in trying to overcome the stigma, we need to ensure that there is parity between mental and physical health. If we treat the mental health issue, we treat the alcohol issue. We cannot do one without the other. Will the Minister commit today to going some way towards doing that and to putting more money into mental health to deal with this?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that this Government have continued not only to highlight and promote parity of esteem between mental and physical health but to increase the funding available to mental health, reflecting that reality on the ground. He is right to highlight that issue.
We have announced a comprehensive set of reforms to alcohol duty in this year’s Budget which, taken with the steps we have put in place on a public health basis, have put in place a strong regime to tackle the consequences of alcohol misuse. We do not feel that this Bill is the place to legislate further on this issue but, as I have said, I am none the less grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton for his amendments and for this opportunity to debate them.
On amendments 11, 12 and 13, this Bill would introduce a 9 pm TV watershed for less healthy food and drink products and a restriction on paid-for advertising of less healthy food and drink online. Those amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, would expand the definition of a less healthy product to include alcohol. This would have the effect of making alcohol advertising liable to the watershed proposed for TV programme services and the online restriction on paid-for advertising.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman, through Opposition Members, that the Government have existing measures in place to protect children and young people from alcohol advertising through the alcohol advertising code. Material in the broadcast code and the non-broadcast code relating to the advertising and marketing of alcohol products is already robust, recognising the social imperative of ensuring that alcohol advertising is responsible and, in particular, that children and young people are suitably protected. If new evidence emerges that clearly highlights major problems with the existing codes, the Advertising Standards Authority has a duty to revisit the codes and take appropriate action. Furthermore, the Government introduced additional restrictions last year on alcohol advertising on on-demand programme services, through amendments to the Communications Act 2003.
Clause 129 and schedule 16 are aimed at reducing the exposure of children to less healthy food and drink advertising and the impact of such advertising on child obesity. Less healthy food and drink products—
Edward Argar
I fear that I have only a few minutes left, and I have already taken a number of interventions on this. I want to conclude by covering the tobacco amendments as well, which I know that some colleagues are keen to see a response to. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
Less healthy food and drink products are not age restricted at the point of purchase, unlike alcohol. Finally, the 2019 and 2020 consultations on advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink did not consult on alcohol within the restrictions, either online or on TV, so we cannot be sure of the impact these amendments would have on the industry more broadly.
Turning to tobacco in the time I have left, because I know the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) , has taken a close interest in the issue, I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, who have tabled a number of amendments that seek to address the harm caused by smoking in this country. I reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham of the Government’s commitment to becoming smoke free by 2030.
We have successfully introduced many regulatory reforms over the past two decades, and the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Our reforms include raising the age of sale from 16 to 18, the introduction of a tobacco display ban, standardised packaging and a ban on smoking in cars with children, which all place important barriers between young people and tobacco products. The Government are currently developing our new tobacco control plan, and I reassure the hon. Lady that that will reflect carefully on the APPG’s findings and report.
I am afraid I cannot be tempted to go further than the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), did in the recent Westminster Hall debate on this question, but I can reassure the hon. Member for City of Durham that we remain committed to bringing forward the tobacco control plan.
Edward Argar
Forgive me; I only have a few minutes and I want to cover the amendments from the hon. Member for City of Durham. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) did manage dexterously to shoehorn air quality more broadly within the scope of these debates, and what he said will have been heard.
New clause 2, which seeks to provide powers for the Secretary of State to impose a requirement for tobacco manufacturers
“to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers”,
is intended, as I understand from the hon. Member for City of Durham, to further strengthen our current public health messaging and encourage smokers to quit. We strongly support measures to stop people smoking, to make smoking less attractive to young people and to educate smokers of its dangers, as we have done through graphic warnings on cigarette packs.
We would need to conduct further research and build a further robust evidence base in support of any such additional measures before bringing them forward. To date, no country has introduced such a measure, so there is currently limited evidence of its impact in supporting smokers to quit. If evidence showed that the requirement would not be effective, it would not be an appropriate power to have in place.
New clause 3, also tabled by the hon. Lady, seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a requirement for manufacturers to insert leaflets containing health information and information about smoking cessation services into cigarette packaging. As I set out in Committee, we believe this power is unnecessary, since the Department could legislate to do that already under the Children and Families Act 2014; inserts could be required for public health messaging through amendments to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. We already have in place strong graphic images and warnings of the health harms of smoking on the outside of cigarette packs. As part of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, the address for the NHS website, which provides advice for people seeking to quit smoking, is also required on packaging.
The current SPoT regulations prohibit the use of inserts, as there was limited evidence that placing public health messaging inserts inside cigarette packages was more effective than messaging on the outside of packs. Further research would need to be undertaken to help to establish the public health benefit if we were to go further.
Turning briefly to new clause 4, I am grateful again to the hon. Lady for tabling this clause. The Government are clear that they only support the use of e-cigarettes as a tool for smokers who are trying to quit, and we strongly discourage non-smokers and young people from using them. We are committed to ensuring that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes.
Current regulations include requirements on the packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes, along with restrictions on their marketing and the prohibiting of advertising on mainstream media such as TV and radio. While we strongly support measures to protect young people further from cigarettes, we believe the current regime remains appropriate and has the powers in place within it to make changes where required, although I suspect my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East may yet be proved right when he suggests that the other place may return to this at some point.
I have outlined the many steps this Government are taking to address some of the major lifestyle challenges to our health. The Bill represents another step in the direction of preventive healthcare and building a healthier society, an aim I know we all share. I hope the House will support the amendments we have tabled at this stage to strengthen those measures.
I also want to update the House at this point, in the context of the importance of an integrated approach and how it can improve public health measures, on two steps the Secretary of State has taken today that will put NHS staff and technology at the heart of our long-term planning and allow us to take forward the integrated approach that has proved so vital during this pandemic and is so vital to public health.
Edward Argar
I am afraid I will not. I suspect that point will be pertinent to the debate on the first group of amendments tomorrow.
First, we intend to merge Health Education England with NHS England and NHS Improvement, putting education and training of our health workforce at the forefront of the NHS. By bringing this vital function inside the NHS, we can plan more effectively for the long term and have clear accountability for delivery.
Secondly, we also intend to take forward the recommendations of the Wade-Gery report, which included merging NHSX and NHS Digital with NHS England and NHS Improvement, building on the huge progress made on digital transformation during the pandemic and bringing together the digital leadership of the NHS in one place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our colleagues at Health Education England, NHS Digital and NHSX for their exceptional work. These changes build on that contribution and allow us to drive forward further integration and changes that will put the NHS on a firmer footing.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members of the Government’s commitment to improving public health. I urge those who have tabled amendments to consider not pressing them to a Division.
Mary Kelly Foy
I have listened carefully to the debate, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Packaging and labelling of nicotine products
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging and labelling of electronic cigarettes and other novel nicotine products including requirements for health warnings and prohibition of branding elements attractive to children.”—(Mary Kelly Foy.)
This new clause would give powers to the Secretary of State to prohibit branding on e-cigarette packaging which is appealing to children.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
‘Eligible needs | Section 15(3B)’ |
‘The responsible local authority | Section 15(3C)’.”—(Edward Argar.) |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 33—Support provided by the NHS to victims of domestic abuse—
“(1) Each Integrated Care Board must—
(a) assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for support for victims of domestic abuse using their services;
(b) prepare and publish a strategy for the provision of such support in its area;
(c) monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy;
(d) designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead; and
(e) publish an annual report on how it has discharged its duties relating to the provision of services to victims of domestic violence under the Care Act 2014.
(2) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section must, in carrying out its functions, give effect to the strategy.
(3) Before publishing a strategy under this section, an Integrated Care Board must consult—
(a) any local authority for an area within the relevant Integrated Care Board’s area;
(b) the domestic abuse local partnership board appointed by the local authority for an area within the relevant clinical commissioning group’s area under section 58 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and
(c) such other persons as the relevant local authority considers appropriate.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘local authority’ means—
(a) a county council or district council in England; or
(b) a London borough council.
(5) An Integrated Care Board that publishes a strategy under this section—
(a) must keep the strategy under review;
(b) may alter or replace the strategy; and
(c) must publish any altered or replacement strategy.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the preparation and publication of strategies under this section.
(7) The power to make regulations under subsection (7) may, in particular, be exercised to make provision about—
(a) the procedure to be followed by an Integrated Care Board in preparing a strategy;
(b) matters to which an Integrated Care Board must have regard in preparing a strategy;
(c) how an Integrated Care Board must publish a strategy;
(d) the date by which an Integrated Care Board must first publish a strategy; and
(e) the frequency with which an Integrated Care Board must review its strategy or any effect of the strategy on the provision of other provision in its area.
(8) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) all Integrated Care Boards; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require Integrated Care Boards to publish a strategy for the provision of support for victims of domestic abuse using their services and designate a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead.
New clause 55—Guidance for babies, children and young people—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people aged 0-25.
(2) Integrated care systems must act in accordance with the guidance in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people aged 0-25 and would require integrated care systems to act in accordance with the guidance.
New clause 57—NHS England’s duty as to reducing inequalities—
“Section 13G of the National Health Service Act (duty as to reducing inequalities), is amended by the addition of the following subsections—
‘(2) NHS England must publish guidance about the collection, analysis, reporting and publication of performance data by relevant NHS bodies with respect to factors or indicators relevant to health inequalities.
(3) Relevant NHS bodies must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under this section.
(4) In this section “relevant NHS bodies” means—
(a) NHS England,
(b) integrated care boards,
(c) integrated care partnerships established under section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,
(d) NHS trusts established under section 25, and
(e) NHS foundation trusts.’”
Amendment 47, in clause 6, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(5) In paragraph 1(a) ‘relevant public body’ means a public authority listed under the title ‘Health, social care and social security’ in Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 or an NHS Trust.”
This amendment provides that NHS England resources for supporting or assisting organisations that are providing or planning to provide health services may only be directed to public sector bodies.
Amendment 58, in clause 12, page 8, line 6, at end insert—
“(2) An integrated care board may not—
(a) delegate that function; and
(b) exercise that function to enter into an integrated care provider contract with any body other than a statutory NHS body.
(3) In paragraph (2)(b) an ‘integrated care provider contract’ has the same meaning as in Schedule 3A of the National Health Service (General Medical Services Contracts) Regulations 2015.”
This amendment is designed to ensure that an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf is a statutory NHS body.
Amendment 59, page 12, line 29 at end insert—
“(3A) Nothing in——
(a) the rules referred to in subsection (1),
(b) this Act, or
(c) any regulations made under this Act
(none) shall entitle any provider of health services to withhold provision of those services from any individual on the basis of the integrated care board to which that individual has been allocated.”
This amendment is to ensure that any providers of health services cannot withhold provision of those services from any individual because of the integrated care board that they have been allocated to.
Amendment 66, in clause 15, page 13, line 44, at end insert—
“(j) palliative care services.”
This amendment adds a requirement for the commissioning of palliative and end of life care services.
Amendment 21, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
“3AA Duty of integrated care boards to commission approved treatments
‘(1) This section applies where—
(a) a treatment has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and
(b) an integrated care board has not arranged for the provision of that treatment under section 3 or 3A of this Act, and
(c) a clinician has recommended that treatment for a person for whom that integrated care board has responsibility.
(2) The integrated care board referred to in subsection (1) must arrange for the provision of that treatment to the person for whom it has responsibility.
(3) In subsection (1) “clinician” means a medical professional employed by or acting on behalf of an NHS Trust, NHS Foundation Trust or primary care service from whom the integrated care board has arranged for the provision of services.’”
This amendment would require an integrated care board to arrange for the provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area.
Amendment 48, in clause 19, page 16, line 6, leave out “promotes” and insert
“secures the rights set out in”.
This amendment requires ICBs to act to ensure that health services are provided in a way which secures the rights set out in the NHS Constitution.
Amendment 99, page 16, line 34, at end insert—
“(2) In fulfilling their duties under this section, integrated care boards must have particular regard to the need to reduce inequalities between migrant and non-migrant users of health services.”
Amendment 49, page 16, line 37, leave out “promote” and insert “enable”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 50 provides that ICBs enable the involvement of patients, their paid and unpaid carers, and their representatives in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of illness, care or treatment, rather than promoting their involvement.
Amendment 50, page 16, line 37, after “their”, insert “paid and unpaid”.
This amendment, together with the Amendment 49, provides that ICBs enable the involvement of patients, their paid and unpaid carers, and their representatives in decisions relating to the prevention or diagnosis of illness, care or treatment.
Amendment 22, page 17, line 4, at end insert—
“14Z37A Obligation on integrated care boards to ensure appropriate uptake of all NICE approved products according to population need
‘(1) Each integrated care board must promote uptake of all NICE approved medicines and medical devices in accordance with the need of the population it serves.
(2) An integrated care board must, in each financial year, prepare a report on the uptake of all NICE approved medicines and medical devices, including the number of patients that have accessed each product.’”
This amendment would require ICBs to ensure that all NICE approvals are available and promoted to their population, and report on this uptake annually.
Amendment 19, page 17, line 14, at end insert—
“14Z39A Duty to review latest innovations with a view to local commissioning
(1) Integrated care boards must review all new—
(a) medicines,
(b) medical devices, and
(c) other health care solutions that may benefit the local population.
(2) Integrated care boards must—
(d) appoint a dedicated innovation officer to their board, and
(e) develop and maintain a system to keep up to date with medicines and devices innovation and review suitability for patient usage, including engagement with the relevant—
(i) academic health science network, and
(ii) local pharmaceutical committee.”
This amendment would mandate integrated care boards to monitor and assess innovation for the benefit of the local population.
Amendment 16, page 17, line 19, at end insert—
“(2) Each integrated care board must each year prepare, consult on and adopt a research strategy for patient benefit which—
(a) meets local need;
(b) meets national research undertakings.
(3) In developing a strategy under subsection (2), an integrated care board must engage with—
(a) the National Institute for Health Research,
(b) academic health science networks, and
(c) all other relevant regional and national health research organisations.”
This amendment would require ICBs to establish a research strategy and other connected measures.
Amendment 91, page 18, line 18, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require Integrated Care Boards to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness replicating the parity of esteem duty as introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 92, page 18, line 23, after first “of” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require Integrated Care Boards to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness replicating the parity of esteem duty as introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 68, page 18, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require integrated care boards to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 17, page 18, line 38, at end insert—
“14Z43A Duty on integrated care boards to consider requests to engage in clinical trials, and patient participation
(1) An integrated care board must consider any request from the organiser of an authorised clinical trial for the ICB to engage in that trial.
(2) If such a request is accepted, the integrated care board must offer the ability to participate in the trial to any patient within their area who is eligible to take part.”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to consider any requests to engage in clinical trials and offer patients the opportunity to participate.
Amendment 20, page 18, line 38, at end insert—
“14Z43A Duty to update formularies to include all NICE-approved products
(1) Within 28 days of any medicine or device receiving market authorisation from NICE, an integrated care board must update its formulary to include that medicine or device.
(2) On receipt of notice of the market authorisation by NICE of any medicine or device, an integrated care board must immediately instruct providers of health and care services commissioned by the board to update their formularies in such a way that all NICE-approved medicines and devices are available to patients on the recommendation of a healthcare practitioner within 28 days of market authorisation.
(3) An integrated care board must report annually all medicines and devices that have been added and removed from their formulary over the previous year.”
This amendment would mandate integrated care boards and healthcare providers (e.g. hospital trusts) to update their formularies to include all NICE-approved medicines or devices within 28 days of market authorisation to ensure they are available for healthcare practitioners (e.g. physician or prescribing pharmacist) to make available for suitable patients.
Amendment 102, page 21, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).”
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps it proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).
Amendment 51, page 22, line 23, leave out
“in a way that they consider to be significant.”
This amendment requires ICBs and partner NHS Trusts and NHS Foundation Trusts to consult on all revisions to their forward plans.
Amendment 52, page 23, line 42, at end add “on its website”.
This amendment is to require capital resource use plans to be made publicly available on the internet.
Amendment 53, page 24, line 22, leave out
“in a way that they consider to be significant”.
The purpose of this amendment is to require all revisions of capital resource use plans to be published.
Amendment 18, page 25, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) explain what research activity it undertook during the year, including
(i) research to meet local health issues, and
(ii) research to support national research projects.
‘(2A) The annual report prepared by the Secretary of State under section 247D of this Act must include a section which reproduces, and comments on, the sections of the annual reports of each integrated care board prepared under paragraph (1)(d).’”
This amendment would require integrated care boards to publish an account of their research activity, and require the report the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament under section 247D of the National Health Service Act 2006 to include a section which reproduces, and comments on, the research activity of all ICBs.
Amendment 23, page 25, line 14, at end insert—
“14Z56A Report on assessing and meeting parity of physical and mental health outcomes
(1) An integrated care board must annually set out in a report the steps it has taken to fulfil its obligations to deliver parity of esteem between physical and mental health to its local population.
‘(1) The report must set out—
(a) the number of patients presenting with mental health conditions,
(b) the number of patients presenting with physical health conditions,
(c) the number of mental health patients waiting for initial assessment,
(d) the number of physical health patients waiting for initial assessment,
(e) the number of mental health patients waiting for treatment,
(f) the number of physical health patients waiting for treatment,
(g) the number of mental health patients receiving treatment,
(h) the number of physical health patients receiving treatment,
(i) the number of patients readmitted to mental healthcare settings, and
(j) the number of patients readmitted to physical healthcare settings.
(2) The report must set out performance against nationally set standards in both physical and mental health.
(3) Each year the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a consolidated report of all the reports made by integrated care boards under this section, and make a statement to each House of Parliament on the report.’”
This amendment would require an ICB to report on assessing and meeting parity of physical and mental health outcomes.
Amendment 15, in clause 20, page 29, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about representation of particular health, social care, and local interests, clinical fields, and types of health or care provision in the membership of integrated care partnerships.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make provision about the membership of integrated care partnerships.
Amendment 100, page 29, line 22, at end insert—
“(4) A member of the Integrated Care Partnership may not work for, be the representative of or hold financial interest in any private company delivering or seeking to deliver health and care services or services supporting the health and care sector or producing or seeking to produce health and care products, with the exception of general practitioners.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that Integrated Care Partnerships are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations and that private companies are not represented on them.
Amendment 1, page 29, line 45, at end insert—
“(c) fully integrate the promotion of everyday wellbeing, self-care for minor ailments and the management of long-term conditions into local health systems.”
This amendment would ensure that everyday wellbeing, self-care for minor ailment and management of long term conditions are integrated and promoted into local health systems.
Amendment 2, page 30, line 3, after “services” insert
“including services provided by pharmacists for minor ailments”.
This amendment would ensure that integrated care partnerships include in a strategy its views on how health-related services, including provision for self-treatable conditions, are integrated into health and social care services in that area.
Amendment 69, in clause 23, page 35, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) NHS England must publish guidance on the means by which an integrated care board, NHS trust or NHS foundation trust which believes its capital resource limit or revenue resource limit risks compromising patient safety may object to the limit set.”
Amendment 114, in clause 25, page 37, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) The priorities set by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”
The Secretary of State has the function of setting priorities for the Care Quality Commission in carrying out assessments in relation to integrated care systems. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set priorities relating to certain matters.
Amendment 61, in clause 64, page 59, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28.
This amendment is to ensure that a commissioner cannot also be a provider.
Amendment 62, in clause 69, page 63, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment makes it a requirement that regulations make provision in relation to the procurement by relevant authorities of (a) health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and (b) other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.
Amendment 63, page 63, line 36, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment makes it a requirement that regulations make provision in relation to (a) general objectives of procurement, and (b) procurement processes.
Amendment 64, page 63, line 39, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment along with Amendment 65 makes it a requirement that regulations make provision for the purposes of (a) ensuring transparency and fairness in relation to procurement, and (b) ensuring that compliance can be verified, or managing conflicts of interest.
Amendment 65, page 63, line 41, leave out “or” and insert “and”.
This amendment is to make it a requirement for regulations to make provision to ensure both transparency and fairness in relation to procurement.
Amendment 9, page 64, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must provide that—
(a) there is a presumption—
(i) in favour of contracts being awarded to NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, and
(ii) that integrated care provider contracts will not be awarded to a body other than to an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust, except for under the provisions of paragraph (b);
(b) if an NHS trust or an NHS foundation trust does not consider that it is able, or does not wish, to provide certain services under a contract, it must publish its reasons;
(c) if paragraph (b) applies, the integrated care board must consult the public if it proposes to award any contract for those services to any body other than an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust;
(d) a consultation under paragraph (c) must—
(i) set out the responses of the integrated care provider to the reasons given by the NHS trust or NHS foundation trust under paragraph (b),
(ii) specify the proposed parties to and the full terms and conditions of the proposed contract, and
(iii) specify that the terms and conditions for staff under the proposed contract must be at least equivalent to NHS terms and conditions.”
This amendment would make NHS trusts and foundation trusts the default providers of NHS services.
Amendment 72, page 64, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision in relation to the procurement of the services referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (other than primary medical services, primary dental services and primary ophthalmology services) that before any contract for a service with an annual value in excess of £5m may be awarded to an organisation that is not an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust—
(a) the business case for the award of the contract must be published;
(b) any responses to the proposal in the business case must be considered and published;
(c) the process for awarding the contract must be open and transparent and non-discriminatory at every stage, including (but not limited to)—
(i) procurement strategy and plan,
(ii) invitation to tender,
(iii) responses to invitations,
(iv) evaluation of tenders,
(v) decision to award, and
(vi) contract awarded;
(d) the process for awarding the contract must demonstrate due regard to the principles established in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (S.I.2015/102) or any regulations which may supersede them;
(e) in any case where it is claimed that an emergency justifies an award without the process being used then the responsible body must within 14 days publish the business case for the award of the contract and the record of the decision.”
Amendment 101, in schedule 2, page 125, line 26, at end insert—
“(3) Members of an Integrated Care Board may not work for, be the representative of or hold financial interest in any private company delivering or seeking to deliver health and care services or services supporting the health and care sector or producing or seeking to produce health and care products, with the exception of general practitioners.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that ICBs are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations and that private companies, their employees and representatives, and those with financial interests in them, are not represented on ICBs.
Government amendments 25 to 28.
Amendment 76, page 126, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) at least one member nominated by the mental health trust or trusts that provide mental health services within the integrated care board’s area;
(e) at least one member nominated by the Directors of Public Health that serve each local authority within the integrated care board’s area;
(f) at least one member nominated jointly by any NHS trust, NHS foundation trust and local authority that provides social care services within the integrated care board’s area;
(g) at least one member nominated by the trade unions representing the health and social care workforce that serves the integrated care board’s area;
(h) at least one member appointed to represent the voice of patients and carers in the integrated care board’s area.”
Amendment 77, page 126, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) The constitution must prohibit representatives of GP practices with active Alternative Provider Medical Services contracts from becoming members.”
This amendment would mean that the only GPs able to participate in Integrated Care Boards would be those whose practices are on the standard General Medical Services (GMS) contract.
Amendment 78, page 126, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) Representatives of private providers of healthcare services, other than general practitioners who hold a contract for the provision of primary medical services in the area, may not be appointed to NHS decision-making boards, integrated care boards, or any place-based committee or sub-committee of the boards.”
Amendment 81, in schedule 2, page 130, line 14, at end insert—
“(7) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility and receive the income related to that agreement.
(8) An integrated care board may enter into an externally financed development agreement in respect of any proposed Local Improvement Finance Trust relevant to the area for which it has responsibility.”
This amendment would enable integrated care boards to participate in existing and future LIFT schemes and to receive the income that would come to the local area from the local investment in such schemes.
Amendment 79, in schedule 3, page 132, line 28, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent an integrated care board from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Amendment 80, page 132, line 32, leave out “person” and insert
“general practitioner, GP partnership or social enterprise providing primary medical services”.
This amendment would prevent NHS England from entering into or renewing any Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract.
Government amendments 29 and 30.
Edward Argar
New clause 49 has attracted a slightly fuller House than my previous speech did. This additional clause relates to the cap on care costs for charging purposes.
On 7 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took the bold step of publishing “Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Adult Social Care”. Successive Governments over decades have failed to tackle the reform of social care. This Government are delivering a package—package is the key—of reforms that will not only tackle the wider challenges faced by the adult social care system but reform how social care is funded to ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live or their level of assets, is protected from catastrophic costs. Let me remove all doubt on this issue: no one will lose from these reforms, compared with the system we have now, and the overwhelming majority will win.
Underpinning the reforms set out in the plan is an additional £5.4 billion over the next three years. That funding will end wholly unpredictable care costs and include at least £500 million to support the adult social care workforce. The reforms will make a real difference to the frontline of adult social care, including care users and the dedicated care workforce who have performed heroics throughout the pandemic. A crucial element of the reforms in the plan are the proposals to reform the existing social care charging rules.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I am glad to hear him assert that no one will lose out and most people will win. Will he publish an impact assessment that will allow us to look at the detailed figures? As he will be aware, there is much commentary about the distribution of the possible losses, which seems to me to be an extremely important and sensitive issue for the Government to address.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend has long taken a close interest in this issue. In a moment, I will come to some of the figures and changes; I hear what he says about giving the House and the other place the information that they need and the aim is to do exactly that.
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress and then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron).
Currently, one in seven adults over 65 faces care costs of more than £100,000 over their lifetime. We are capping the amount that anyone will be forced to spend on personal care costs in their lifetime at £86,000. That is a seismic and historic change in the way we pay for care in England.
Mr Baron
The Government deserve credit for grasping this nettle, which has evaded Governments of both parties for too long, but he must understand that there is a real cause on the Government Benches in respect of the distribution of the relative losses and the worry that those who are less well off will be hit hardest by the Government’s new clause. Will he address that issue?
Edward Argar
I understand where my hon. Friend and Members from both sides of the House are coming from. This is the first major step forward in the reform of social care that we have seen in decades and must be seen as part of an overall package of changes.
Edward Argar
I would like to make a little progress, if I may.
The reforms will make the existing means test far more generous. We are increasing the upper capital limit from £23,250 to £100,000, which will make masses of people with moderate assets eligible for some state support towards the cost of care earlier, and the lower capital limit will also increase, from £14,250 to £20,000. Below that level, people will contribute only from their income, fully protecting their savings and assets below £20,000.
Over recent days, people have compared our policy proposals to previous, abandoned and never-enacted proposals for reform. I am clear that our proposals will deliver the changes needed where others have failed and see a significant improvement on the system that is in place today.
Edward Argar
We have considered what help people want and when they want it.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend rose earlier and I should have taken his intervention then; I hope he will forgive me.
John Redwood
I am grateful to the Minister. Will he confirm that the amount of tax that is going to be raised in the immediate future, in national insurance and then in a separate tax, will make up a relatively small minority of the total costs of public social care? Will he also confirm that none of these measures addresses the issue of the hotel costs that people need to pay when they go into care homes?
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is talking about personal care costs, so he is right in his point on that.
Did I see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rise earlier?
Catherine West
The Minister did indeed. He is being very generous in giving way. A lot of research went into the work by Mr Dilnot some time ago and a very independent assessment was made. Can he explain why, in this clause, he is going away from those recommendations and taking a fresh look at it?
Edward Argar
While the hon. Lady and I do not always agree on everything, she asks a perfectly a reasoned and measured question. I pay tribute to Andrew Dilnot’s work on his report. I just happen to think that, on this point, we diverged from what he proposed and we believe that what we are proposing is the right way forward. We have always intended for the cap to apply to what people personally contribute, rather than on the combination of their personal contribution and that of the state. It will mean that people with fewer chargeable assets meter towards the cap more slowly, because they are paying much less each week than people who are entirely self-funding. This amendment will make it simpler to understand the amount that will go towards the cap and make it fairer.
Edward Argar
If the shadow Secretary of State will forgive me, the hon. Lady has attempted on a number of occasions to get in, so it is only fair that I give way to her.
Barbara Keeley
On the point the Minister is making about the Dilnot proposals and a comparison, let me tell him that the Alzheimer’s Society said that 15% of people with dementia in the north-west would reach the cap under the Government’s proposals, compared with 34% under Dilnot’s proposals. That is a massive amount, and those are the people, with their families, who are paying hundreds of thousands and pounds. That is the comparison.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I do not think that she posed a question, but she made her point clearly, as she always does.
Edward Argar
If I may make a little progress, I will then give way to my former boss, the former Secretary of State, and then, if I have time, to my hon. Friend.
To reiterate, as my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, said on 7 September, nobody—nobody—will be “worse off” than under the current system. Currently, around half of all older adults in care receive some state support for their care costs. This will rise to roughly two thirds under these reforms. This clause would also make a number of minor technical amendments to other sections of the Care Act 2014.
Edward Argar
Before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, I will give way to the former Secretary of State.
Matt Hancock
Is not the right way to think about this change to consider the proposal in front of us and compare it with the current system? The reason that the Dilnot system, as previously proposed, was never put in place was that there was never a proposal to pay for it, whereas this package is paid for. That is why this Government have been able to deliver a package where no previous Government have been able to do so.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State. He is absolutely right. We deal in the reality and we should compare the reality of the system that we have in place now with what we have proposed here, which not only moves us forward, but is funded and sustainable.
Sir Robert Neill
Can my hon. Friend help me on two short matters? Can he give us an assurance that there will be no adverse impact on local government financing in relation to this, and that he will talk to the Local Government Association, if necessary, in this regard? Secondly, he says that it is part of a package. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) referred to the impact assessment. Does he agree that it is only fair that, at the very least, we have an impact assessment before the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?
Edward Argar
Yes, of course, as we move through this reform process, it is absolutely right and vital that we work with our partners in the Local Government Association and local authorities of all political complexions. In respect of the impact assessment, I do believe that it is important that we have an impact assessment before this legislation completes its passage through both Houses.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He is showing his typical courtesy in giving way. Many across the House are puzzled because we recall this document that the Government placed before the House when they asked the House to endorse the national insurance increase. Indeed, many Members did endorse that national insurance increase, even though they were breaking a manifesto commitment. This document actually says that it will introduce a care cap and
“deliver a core recommendation of the independent Dilnot Commission. It will be implemented using legislation already in place under the 2014 Care Act, which introduces the independent Dilnot Commission’s social care charging reform.”
It goes on to describe that as the “new cap”. Why have the Government moved away from the position of just a few months ago that they published ahead of a vote on increasing national insurance and moved to a policy now that disproportionately benefits those with greater assets, which surely cannot be fair?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State who, while I do not necessarily agree with what he says, as ever puts it courteously. We hold true to what we put in that “Build Back Better” document. It is necessary for this one particular element to see further primary legislation, hence the amendment today.
Edward Argar
I am afraid that I will not give way because I do need to make some progress.
Edward Argar
I have been very generous with my time and to the shadow Front Bench, so forgive me, but no.
Karin Smyth
On that point, will the Minister please give way? Six weeks in Committee and not a mention.
Edward Argar
Forgive me, but no.
To reiterate, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 7 September nobody—nobody—will be “worse off” than under the current system. Currently around half of all older adults in care receive some state support. This will rise to roughly two thirds under these reforms. On the minor technical amendments that I made to other sections of the Care Act, I would not wish to belabour each one, but I can reassure the House that those changes will ensure that the legislation works as intended and that everyone who is eligible—
Edward Argar
I want to make a little more progress. I will not give way to one of my hon. Friends or to the hon. Lady at this moment.
This will be done by amending the provisions to clearly describe the information that must be included in a personal budget so that individual contributions count towards the cap at the local authority determined rate, and to ensure that personal budgets and independent personal budgets work as they were originally intended when being used in conjunction with the cap.
Before turning to integrated care boards, let me put it on record that, once again, this must be regarded as part of a package of measures that improves significantly on the current provision in place for those funding care.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Before we leave the subject of the cap, can he just confirm that this proposal includes the costs of domiciliary care, which had not been included under the original Dilnot proposals that are exercising Labour Members?
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I am grateful to him for giving me an opportunity to highlight that this improves in this respect on the Dilnot proposals. I put on record my tribute to Andrew Dilnot for his work, but we believe that this is a better package, and, as he highlighted, a sustainable package from a financial perspective.
Karin Smyth
Will the Minister give way. We have had six weeks in Committee.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady implores me, saying that after six weeks of having to sit opposite me in Committee, the least I can do is allow her to intervene.
Karin Smyth
Several times in that Committee, I offered to help the Government in a cross-party way. The Minister has been dealt a bad blow here tonight, having to come here and defend this proposal. In those six weeks—I think 21 sessions—not one iota of this proposal was mentioned or brought forward. We all know about bad legislation, rushed legislation, and legislation that does not have the commitment on something so important. I have commended the Government for starting this conversation, but this is a poor legislation move. I am sure that Members here would support the Minister tonight if he were to withdraw this proposal, go back to the Chancellor and ask him to think again. We would all be behind him if he took that opportunity.
Edward Argar
I did wonder whether I would regret that intervention. It was typically courteous, although I have to say that when a Member of the Opposition says that, “We’re here to help you”, I am not always sure. [Interruption.] Of course, when the hon. Lady does it, I know that she is sincere about it. The point I make is that this important change is necessary to deliver on the pledge we have made. It is being introduced on Report. While ICBs and integrated care systems, which we will speak about shortly, are hugely important, I suspect that this matter will dominate the debate in this group on Report. Equally, I suspect that it will be fully debated and scrutinised in the other place.
Paul Bristow
Does the Minister agree that we have been on a journey? The context of this needs to be considered. We are starting a conversation, but other things will come. There will be bumps in the road, but the context that we need to consider is that this is the first Government to tackle the issue of social care in decades. That is the right way to look at this piece of legislation. It should not be looked at in a short-term way.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, for his intervention. He makes the point well that this is another step on the journey, but it is a journey that only this Government have actually got round to starting. Previous Governments have failed to make that progress. The previous Labour Government produced two Green Papers, one Royal Commission, and one spending review and nothing was done, so this Government are making significant progress.
Edward Argar
I have already given way to the hon. Lady, so I will not do so again.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol South for her words, but the situation is not as she characterises it with my having been dealt a difficult or challenging hand this evening. I am proud to stand here and defend this Government as the first Government to make changes to tackle the social care challenges that this country faces.
Edward Argar
I have given way a number of times and I want to make some progress. I will be winding up the debate, so hon. Members will have the opportunity to come back in then.
Edward Argar
I did give way to the right hon. Gentleman, the shadow Secretary of State, and he is my other constituency neighbour in Leicestershire.
Let me turn to integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships. I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading. These bodies are critical for delivering the key aims of the legislation: reducing bureaucracy; supporting integration and collaboration; and improving accountability. At the heart of the legislation for these bodies is flexibility—giving systems the scope to shape structures according to their needs. This principle is widely supported across the NHS and local government, and we would not want to imperil that, which is why we will be resisting attempts this evening to constrain more tightly how ICBs and ICPs operate. However, we recognise that there are a number of points of clarification that would be helpful to include, and we have tabled a number of amendments to do just that.
Before we reach the meat of this section, there are a number of minor amendments to deal with. First, minor and technical Government amendment 29 will update a reference in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to reflect the changes made to section 99 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, Government amendment 30 will designate integrated care boards as operators of essential services under the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018. This will place requirements on ICBs to protect their network and information systems by managing risks to ensure service availability and prevent patient harm.
We expect ICBs to take decisions on IT investment, including on cyber-security, and owning systems—and the associated cyber-risk—that are critical to the provision of healthcare. This includes holding the shared care record. The loss or corruption of data from the shared care record could have clear implications for the delivery of care, and for wider public trust in the digitisation and data-sharing agenda. We must take this risk seriously, and assure ourselves that ICBs are doing so as well.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I take the Minister back to new clause 49, very briefly? He is right to point out that some measures that he has brought forward are more generous than previously proposed, but there is no doubt that the way that the cap works means that it is less generous for those with more modest assets. Does he not agree? How can that be fair?
Edward Argar
I simply take my hon. Friend back to my previous point: when compared to the current system, this is a significant improvement and step forward, particularly when taken in the round with the overall package of measures that see the floors go from £23,250 up to £100,000 and from £14,250 up to £20,000. We have to look at this issue in the round, considering all those aspects rather than purely one element alone.
Edward Argar
I would like to move on to ICBs and ICSs, but I suspect that, assuming there is time, my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, may have the opportunity to intervene during my winding up, or to give a speech during the course of the debate.
Currently, the NIS regulations cover NHS providers in England, rather than commissioners. Government amendment 30 allows us to mitigate cyber-risk in a wider sense, making cyber-security a responsibility for organisations that have duties across the system, and to drive forward a shared and collaborative effort towards reducing the risk to patients. I hope that Government amendments 29 and 30 will be uncontentious and supported on both sides of the House.
Liz Kendall
Is the Minister absolutely sure about what he said in response to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—that everybody would be better off under new clause 49 than they are now? Is it not the case, as illustrated by the Health Foundation, that people with very modest homes, worth less than £106,000, will never hit the cap and therefore will not be better off under the Government’s proposed system than they are now?
Edward Argar
I make the point to the hon. Lady that I made in my opening remarks; I said that no one would be worse off and the majority would be better off. That is the point that I make to her: people would not be worse off. If she looks at Hansard, she will see that those were my original remarks when I opened this debate.
Edward Argar
On ICBs, but not on new clause 49. We have moved on and I need to make some progress, because I know that many Members want to speak.
Paula Barker
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous with his time. Does he agree that if true integration and genuine parity of esteem are to be achieved, it should be written into law that local authorities should have a seat on the ICB?
Edward Argar
Local authorities will have a seat on ICBs and on ICPs. The approach set out in the legislation is appropriate. We have sought throughout for it to be permissive, not prescriptive, and that remains the right approach.
Edward Argar
May I make a little bit of progress? Depending on time, I may then give way to my right hon. Friend. I am conscious that hon. and right hon. Members want to speak—I suspect, primarily on new clause 49.
I turn to Government amendment 25. In doing so, I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), whose birthday it is today—I wish him a happy birthday; I am sure that he can think of nothing that he would prefer to be doing—and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for their discussions about this issue. I do not know what view they have reached, but I am grateful for the helpful spirit in which they approached those conversations.
Although service provision—I emphasise the word “provision”—by the independent and voluntary sectors has been an important and valuable feature of the system under successive Governments, it was never the intention for independent providers to sit on integrated care boards and it still is not. We were clear that the conflict of interests provisions addressed the issue, despite misleading and inaccurate claims by some campaigners. However, we are happy to put the matter even further beyond doubt.
Government amendment 25 makes it clear that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS, either as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector or otherwise. We expect this to prevent, for example, directors of private healthcare companies, significant stakeholders of private healthcare companies and lobbyists from sitting on the board of an ICB. It would also prevent anyone with an obvious ideological interest that clearly runs counter to the NHS’s independence from sitting on a board of an ICB.
John Redwood
Will the Minister give us a brief comment on the recruitment of chief executives and senior management to the boards? Will we be using people who already have senior NHS jobs, meaning that there will be no redundancy and transfer costs, or will there be quite a redundancy bill because we want to change personnel?
Edward Argar
I think my right hon. Friend is talking about executive posts. Yes, there will be processes in place to ensure that employment rights are respected. There will be some roles that are completely new and there will be a competition, but I would expect that those with a significant track record and experience would therefore find themselves in a strong position. I will not prejudge any of those individual decisions.
Sir Charles Walker
I am not a right hon. Member, but I am very happy to take the promotion.
I have tabled a number of technical, totemic amendments on parity of esteem that appear on today’s amendment paper and tomorrow’s. They propose taking general references to “health” in the Bill and changing them to “physical and mental health”. I hope that the Minister will receive those amendments with his usual generosity and make the necessary changes over the next two days.
Edward Argar
I take my hon. Friend’s amendments in the spirit in which they are of course intended. I recognise the importance and value that those on both sides of this House put on parity of esteem of mental and physical health. I suspect that we may debate the amendments in subsequent groupings and I look forward to responding then.
We have, in the process of drafting this amendment, heard suggestions that we should simply ban private company employees completely from the boards of ICBs. I am afraid that doing so is not so simple, nor would it achieve the desired result in all cases. In fact, our amendment goes further to underline the importance of NHS independence than would an amendment that focused purely on banning employees of private providers. There are clearly some candidates who would be suitable but may have minor interests in private healthcare. GPs, for example, do provide, and have provided, their excellent knowledge and experience of their patients in guiding commissioning decisions, and some may have private practices as well. Excluding them would be to lose their experience from the NHS, and therefore such an involvement with the private sector would clearly not risk undermining the independence of the NHS.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. A number of GPs have, in recent times, sought to group together into confederations of practices, which could create a bloc interest within a local board area. How will that potential conflict of interest in the commissioning and provision of services be addressed by the Government through legislation?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who knows of what he speaks in terms of the operation of healthcare services. We would not wish to exclude GPs or groups of GPs from being able to participate in decision making. That expertise, as we have seen with clinical commissioning groups, can be hugely valuable. What we have sought to do, in an amendment that is technically worded, for want of a better way of putting it, is to strike the right balance while also ensuring that the additional measures on the constitutions of the ICBs and ICPs have to be approved by NHS England to avoid any obvious conflict of interest. But we are not seeking to avoid GPs being able to operate in that space and sitting on ICBs.
Edward Argar
I would like to make a little progress and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has been bobbing for some time.
We believe—this may not answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will make a little progress and then if there is time—[Interruption.] Well, we will see. Hope springs eternal. A blanket ban on employees of private companies would also, we fear, be arbitrary. It would not cover the full range of people involved in non-NHS providers, some of whom may not be suitable candidates to sit on ICBs because of their involvement, but not employment, within the private healthcare sector. With the complex corporate structures that providers may have established, a narrow definition in the Bill could be unhelpful and risk not capturing the people we wish to capture.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I support what my hon. Friend is saying. It would be crazy to exclude primary care because it is effectively a private healthcare business, and therefore what he is saying is enormously important. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), I believe it would be absolutely wrong, looking at my own county, if the mental health trust did not have a presence in the governorship of the ICB. I hope that the Minister will ensure a presence not only for the conventional trusts in hospitals and in primary care but for the mental health trusts, because their role is vital and the integration of services is essential to the delivery of good mental health care.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend makes a point that came out in some of the oral evidence sessions on the Bill. Our aim was to create a minimum membership for the ICBs and ICPs, but it is not prescriptive—it can go beyond that—so there is scope for mental health trusts or other health trusts to have seats on those boards. Indeed, Dame Gill Morgan, who runs the integrated care system in Gloucestershire, said that that is exactly what she has done and that she would be surprised if any ICB did not wish to do it. But we wanted to set a de minimis membership to allow for local flexibility.
Clive Efford
We have GP practices that are being privatised now—they are being bought up by private companies, with some foreign interests as well. If the Minister is saying that those companies can have representation on ICBs, we have already seen circumstances where people have tried to redact minutes of meetings, so does this not open up the possibility of private interests being served at these meetings but not being accountable through public scrutiny?
Edward Argar
I entirely understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. I think he was careful, shall we say, given some litigation that may be going on, not to mention anything specific, but I know what he is talking about. We believe that our amendment will prevent private companies—whatever services they were providing for the NHS—with a significant private interest in this, or their lobbyists, from being able to sit on ICBs. The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) raised the need for transparency in Committee a number of times, and I suspect we may return to that point. We believe that the current transparency requirements on CCGs that will be carried across are sufficient to ensure transparency and public access to the information they need.
Edward Argar
I am afraid I am about to conclude. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will come back in with a speech and I will endeavour to pick up on that in the wind-ups.
There are a number of similar amendments, such as amendment 101 in the names of the hon. Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope they might feel, to some degree, reassured by our amendment and the intent behind it, but that is obviously for them to say. We believe that the Government’s amendment puts beyond doubt what we believe was already entirely clear but were determined to put beyond doubt—that ICBs will not and cannot be controlled in any way by the private sector, as NHS-accountable bodies guided by the NHS constitution and with NHS values at their heart. These principles, I believe, irrespective of other debates we may have this evening, command respect from both sides of this place. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
A wide range of issues that are part of this group of amendments demonstrate the cold reality of this Bill. It is a jumble sale of bits and pieces. Of course a Bill can be wide-ranging, but having breadth is not the same as having coherence, or indeed clarity. Such are the issues within scope in this grouping that I will not comment directly on every new clause and amendment but hope to have time to say at least a few words on those emanating from the Opposition Front-Bench team, as well as on any Government new clauses or amendments that we oppose. Some amendments refer to matters that have been dealt with in Committee where we have expressed our views and put forward amendments that failed to persuade the Government. Sadly, we have insufficient time to go over the same ground again, particularly given the rapid shifting of the goalposts we have seen in the past week.
I turn first to integrated care boards, or ICBs, and, more widely, the issue of governance. The question of governance and accountability remains an important matter to us and needs greater clarity than currently appears in the Bill. For Members who may not be familiar with the detail, the Bill proposes yet another reorganisation of the NHS, creating 42 new integrated care systems where decisions on how NHS and care spending will be made. The decision-making bodies within these systems are the ICBs, replacing the CCGs, which fall away into the annals of history alongside the primary care groups, the primary care trusts and all the other permutations that we have seen.
Our discussions on these matters in Committee showed that our disagreements tended to centre around an intention by Government to limit what is in statute and to leave maximum flexibility at local level, as opposed to our desire to ensure that safeguards and protections were in place for those matters we felt were too important to be left out. It is wholly ironic, therefore, that the Bill proclaims, on the one hand, local freedoms and flexibilities, yet on the other proposes sweeping top-down powers for NHS England and the Secretary of State. Our view remains that some flexibility is fine to allow shaping to local needs, but that some key principles need to be put into the Bill to ensure that there are no misunderstandings or unintended consequences.
We know that the genesis of this Bill has been the realisation that increasingly large parts of the NHS were ignoring the 2012 Lansley Act. Along with changes to procurement and pricing, this grouping deals with the main elements of reversing parts of that Act. We could spend all our time referring to what we said 10 years ago, and how the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has proved to be the disaster that we said it would be, but we will spare the Government the “We told you so” lectures, because even those on the Government Benches are now aware that the 2012 Act has been among the worst policy mistakes in the history of the NHS. Whether that damage was worse than the damage done by a decade of austerity remains to be seen, but repairing the damage done by austerity is not for today, as there is little in the Bill to address the ongoing consequences of a decade of underfunding, particularly the wholly appalling waiting times that we now see across the board.
Geraint Davies
Perhaps my hon. Friend can illuminate me. I was going to ask the Minister who owns the assets of the ICBs. Can the ICBs sell some of those assets and rent them back as a service? What constraints are there to stop people on the board enabling that, because they have some strange link to the people buying the assets?
Justin Madders
At the moment, ICBs are not a legal entity, so they do not own anything. When the Bill comes into force, they will effectively take over mainly administrative buildings from the CCGs, and the trust will hold ownership of most of the assets. We hope that there will not be the risks that my hon. Friend outlines, although it is not impossible for ICBs to set up their own trusts at some point in the future.
We do not believe that the question of private providers sitting on the place-based boards can be left open in this way, because this is really about who runs the NHS. There is a complete and utter incompatibility between the aims of private companies and what we say should be the aims of the NHS and the ICBs. I can do no better than refer to the evidence of Dr Chaand Nagpaul from the Bill Committee. He identified the concern perfectly:
“We forget at our peril the added value, the accountability, the loyalty and the good will that the NHS provides. We really do…I am saying that it does matter. Your local acute trust is not there on a 10-year contract, willing to walk away after two years. It is there for your population; it cannot walk away.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 9 September 2021; c. 90, Q113.]
Those final words sum it up perfectly. Put a company on the board, and its interest lasts as long as the contract, and those interests will of course not be the same as the NHS’s anyway. A company’s primary concern is the shareholders, not the patients. With that clear and unanswerable concern about conflicts of interest, we invite the Government to withdraw their amendment and support ours.
We have already had some discussion of who goes on the ICB. Apparently, the answer is not the most appropriate people chosen by an independent external process or individuals directly accountable to the public; the answer is left to guidance that leaves open the risk that voices we think need to be heard will slip through the net. Our amendment 76 deals with that by setting out the requirements for ICB membership. Allocating scarce NHS resources should be robustly debated and will always be political. Tough choices have to be made, so we need people on the ICB who will be there to cover all the necessary interests for the wider good.
If Members look at what amendment 76 suggests, I hope nobody would argue that those interests do not have to have some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health and mental health—which of those can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? As I have already mentioned, there is a major area of uncertainty because of the complete absence of anything that sets out how the much-vaunted place-based commissioning will work. Who will sit at the place-based table is, I am afraid, still completely opaque.
The next major area covered in the Bill is a further deconstruction of Lansley with the removal of compulsory competitive tendering for clinical services. We have seen the NHS proposals for a provider selection regime to replace the regulations under section 75 of the 2012 Act. That is to be regarded as a work in progress, so our amendment 72 covers the issue and would reintroduce some safeguards into how our money is spent. Since its inception, the NHS has always relied on some non-NHS providers, with the model developed for GPs being an obvious example. However, in recent decades there has been an increase in the use of private providers of acute care, most notably in diagnostics and surgery.
To be clear, we on the Opposition Benches believe that the NHS should be the default provider of clinical services. If it is not the only provider, it should be the predominant provider in geographical and services terms. Where a service cannot be provided by a public body because the capability or capacity is not there, there is still the option to go beyond the NHS itself, but that should be a last resort and never a permanent solution. Amendment 72 therefore sets out a clear framework for how we could achieve that. We hope that extra transparency and extra rigour would mean we avoid buying stuff that is unsuitable and sits in container mountains, stuff that does not meet specifications, and stuff made by companies that have no experience, but are owned by friends and family. In short, we would stop the covid crony gravy train.
The use of private sector capacity in the covid emergency turned out to be a farcical failure. It became very clear, very quickly that it was not there to support the NHS; it was there just to make profits. Use of private providers through dodgy deals during the PPE scandal has highlighted the need for greater transparency and greater capacity in the NHS. We can never allow a repeat of what we have seen there. We need the rigour set out in the amendment to be put into legislation, rather than left to guidance. We need to be able to challenge NHS bodies that do not comply, as well as Ministers who try to flout the rules.
I will now deal with new clause 49, saving the best—or more accurately, the worst—until last. Because of how Report stage works, it has fallen to me to express our opposition to this measure, rather than my expert colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), who shares my dismay at what has been produced and how it has been presented to us. Starting with the process, it is wholly wrong to bring such a fundamental change forward as a last-minute addition to this Bill. That means it cannot be debated properly today. There is no impact assessment and, as we have already heard, this change was not discussed in Committee at all. In fact, in 22 Committee sessions spanning some 50 hours, we never once heard mention of this amendment coming forward or discussion on the care cap. Indeed, when this Chamber was busy debating the social care levy, we were beavering away in Committee on the Bill, oblivious to the fact this measure was coming down the track. If the Government cannot even get their decision-making processes integrated, what hope is there for integrating health and social care?
As we know, the aim of the new clause is to remove means-tested benefits from the costs that count towards the care cap. As has been pointed out far and wide by Members from all parts of the House, that change adversely impacts some more than others. It is a wholly regressive measure, to say the least, to give support through means-testing, but then to penalise people later for receiving it in the first place. We will vote against this iniquity, and I hope many Conservative Members will vote with us. They should be used to the Prime Minister’s broken promises by now; this is their chance to make the point that he should stand by what he says.
Mike Amesbury
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is Robin Hood in reverse? I encourage Conservative Members who wax lyrical about levelling up, particularly in the north, to do the right thing.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend must have sneaked a look at my speech, because I will say later that it is Robin Hood in reverse.
Barbara Keeley
The proposal is grossly unfair. I gave the example earlier that in our region, 15% of people with dementia will reach the cap, whereas 34% would have under the Dilnot proposals. The cap also does not protect working-age adults who are accessing social care, or people with a disability, but Sir Andrew Dilnot’s proposals would have done. It is the second major area in which the proposal is grossly unfair.
Justin Madders
Again, my hon. Friend must have read my speech because I will make that point later. The proposal shows that the Bill is not a plan to fix social care but a very thin attempt to change parts of the system. There are many other elements that clearly need dealing with.
In case Conservative Members need reminding, in the Prime Minister’s first speech on taking office, he promised to,
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan that we have prepared”.
We are still to see that plan. What we have is a new tax and a broken promise.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and neighbour is making an excellent speech. We should be talking about a plan for social care, but we are actually talking about a tax on the people who have lost out over the past decade and more from the excessive house price growth in the south compared with other parts of the country. This is a tax that doubles down on inequality, rather than addressing it.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour—I am getting all my neighbours in tonight. She makes a brilliant point: the proposal exacerbates regional inequalities through an unfair tax and is certainly not a plan to fix social care. Hon. Members should look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West has said about what needs to be done to tackle the social care crisis in this country; it is an awful lot more than putting in place a cap that benefits only some people in certain parts of the country.
Not only will the proposal not stop people having to sell their home to pay for their costs, but it will bake in unfairness for a generation. It does nothing for working adults with long-term care needs, who seem to have been completely missed out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. It is not what was promised, but hon. Members do not have to take my word for it. Let us listen to the experts. Age UK says:
“The change the Government has announced makes the overall scheme a lot less helpful to older people with modest assets than anyone had expected. It waters down Sir Andrew Dilnot’s original proposal to save the Government some money, but at the cost of protecting the finances of older home owners…This feels like completely the wrong policy choice and we are extremely disappointed that the Government has made it”.
The King’s Fund says of people with more modest assets that,
“the Prime Minister’s promise that no one need sell their house to pay for care…doesn’t seem to apply to them.”
Instead, it will only “benefit wealthier people”.
Barry Gardiner
My hon. Friend referenced the Prime Minister’s statement that nobody would have to sell their house to pay for social care. I know that my hon. Friend would never seek to call the Prime Minister a liar in this Chamber, but does he wonder, as many hon. Members do, why the Bill appears to be turning the Prime Minister’s words into a lie?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—I think. What I can say here and what I might say outside are not the same, and I do have to finish my speech, so I will leave it there. I am sure that the public will make up their own minds about the veracity or otherwise of comments made by the Prime Minister.
Sir Andrew Dilnot said that the proposals will create a north-south divide, that those with assets of £106,000 will be hardest hit and that anyone with assets under £186,000 will be worse off than under his proposals. According to the Health Foundation, assuming care costs of about £500 a week, those with assets of £150,000 will take a year and a half longer to reach the cap than they would have under the Dilnot proposals, those with assets of £125,000 will take four and a half years longer, and those with assets of under £106,000 will never reach the care cap. Contrary to what the Minister has said, people with assets of £106,000 or less will not benefit from the proposal at all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It will be obvious to Members that a large number of colleagues want to contribute to the debate. I urge brevity, so that others can participate. I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think on this occasion I can oblige you, because I will be very brief. I wish to speak to amendment 114, which may seem a rather technical amendment—as is evidenced by the fact that, out of 650 colleagues, only one has actually signed it, and that is me—but it makes up in quality for what it does not have in quantity. It is about making sure that the new integrated care boards focus their energy on the safety and quality of care of patients. That is very important, because the new integrated care boards will have enormous power. In effect, they will be the local governing bodies of our NHS.
Although the statutory structures matter, what the people running those care boards focus their attention on is incredibly important to all our constituents. The amendment will make sure that when care boards consider their priorities, the things that matter to patients—the safety and quality of care—are put at the very top of their list. We know the way the NHS works. It is the fifth-largest bureaucracy in the world, and there is a plethora of internal NHS—
Jeremy Hunt
I see the Minister wants me to give way. May I make my argument for one moment, and then give way?
There is a plethora of internal NHS targets, there are operational targets and there are financial targets. They often have an excellent purpose, but, as in the case of Mid Staffs and other cases where things went badly wrong, being under a lot of pressure to meet those targets means corners can be cut, and the quality of care experienced by patients can be really damaged. The amendment would make sure that there was discipline in the system, so that whatever pressure NHS managers were under, they were always focused on safety and quality of care.
John Redwood
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for what he did as Secretary of State to stress the importance of this crucial work, and he is not on his own: I support him.
Jeremy Hunt
Before I come to the Minister, I want to say—and I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who gave me consistent support on this agenda when I was Health Secretary—that, in the public sector, the one system that has seemed to make sure we focus public bodies on our constituents’ priorities is the Ofsted system in schools. We have rolled that out, I think reasonably successfully, to hospitals, GP surgeries and care homes, and this amendment makes that possible for the new integrated care boards. I want to give the Minister a chance to intervene to tell us his reflections on whether this system could work.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is not just my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) who supports him on this; I and the Government do, and we are delighted to accept his amendment.
Jeremy Hunt
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am also grateful to the Opposition, who have indicated that they will not oppose the amendment.
Kevin Hollinrake
Now that that one is sorted, would my right hon. Friend offer the House his views on new clause 49?
Jeremy Hunt
I am happy to do that, because I know my hon. Friend has a great interest in social care issues. I feel conflicted by new clause 49. I think that what we will end up with after this measure will be a whole lot better for people on low incomes than what we had, because the means-test threshold will be raised from £23,000 to £100,000, and that is a very significant improvement. However, I have to be honest and say that it is nothing like as progressive as we had hoped, but it is a step forward. My concern when it comes to social care is that our entire debate is focusing on what does and does not contribute to the cap, when the fundamental problem in social care is the core funding to local authorities; that, though not a matter for this Bill, has a direct impact on the care received by our constituents.
I conclude by thanking the Government for their support for amendment 114. I will move it formally later, but I am not expecting to divide the House on it.
Dr Whitford
I initially want to touch on new clause 49. Like other members of the Bill Committee, I sat through hours and hours from September to November, and the Government have suddenly pounced on us with this at the last minute. It is such a complicated new clause, but it has not been interrogated.
It is quite clear that the Government’s original spin that no one would pay more than £86,000 for social care and no one would have to sell their house is completely misleading. All the accommodation costs are on top of this. As has been highlighted in the media and by Members in the Chamber, those with assets of about £100,000 will not see any real gain from this policy, while those sitting on assets of £500,000 or more will keep a lot of their wealth. That means it exacerbates the differences, and penalises those in the north of England and areas where house values are not so high. Basically, it is feeding the frenzy down here of people sitting on over-inflated house prices. As has been said, this is not levelling up, just doubling down.
The cap applies only to personal care, which means things like washing and dressing. That has been provided free in Scotland both within the care home and in home care since 2002. It was expanded in 2011 to provide more hours so that people with greater need could stay at home longer, and it was extended to those under 65 with care needs in April 2019. Scotland is the only UK nation that provides free personal care, and we see it as an investment. It is an investment that we spend 43% more per head on social care in Scotland, but it is an investment in people’s independence and their inclusion in society. The problem is that we spend far too much time talking about social care just as a burden, instead of actually seeing it from the point of view of the user.
The Scottish Government have already added an extra penny on taxation for medium and high earners to cover things such as our wellbeing policies, health or social care, but this Government’s plan to increase national insurance contributions will disproportionately hit low-paid workers and young workers. I would say that the biggest weakness of all, as we know from the original debate on the national insurance change, is that the funding is not going to go to social care initially; it is going to go to the NHS, yet it is social care that is in crisis. This is what is causing the pressure in accident and emergency, because people who are ready to be discharged simply cannot be, as the care support is not there. I do not think that this fixes the problem. There will actually be very little money, because a lot of it is going to go on capping the overall payment. I do not see social care benefiting from this at all, yet it is social care that needs investment more than anything else.
Turning to the main substance of the Bill, which is meant to some extent to unpick the damage and fragmentation of the Health and Social Care Act less than a decade on, I wish to express support for amendments 9 and 72. Many in the NHS, including me, will be glad to see the back of section 75 enforced tendering. Others in the Chamber know that it was the Health and Social Care Act that brought me into politics, as I just could not believe anybody thought what they were doing was a good idea. It is still clear from the pandemic that this Government are absolutely wedded to outsourcing services to private companies, and to the flawed notion that financial competition somehow drives up clinical quality. I am sorry, but that simply is not the case. As the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee has highlighted, we have to focus on safety, on clinical audit, and on peer review if we want to drive up care quality for patients, not just on the money in the system.
The Government appear to have conceded that integrated care boards should be statutory bodies, as health boards have always been in Scotland, but partnership boards can include private providers, such as with Virgin Care in Bath. As the partnership boards will be involved in devising the local strategy for health services, that is likely to lead to a blatant conflict of interest, and I do not see a resolution to that. The NHS simply should be the presumed provider of health services. That is not just, as the shadow Health Minister said, because the NHS is in it for the long term, or for a quick contract, but because the NHS provides the training to nurses and doctors who are the vital workforce of the future. Private providers do not do that; private providers largely live off the NHS. As well as not training staff, where there are major problems or complications, patients inevitably end up in the intensive care unit of an NHS hospital.
In conclusion, for all the size of the Bill, and the scale that the reorganisation will involve for staff in the NHS, who we all know are frankly exhausted, the Government have failed to take the opportunity to repair fully the damage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and to recreate in England a unified public health system, such as the one we are lucky enough still to have in Scotland.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the time he gave me to consider my amendments, which we discussed in some detail, and I thank Her Majesty’s Opposition who, very kindly, took some of my amendments through Committee, sadly unsuccessfully. Tonight I hope to have the opportunity myself to explain why these amendments are so important. Before the House thinks, “Oh my goodness, how can we possibly deal with that many clauses and amendments?” let me say that I will endeavour to be brief. I rise to speak to new clause 33, and amendments 21, 22, 19, 16, 17, 20, 18 and 23—but I will be brief.
Let me divide my remarks into four topic areas: domestic abuse, mental health, access to medicines, and research. New clause 33 deals with domestic abuse. That is a horrific crime. It is insidious, it is hidden, and it is on the rise, and during the pandemic it has, sadly, grown from strength to strength. I say, pointedly, that this is a hidden crime, and at the moment, all the teeth are with the police. However, the police can deal only with very evident crime.
Where does domestic abuse first appear? It is in a doctor’s surgery, or at accident and emergency. To date, however, there is no obligation on clinical commissioning groups, integrated care boards or hospitals to come up with a strategy to address that horrific ill. New clause 33 would place a new obligation on ICBs to put in place a proactive strategy to properly manage that issue, and to introduce the education and training that GPs and those in hospitals and A&E need. We must ensure that we no longer find, as in the Safelives report, that those experiencing domestic abuse will have experienced it for three years before it is picked up, despite having already been to visit their GPs almost five times. I do not believe that that is acceptable in a civilised society such as the one we have today.
Five and a half per cent. of adults between 16 and 74 experience such abuse, and the Home Office has determined that the cost of that was £66 billion in 2016-17. Of that, £2.3 billion was the cost to the health service. We know that 23% of those who are at risk attend A&E, and yet nothing happens. I am fortunate that in Devon we have a pilot. My CCG is the only one in the country to have a dedicated individual on the board who specifically oversees and sets a dedicated strategy on this issue. The estimate from the pilot so far reckons that if we spent £450,000 a year on our GPs in Devon, we would get a return of £7 million. But this is not about money; this is about what is the right thing to do. Until this measure is on the statute book, and until there is an obligation to put in place a strategy, this will not change, and I cannot sit here and accept that.
Let me turn to mental health. For many years and in many documents, we have seen a commitment to parity of esteem, but I have been through every statute on the book and at no point is there any reference to the words “parity of esteem for mental health”. If parity of esteem for mental health is not on the statute book, how can we say we believe in it? If it is not on the statute book, how can we possibly measure it? Currently, there are very few measures of inputs or outputs—or, worse, of outcomes —for those going through the mental health system. There are some, but they are minuscule compared with what we have for physical health.
Amendment 23 to clause 19 would require each ICB to compare the inputs and outputs on physical health and mental health. Each ICB would be required to set out: the number of patients presenting with physical symptoms and with mental symptoms; the waiting times for initial assessment in physical health and in mental health; the waiting times for treatment in physical health and in mental health; the number of patients actually receiving treatment in physical health and in mental health; and, finally, reports on readmissions. I know that Ministers do not like that level of detail, but how important is this? Without some very specific measures, it will not happen. What gets measured generally gets done.
Amendment 23 would also require the ICBs to report against the very few national standards that there are. At least then we would see what they were; we would shine a bright light on the fact that there are so few for mental health while there are numerous for physical health. The Secretary of State would be required to consolidate those reports into a national report, which would have to be presented to Parliament—to both the Commons and the Lords. What is there for Ministers not to like about that amendment? What is there for those on the Opposition Benches not to like about it?
Anne Marie Morris
Then I would like to see you wishing to press it to a vote and putting your vote—and your feet—where your mouth is. [Interruption.] I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not your mouth. I was carried away by an overwhelming desire to get my point across, and I apologise most profoundly.
I turn to access to medicines. Most Members believe, do they not, that medicines that have been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are available to all our constituents? The reality is that they are not. A medicine may have gone through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and been proved to be safe, and through NICE and been said to be cost-effective, but each CCG—each ICB, as they will be—and hospital trust, and every other NHS body responsible for prescribing, sets its own formulary, and those formularies do not include all NICE drugs. If a medicine is not on the formulary, then no consultant or GP will be able to get reimbursement, so they will not be allowed to prescribe it.
In my constituency, a number of individuals have come to me because they cannot get access to a particular medicine, yet people in another constituency can. I do not believe that a postcode lottery is right. We all talk about the NHS, and health and care, being free at the point of delivery, and we all assume that we can get access, whether to GPs or to hospitals, but I do not think it occurs to most of us—it had not occurred to me—that we cannot necessarily get access to medicines.
My amendment 21 to clause 15 would effectively oblige every ICB, where any individual patient has the advice of their clinician that they should have a particular medicine and it has been approved by NICE, to make provision to ensure that that medicine is provided—perhaps from a neighbouring ICB, taking advantage of the duty to collaborate across ICBs. That would ensure that even if a medicine was not on the formulary in the area of an individual ICB, it could be obtained from another area. Bear in mind that there is no financial loss in doing that, because all NICE-approved drugs are subject to a voluntary pricing agreement between the pharmaceutical companies and NHS England. Under that agreement, x number of drugs will be provided at an agreed cost. Anything above that will be reimbursed by the drug company, so the Government and the NHS will not be out of pocket. Why would that not be a good clause? To provide belt and braces, under amendments 20 and 22, all NICE treatments would automatically be added to all formularies within 28 days of market authorisation and every ICB would be obligated to report.
My last area—I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—is research, which is so important, as we discovered during the pandemic. I would like to draw the attention of the House to some of the challenges. Some of the anti-viral solutions to coronavirus were late to market because we could not get the clinical trials. Why? Because we could not get access to the records of the patients who had had covid or been diagnosed with covid so that we then had the appropriate cohort to be able to test the anti-virals. It therefore seems very clear that research must be taken on board across every hospital trust and across every ICB. If every ICB and hospital trust had in place a system to ensure research was part of their DNA—that they had to report on what research they were undertaking and had an obligation, if they were asked and had the appropriate cohort, to recruit the patient base so that particular clinical trials could take place—we would get more medicines faster to market. I think most people would say that that was a win.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I declare an interest in that my partner is a clinical research nurse—working in cardiac research—so I completely appreciate and understand exactly where the hon. Lady is coming from. Does she agree that to find patients for studies, often tens of thousands of pounds is spent on radio and online adverts? If her amendment 17 is successful, it could be revolutionary for research in this country.
Anne Marie Morris
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right. If we could have this new system, so there was a research strategy and an obligation to consider clinical trial requests and then report, we would be in a very different place.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been incredibly indulgent and so have all hon. Members. On that note, having had my time for my four areas, I thank the House for its indulgence and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Bill opens the NHS up to big business, allowing private companies a say in the care that patients receive. The Government’s amendment to the make-up of integrated care boards is weak and it fails to rule out the possibility of people with an interest in private health sitting on them. For that reason I tabled amendment 101, which seeks to ensure that ICBs are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations and that private companies, their employees and representatives, and those with financial interests in them, are not represented on them. Surely, that is what the public expect from a body that will be responsible for spending huge amounts of public money?
However, the influence of private companies is not just an issue with ICBs. The Bill allows for private companies to play parts in other ways, for example at sub-system level via place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives—they are not actually stated in the Bill, but that is what it means. Guidance by NHS England states very clearly that the Health and Care Bill will enable ICBs to delegate functions to providers, including, for example, devolving budgets to provider collaboratives. There is nothing to stop such partnerships from being open to big business, so the Government’s rhetoric around protecting the independence of ICBs is, frankly, quite meaningless. For all their talk of recognising
“that the involvement of the private sector, in all its forms, in ICBs is a matter of significant concern to Members in the House,”
they have not taken the action needed to stop private companies from influencing decision making. That is why I have put forward amendment 58, which is designed to ensure that any organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf is a statutory NHS body.
Although the Government have made some noise about private membership of integrated care boards, they have said with respect to integrated care partnerships that they
“want local areas to be able to appoint members as they think appropriate.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 14 September 2021; c. 258-259.]
That is a matter of great concern. ICPs are required to
“prepare a strategy…setting out how the assessed needs in relation to its area are to be met”.
Integrated care boards must have regard to a strategy drawn up by the ICP, which may well be influenced by private companies that do not have the same objectives as the NHS. I have therefore tabled amendment 100, which would do for ICPs what my amendment 101 would do for ICBs: seek to ensure that they are made up wholly of representatives from public sector organisations, and that private companies are not represented on them.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill has the sense of being an NHS corporate takeover Bill? We have already seen £5 billion in contracts being awarded to private companies through the VIP lane. The Bill opens the door to private corporations sitting on 42 local health boards. That is wrong.
Margaret Greenwood
I thank my right hon. Friend for putting the case so clearly. She hits the nail absolutely on the head: as a result of the Bill, contracts could be handed out to the private sector without the stringent arrangements that one would expect in the awarding of public money. That is a recipe for the kind of cronyism that has become all too familiar, as she says.
I turn to the cap on care costs. I was proud to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that pledged to
“build a comprehensive National Care Service for England”,
to include
“free personal care, beginning with investments to ensure that older people have their personal care needs met, with the ambition to extend this provision to all working-age adults.”
The Conservative manifesto in 2019 did not go that far, but it at least made the guarantee that
“nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.”
We now know that that was a sham—another broken promise by this Government.
Last week, Ministers sneaked out changes to social care plans that would mean that poorer pensioners will not after all be able to count means-tested payments by the state for their care towards a total cap of £86,000 for any individual. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), described it as “deeply disappointing” that the new plans were “not as progressive” as those put forward by Andrew Dilnot, the economist who drew up the original plans for a cap on individual contributions. Mr Dilnot has said that the Government’s plan is
“a big change that…finds savings exclusively from the less well-off group.”
A former Conservative Cabinet Minister has urged the Government
“to adopt a different approach”,
while another Conservative MP, a former Under-Secretary of State for Health, has said that
“it will be poorer pensioners who have relatively modest assets that will be most affected by these changes.”
I hope that Members on the Government Benches are listening to those points from Government as well as Opposition Members and will do the right thing. Elderly people deserve better. All Members, including Government Members, have a responsibility to vote these measures down.
When the Prime Minister was discharged from hospital in April 2020, having spent seven nights there, of which three were in intensive care, he said that
“the NHS has saved my life, no question.”
Now he and his Government should save the NHS by withdrawing the Bill. The national health service is this country’s greatest social achievement. It is devastating that this Conservative Government are intent on taking it off us.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I support new clause 49 because I support the action that is needed to make reforms to social care that are long overdue. I have listened carefully to the debate, and it is vital that we understand that the new clause would deliver one part, but not the whole, of the package that was set out by the Government in September. There is no doubt whatever that that package, as a whole, improves the provision of social care, makes the way it is paid for fairer, and removes some injustices that have existed in the system for far too long.
First, the proposal that has been put forward—and I think it is the right proposal—is for a cap on the costs that individuals face in paying for their care. The contributions from the state, even if they are from another part of the state such as local government, are not individuals’ care costs, and it is therefore wrong that they should be contributions towards the cap. The cap has the stated goal of being a cap on the cost of care to an individual, not a cap on the cost that accrues to both the individual and a local authority.
Let us look at what would happen if the new clause were not passed. The provision of care by local authorities is different in different areas, largely according to how well off those local authorities are. A richer council that pays more costs than the statutory minimum as set out in the Care Act 2014 would help local residents to meet the cap sooner than a poorer council that pays only the statutory minimum of care costs, and therefore people who live in poorer areas would take longer to reach the cap, so we would end up, in effect, with a postcode lottery cap meaning that people from poorer areas would tend to have to contribute more. That is wrong, and I am very glad that it is put right by the proposals that are before us today.
Secondly, for those with lower asset values, the rise in the floor in the means test is more important. It is the rise in that floor that makes this system fair. When the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), read out a long list of places with low asset values on average—places where house prices tend to be lower—he listed exactly the areas that will benefit most from the rise in the floor. [Interruption.] We can see what Labour Members are doing. [Interruption.] They are taking a narrow area, and they are taking a specific detail, and they are ignoring all the parts of the package that benefit the people who will benefit from this package as a whole. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will not get anywhere if people shout. This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion.
Matt Hancock
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A further point that is being ignored by those who are trying to make a meal of this new clause is that the cutting of the daily cost offset is much more valuable to those on low incomes than any change in the cap, because the cap, by its nature, is there to protect assets, and those who do not have many assets gain far more benefit from the cut in the daily cost that would otherwise clock up their contributions to the cap much more slowly.
Taken together, these elements make up a package that is beneficial to those on low incomes. It helps to make the system fairer.
My final point on new clause 49 is this. For years and years—including the years when I was Secretary of State, and including the entire 13 years when Labour was in power—nobody fixed the problem of social care. This Government have come forward with a package, and if we pull apart one part of the package, there is a risk to the package as a whole. As Sir Andrew Dilnot said on the radio this morning,
“the whole package is a significant step forward”.
It is always easy in politics, and in life, to say, “I just accept the bits of the package that I like”—and, in the case of the Labour party, to say, “I accept the bits that are very expensive for taxpayers.” Instead, we must look at the package as a whole, which is funded, and which can be delivered, for the first time in several decades, because it hangs together. The Government have presented a whole package, and it is the best possible option in the fiscally constrained times in which we live.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am sorry to be unhelpful to my right hon. Friend, but if this element is so integral to the overall package, why was it not brought forward right at the beginning?
Matt Hancock
This part of the package was described in September, because it was made clear in September that the £86,000 cap was a cap on individual costs. It did not say then that that included the costs that local government may make on someone’s behalf. I think it is a strong Conservative principle that, when we say we are capping the costs that an individual pays, we do not include the costs that another part of the state should pay. I think that that was clear, and more details have now been set out. Most importantly, this is a package that takes things forward in a way that has not been achieved for decades.
Rob Roberts
I do not think anyone across the House would argue that the measures that have been put forward are a significant step forward from where we are. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) mentioned earlier, they are not necessarily what we might have been led to expect. Would my right hon. Friend like to comment on that?
Matt Hancock
I will happily comment on that. In the debate over the past few days, many people have been comparing the package put forward by the Government with the proposals from Sir Andrew Dilnot in 2014-15, but there is a reason those proposals were never enacted and never came into force. It is because they had a huge price tag, and there was no successful debate on how to pay for them. It has been easy to ask for social care reform for the past three decades, but until this Government did it, nobody had come forward with a plan for how to pay for it. We simply cannot magic things out of thin air. If we are a grown-up Government, we have to come forward with a grown-up package, which includes saying how it will be paid for. That is what has happened, and that is why this package hangs together. We should support this new clause, because it is part of that overall funded package.
I want to turn briefly to the measures on integrated care systems. The purpose of the ICSs is to have a more preventive, more flexible and less siloed approach than we have under the current clinical commissioning groups, without removing the grit in the oyster that is the purchaser-provider split and without upsetting the 1948 settlement involving local authorities doing social care and having a national NHS. Amendment 76 in particular contains a lot of suggestions that might seem tempting. There are people who have an important voice in the debate. The problem, as we have seen with existing legislation, is that if we put too much into statute, it is far harder to deliver high-quality services that are integrated on the ground. That is why the Government are right to resist putting too much detail into legislation. However, I do support the change proposed by the Government, which makes it clear that the purpose of ICSs is not to have private providers on the board. I can confirm that, as the Minister said, it never was. Mischievous rumours were put about, some of which have been repeated today, that that was the intention, and I am glad that the Government’s amendment puts that matter beyond doubt.
I am attracted to amendments 89 and 90 and, in another group, amendments 91 to 98 and amendment 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I was going to say this before I knew that I would be sitting next to him in the debate today, and I hope that the Government will look on these amendments kindly. The parity of esteem between mental and physical health is incredibly important, and I commend the amendments to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a lot of people wish to speak and that there are a lot of amendments still to be spoken to. We have only an hour left, so I am going to impose a time limit of four minutes immediately. I apologise to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for not giving him notice that he would have only four minutes, but I am sure that he will manage.
Peter Dowd
My amendments 1 and 2 primarily relate to self-care. I acknowledge that self-care is recognised by care professionals as part of the healthcare process, but, like prevention, it should not be an afterthought—a concept that we think invaluable but that we never get around to fully including in our health ecosystem in the way we ought to.
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I rise to speak on new clause 49. For 40 years, successive Governments have tried desperately to address this issue, and successive Governments have put it in the “too difficult” pile. It is incredibly expensive, it is hellishly complicated and, to put it simply, there is no silver bullet to address all the concerns surrounding it. That is why I am so proud that this Government have made an attempt to grip this issue.
The fact is that what happens to us in old age is entirely random, and whether we incur catastrophic care costs that wipe out everything we have worked for in our lives is often down to luck. The current system is complex, it is unfair, many people simply do not understand it, and that has been compounded by the fact that successive Governments—nobody is blameless—have used unhelpful language such as “death tax” and “dementia tax”, which have made people terrified of the issue and blown any Government’s attempts to try to solve it out of the water.
Such language strikes fear into people’s hearts about what will happen to us when we are elderly, when we are vulnerable, when we cannot look after ourselves any more. As humans, this is something we do not want to talk about. We do not want to consider it or think about it happening to us; not for us the slow decay, the hellishly expensive degeneration, which affects perhaps four in 10, with the catastrophic amounts of money involved affecting perhaps one in seven. That is why insurance models have never really worked.
The new clause looks to amend the cap on care, basically, where the local authority costs should contribute to the metering towards the cap. I have to be honest: I thought really hard about whether I could support this. Many people, including the brilliant Andrew Dilnot, have pointed out the financial inequalities and some of the geographical inequalities of removing the local authority contribution. As local authority contributions differ by area already—they are much higher in better-off areas—there is already a postcode lottery of care depending on where someone lives. We have to address that. The key thing here is not the cap, but the floor. Those with lower property values will be protected by the floor, not the cap. The reforms increase the threshold above which people must meet the full cost of their care from £23,000 to £100,000—more than four times the limit. The daily living costs limit of £200 per week means that more people will keep more of their income and assets and the package includes domiciliary care, which many others have not done. It is not perfect—it is far from perfect—but everyone who is contributing towards their social care today, and those of us who face the uncertainty of this possible spectre in our future, will be better off than they are now. That is why we have to move forward in a way that is deliverable and that we can finally, for once, get over the finishing line, after 40 years of trying.
There are details that need to be fleshed out. The White Paper just cannot come soon enough and I wish to mention two burning issues in particular. The first is how we support working-age adults, who make up more than half of those who need adult social care. Some people need that care throughout their lives; for others it happens to them unexpectedly. How do we support the people of working age for whom care costs are not paid out of a nest egg, which they might have been able to build up over decades of work? Finally, the biggest issue facing adult social care is the workforce. This job is significantly undervalued. It is too often described as “unskilled”. That drives me mad. These people have unbelievable skills. They have experience and passion, and we entrust our most valuable and precious family members into their care and their hands. Frequently, they just make more money in hospitality or retail. How do the Government create a society that values these heroes for what they are? I look forward to reading the White Paper and seeing how the Government will tackle some of these thorny issues, the most intransigent challenges facing our adult social care system, because for those money alone will not be enough.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I would like to start by talking about social care. The Liberal Democrats have long called for reform to properly integrate health and social care services, but this Bill does not do that. As others have mentioned, it seeks to reorganise parts of the NHS, but it pays lip service only to social care. That is why the Lib Dems think that the Bill should be put on hold until the proper social care reforms are brought forward.
As others have mentioned, it has been months since the Prime Minister announced his plan to fix social care. It is unforgivable that this new clause was sneaked out during the sleaze row last week, in a move that changed the goalposts. The Minister would do well to listen to the unease among his Back Benchers as well as among Opposition Members.
Struggling families now face being hammered by a double whammy of unfair tax rises and the prospect of losing their homes to fund care costs. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) is no longer in his place, but I noted that he selectively quoted Andrew Dilnot. He did not quote Andrew Dilnot’s comments on new clause 49. Andrew Dilnot said that that proposal was not welcome. He said that he was very disappointed and that this represented “a big change” that
“finds savings exclusively from the less well-off”.
That is two promises from this Tory Government now broken.
There is also no mention in this Bill of the millions of people who are unpaid carers in the UK, even though we know that carers are twice as likely to experience ill health as a result of caring. That is why I have tabled new clause 63 for debate tomorrow. It is supported by Carers UK and it calls for the NHS to ensure that the health and wellbeing of unpaid carers is taken into account when decisions are made concerning the health and care of the person for whom they care. I hope the Government will support it. I know it is grouped for debate tomorrow, but I reference it now to highlight again the fact that the Bill does not present a comprehensive plan to reform social care.
The Bill also represents a massive and unnecessary power grab by the Secretary of State. It is simply wrong for the Government to have the power to abolish arm’s length bodies and approve or reject the chairs of integrated care systems. The public have been rightly outraged at political meddling in covid contracts, and the Government should learn their lesson. We should all be seeking to protect the independence of the NHS.
Vacancies in the NHS and social care are utterly staggering. We know the numbers: 100,000 vacancies in the NHS and more than 120,000 in social care; and 1.5 million people missing out on the care they need. We simply cannot go on like this, with the Government setting their own sporadic targets and constantly missing them. NHS waiting lists are at a record high. Ambulance services received a record number of calls in October. Major A&Es treated more than 1.4 million people in October—the third highest monthly figure on record.
The Bill will do nothing to get those waiting lists down, nothing to recruit the workforce we need, nothing to help people get seen faster and nothing for the millions of unpaid carers. The Government should delay the Bill for a few months and look properly at reforming social care, rather than doing a half-baked job now. But I do not think they will, and that is why the Lib Dems will vote against it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health earlier as he introduced new clause 49 because the funding of social care has been a huge concern for too many years. The people we represent deserve far more certainty about how their old age will be funded if they require social care.
We have a pension system and a system to support disabled people, but the funding of social care is a real uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Minister for bringing forward these costed proposals to provide some certainty for the future for more people. He is to be commended for being clear that no one will lose out under the proposals and that the majority will be better off because of the issues that we have already gone through—particularly because the means-test threshold is being significantly raised. He can say that with some force because of the more than £5 billion extra being put forward by the Government to fund social care in a sustainable way for the future.
However, there is still clearly some concern, as the Minister can hear from the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said, no solution will be perfect, so I was particularly pleased to hear of the Minister’s plans to publish an impact assessment, which will clearly set out the impact of these measures across the board. That is important.
Finally, I want to speak in support of my amendment 102. We all know that the quality of support that we give victims of domestic and sexual abuse is a marker for the health of our society, and it is not just a matter for the NHS. However, the NHS plays a vital part in that support. Amendment 102 requires the joint forward plan for integrated care boards and their partners to properly set out the steps they propose to take to address the needs of victims of domestic abuse—whether domestic violence or sexual abuse, and whether it involves children or adults.
Amendment 102 does not limit the plan to addressing only the victims of domestic abuse; many other types of abuse are equally devastating, and it is permissive enough to allow innovation and improved ways of working to be developed in guidance. I hope that it can be used as a basis for guidance to integrated care boards as part of their general powers.
Amendment 102 is just part of the greater whole. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in particular will require action across Government, but the amendment will help to ensure that every part of the state is pulling in the same direction when it comes to issues of domestic and sexual abuse. My amendment is similar to new clause 33, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) outlined earlier, but my amendment is more permissive and less prescriptive, so I hope the Government will find it acceptable.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the case she is making. I should also put on the record my gratitude for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) has done in this policy space and for her proposal. Her Majesty’s Government are happy to accept my right hon. Friend’s amendment 102 on support for victims of domestic abuse.
Mrs Miller
I thank the Minister for his acceptance of my amendment. Many people in all parts of the House will see it as a continuation of this Government’s commitment to tackling the issues of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. I thank him for such a positive acceptance.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Bill overall but in favour of new clauses 56 and 57, tabled in my name, and those amendments and new clauses tabled by any Member who has sought to change the pernicious outcomes of the Bill.
Our NHS is really one of the best things about this country, but the Bill is the biggest threat to it yet. It rolls out the red carpet for private companies, ramps up the Government’s long-standing attempts to privatise the NHS, and makes easier what we have witnessed over the past 18 months: the awarding of contract after contract without a competitive process, and the rewarding of failing companies with new contracts again and again.
The Bill will be the destruction of our NHS as we know it, and will widen the inequalities that the pandemic has exacerbated. We now have more than 5.7 million people on NHS waiting lists. Of course, that is not solely because of the pandemic—far from it. After the Government won the 2010 election, around 500,000 to 750,000 people were on NHS waiting lists, and the number rose every year before the pandemic, so the waiting lists are the long-term effect of the Conservative policies of underfunding and privatisation.
Waiting lists have now doubled, and our NHS is in danger of toppling over. All the while, health inequality is rising. That is why, with the support of the Health Foundation, I tabled new clause 57, which would compel the NHS to set out data-collection guidelines on health inequalities. We know that health inequalities exist and have seen them play out with the worst consequences, from postcode lotteries to racial disparities, and it is time that we accepted that, collected the proper data—it is a farce that we do not already do so—and set out to make real change.
Since 2010, improvements in life expectancy in England have slowed more than in any other country in Europe, and the gap between rich and poor in respect of the number of years people can expect to live in good health has widened even further. During the pandemic, that was shown by the higher death rates among people who live in more deprived areas and among certain populations, most notably disabled people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Among people younger than 65, the covid-19 mortality rate was almost four times higher for the 10% living in the most-deprived areas than for those living in the least-deprived areas. This is nothing new; the Marmot reviews have covered that many times.
Earlier this year, the King’s Fund found for the NHS Race and Health Observatory that any success we have in tackling health inequalities is always drowned out by other strains, such as waiting times and other clinical priorities. Put quite simply, we cannot tackle inequalities because this Government have never put equality at the front and centre of their policy making. That makes their so-called levelling-up agenda meaningless.
The Bill will enshrine in law the new so-called triple aim to promote various different factors, but the Government are so short-sighted that they have declined to incorporate health inequalities into the triple aim. What a complete missed opportunity that is—or a clear indication that the Government really could not care less. Before anybody says any different, and that the NHS has other means of doing that, we need to look at the state of the outcomes, because what is happening is clearly not working.
The Government continuously and repeatedly fail to accept examples of institutional discrimination, let alone meet their duties under equalities law. We recently heard about how the issues in respect of oximeters and dark skin will have contributed to worse outcomes. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has called for a review of gender and race bias in medical equipment; quite frankly, that is groundbreaking—all we seem to do is have reviews. We would already have these types of policies had we just heeded past Government reviews and looked at the equality impact assessments. There is no excuse for the Government to keep ignoring the requirement that is already set out in law for them to meet their equalities duties to people right across this country.
Sir Charles Walker
I caught your eye half a minute ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you indicated to me with that look that I was next. My heart rate quickened. I am always nervous when I speak in this place because we do really important stuff here—all of us do—and this is an important Bill.
Before the Health and Social Care Bill became an Act in 2012, it was amended by the Conservative Government. It was amended in pursuit of parity of esteem. The Coalition Government changed general references to health to “physical health and mental health”, which was not a courageous thing to do—it was entirely the right thing to do.
I have tabled a series of amendments—10, if I have counted them correctly—for debate over the next two days. They ask the Government to change all general references to health to “mental health and physical health”. It is a call to arms. These changes are not just totemic, but hugely important. Over the next few years, we need to recruit 9,000 more mental health nurses to look after our constituents and more than 800 new psychiatrists, and we need to give all organisations charged with delivering healthcare that nudge, that push, that call to arms that they need to make these important things happen. We also need to send another message from this place—on top of all the other messages that we have sent over the past nine years—that we believe that there is no physical health without good mental health, and that good mental health means good physical health.
I am looking at the Minister because he has made a couple of staggering interventions on colleagues tonight. Colleagues in full flow, prostrating themselves at the feet of Government, have suddenly been rewarded with his stylish, charming intervention of, “The Government have heard your cries, and they shall act on them.” I looked at the joy that spread across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and across the face of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the former Secretary of State, who spoke before me. I look at the support I have from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), the most recent former Secretary of State—there are a few of them—and from a former Prime Minister. May I ask the Minister to make one of those generous interventions on me this evening? I am still here. I want to sit down, but if he is not going to make that generous intervention right now, I shall be back tomorrow. I shall also be travelling up to the other place and knocking on its door to make sure that these amendments are tabled there, so that, eventually, we get our way.
Karin Smyth
I came to this place largely on the back of the disastrous Lansley Act, and I am pleased to see it banished to the dustbin of history, which is what this Bill essentially does. It also banishes to the academic shelves that example of how not to make policy. Lansley took a sledgehammer to our work in primary care trusts, to partnerships, to morale, and to our capacity to forward-plan. Along with the austerity funding that came with it, the Act directly led to the poor state in which we entered the pandemic, and that must be front and centre of any review of the pandemic.
This Bill is a seminal point in the history of the NHS, because it banishes again to the history books experimental competition as an organising principle and a driver of efficiency. The key issue is what replaces it. Now we have in its place local cartels dominated by hospital trusts, and the supreme power of the Secretary of State to interfere in all local decisions. There is no power here for local elected representatives, no power for primary care or community care or mental health, no voice for patients, no voice for the public, and no voice for the taxpayer, who is asked to pay ever more. As we move to an ever more costly health service, accountability and transparency of our NHS in this role has to be at front and centre in order to bring people with us on that journey of paying more.
I have tabled two amendments to this part of the Bill. One is on the need for the local boards to be cognisant of palliative and end-of-life care. The other is on local improvement finance trusts, the local public private sector bodies introduced under the last Labour Government that are instrumental in providing good primary and community care estate—something that this Government are allowing to wither on the vine. My own South Bristol Community Hospital needs more support through these trusts in order to thrive, so that people have decent, good-quality estate from which to receive their care.
I also draw hon. Members’ attention to my new clause 23 on a good governance commission, which will be discussed tomorrow. I genuinely offer it as a helpful way forward. If it were enacted by the Government, it would avoid the cronyism that we have become used to, and would ensure that local bodies are more democratically accountable to their populations and more cognisant of the needs of their local populations. It would ensure that the people leading the local bodies are fit and proper, meet basic criteria regarding what is expected of them and have crucial accountability to local populations. It is akin to the Appointments Commission, which was abolished in the abolition of the quangos; that was a huge mistake. If the Government took notice of it, the new clause would really help us to get around some of the real concerns about how our local health services are governed.
Let me finally address new clause 49 on social care. It is a disappointment and unexpected. We had six weeks in Committee. In that time, we could have looked carefully at the proposal and shone a bit of light on it. The right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who is no longer in his place, clearly tried to say what this provision is really about, in that one part of the state should not be subsidising another part of the state. He started to say that that was a true Conservative principle and he was absolutely right. This provision will remind people who are in receipt of benefits that they are in receipt of those benefits, and that anything they may have built up should not be counted towards their future. It is a punitive property tax. I am old enough to remember what happened to the last Conservative Government who introduced a regressive property tax; this Government really ought to think again.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am married to an NHS doctor, who is employed by a hospital trust that serves my constituency.
Let me turn first to new clause 49. Those of us who have been in the world of local government for a long time will have seen the attempts by Governments of various parties to address the financial settlement around social care. I chaired a social services committee that pushed through the charging policies introduced by the last Labour Government in an attempt to address these costs. I also chaired a social services committee that had to balance the demands of the fair access criteria, and saw the last Labour Government drive a coach and horses through a lot of local provision.
I recognise that we should all seek to ask questions of Governments about how we address in particular the impact on working-age adults. In response to the people asking whether we are proud of what we are here to do tonight, I would say that we should be proud of the fact that we are willing to take what are sometimes difficult decisions to ensure that we balance the books and have a sustainable financial settlement that supports social care for our constituents. It is too late for my two grandparents, who went through the process and saw very modest assets consumed by the cost of long-term care, but I welcome the fact that my constituents, and people up and down the country, will benefit from what this Government are seeking to achieve.
I will move on, briefly, to new clause 55, which addresses the responsibilities for ICSs regarding the provision of services and planning for services for our youngest children. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) made a helpful intervention, in which he pointed out the effectiveness of Ofsted-style regulation in ensuring the quality of provision at a local level.
We had an excellent debate in the Chamber just a few weeks ago, discussing the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), which was reflected in the budgetary decisions that were brought forward previously. Having had that debate, it seems clear to me that in tabling an amendment supported by more than 70 organisations in the field of children’s care, we have an opportunity—one which was debated and touched on through various assurances from Ministers in Committee. It is an opportunity to ensure the right level of rigour and accountability in what we ask of ICSs, so that we can make sure that our youngest children, babies, neonatal care, and indeed young people up to the age of 25 who are already covered by statutory provisions in respect of special educational needs and care leaving, are appropriately covered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am going to reduce the time limit to three minutes in the hope that as many people as possible can get in.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Health and Care Bill is deeply problematic. I want to focus on two issues that, when combined, mean that it is a complete disaster. It not only makes it easier for private health giants to profit from the national health service; it also makes a charter for corruption because it opens the door to even greater private sector involvement in our NHS. That is why this Bill should really be called the NHS corporate takeover Bill. For example, it allows private corporations to sit on health boards, which make critical decisions about NHS budgets and services, and the Government’s amendment 25 does not go nearly far enough.
Even before this Bill, an unbelievable £100 billion has gone to non-NHS providers of healthcare over the past decade alone, and earlier this year half a million patients have had their GP services quietly passed into the hands of a US health insurance giant. This Bill would lock in yet more privatisation in future, with even less scrutiny, because it means less transparency. It means private health giants getting an even bigger slice of the action with less scrutiny.
Dr Poulter
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. On the issue of private healthcare provision, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that GPs are in fact small businesses in their own right, and some of them quite large businesses. How does he equate the role of the GP as a small business in the context of his concerns about private healthcare?
Richard Burgon
We are not seeking to wage war on GPs; we want to support GPs and properly resource them. We see so many GPs retiring and not being replaced. It is this Government who are waging war on our NHS with this further Americanisation of our NHS. It is a dangerous cocktail where the dodgy contracts we have seen throughout covid risk becoming the norm. The billions squandered on test and trace should serve as a warning of what the Government could do to the whole of our NHS.
There is a sleight of hand going on with this Bill. It is true that under the Bill NHS bodies will no longer have to put services out to competitive tender to the private sector. Such tendering to the private sector was made a requirement under section 75 of the coalition Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012. It was a shameful Act and its scrapping has long been demanded by those opposed to privatisation of our national health service. However, the change in this Bill does not reverse privatisation, because without making the NHS the default provider, that simply means that contracts can not only still go to private healthcare corporations but can do so without other bids having to have been considered.
To prevent all this, I tabled amendment 9, which I want to put to a vote—unless of course the Government accept it—because it establishes the NHS as the default option. [Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but the only reason for people not to support my amendment is if they do not believe in the NHS not moving to a privatised insurance model. Why else would people object to the NHS being the default provider of healthcare? The British Medical Association supports it, so the Tory groans are groans against the position of the British Medical Association. Unison supports it, so the Tory groans are groans against the voices of those who work in the NHS—for most of whom, if they need to have more than one job, it is because they do not get paid enough, not because they are trying to get their own snouts in the trough. I will be voting against the whole Bill, but if the Government refuse to accept amendment 9 to make the NHS the default provider, that shows what the Government of the party that objected to the foundation of the NHS in the first place are really up to, despite all the warm words.
Mel Stride
I rise to speak to new clause 49. In doing so, and whatever its merits or otherwise, it is worth reflecting on the comments made by the Minister that we are at least here this evening looking at a part of a process that will lead to some progress in meeting social care costs going forward and removing the catastrophic risk that has hung above the heads of all our constituents up and down the country: that their healthcare costs may end up costing them all of their assets. We are also here having taken the tough decisions around having raised taxes to fund those arrangements.
I have problems with new clause 49. It seems to me that to make good law in this place, first, we need time to consider the matters put before us and secondly, we need the appropriate information upon which to take those decisions. On both those points, I have real concerns about how new clause 49 has been brought forward. The first we heard of it was not in Committee or in September when the general measures were put forward, including the taxation measures on which we all divided and voted, but on Wednesday evening, when the amendment was tabled.
It was fortuitous that the Treasury Committee happened to have Sir Andrew Dilnot before us the very next day. We were able to discuss many of the issues inherent in new clause 49. A number of issues were raised, to which only the Government have the answers. One of them has been put forward powerfully by speaker after speaker tonight, which is: what are the impact assessments associated with these measures? I wrote to the Chancellor immediately after that session and asked him for some impact assessments, including geographical impact assessments, of which we have had none.
It seems that the only information we have had was released by the Department of Health and Social Care on Friday night, in a document called “Adult social care charging reform: analysis”. I am very short of time, which is a shame, but there is, for example, a chart of a 10-year care journey that looks at individuals with different asset levels. While it is true, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, that these arrangements, even with new clause 49, are better for almost every level of wealth than under the status quo, it is not the case that everybody is better off compared with the measures brought forward in September.
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman gets to the heart of the matter, which is what people will get, compared with what they were promised. Is that not the heart of this matter?
Mel Stride
I think the heart of the matter is that we have to be clear and wide-eyed about what this change will do. Yes, it is true that it will leave us in a better position than the status quo, but it is not the case that it will leave those who are less well-off in a better position than if new clause 49 were not passed by the House. For those with assets of about £106,000, by my read of this graph, about 59% of their assets would be lost on average under the original proposals. Under the amended proposals, that figure would rise to 70%. When it comes to those who would be better off as a consequence of new clause 49, many are the better off, because they benefit from the changes being made to daily living costs, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
I am out of time, but I believe that these measures should have been better ventilated in this House—certainly in Committee, if not earlier. We would then have had better information and more time in which to make these important judgments.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I want to speak briefly to amendment 15, which focuses on the membership of integrated care partnerships—the bodies that will be responsible for developing plans to address the health and care needs of local populations. The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to make specific provisions ensuring the representation of particular areas of healthcare on ICPs via secondary legislation.
In particular, I am concerned about having a strong voice for women’s health in ICPs. I also mention in passing the need for other groups to be represented, such as carers, in an ICP area. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sexual and reproductive health, I have seen how the experience of women in relation to their healthcare is often an afterthought in a fragmented health system, as in the case of the vaginal mesh scandal; the recent debate about pain during the insertion of intrauterine devices, a form of contraception; maternity provision; and cuts to contraceptive services.
The amendment would ensure that the issue of representation was considered by the Government. It has strong support from the medical bodies in this area, including the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as in other areas of healthcare, such as childhood cancer, and, as previously mentioned, carers groups.
It is important to protect the independence of ICPs and ensure that they can set a strategy that effectively meets local needs, but there is also a need to ensure that women’s voices are not left behind in the decision making. Without this amendment, it cannot be assumed that those voices will be heard on all ICPs. I hope that the Government will consider the purpose of the amendment, which is to strengthen the Bill.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
There is much to be positive about in relation to the recent history of the national health service. NHS England research indicates that the outcomes for most major conditions are significantly better than they were 10 years ago, and the NHS is seeing more patients and delivering more tests, treatments and operations than at any time in its 73-year history—millions more than 10 years ago when the Conservatives returned to power.
To reassure those concerned by some of the campaigns around the Bill, I emphasise that this Conservative Government are committed to NHS values. We are delivering the biggest ever cash increase in NHS funding. It is just plain wrong to accuse the Government of trying to privatise the NHS. In fact, it was the last Labour Government who pushed competition and private sector involvement, including many private finance initiative contracts that proved to be unwise and massively expensive. If anything, the Bill takes the NHS in the other direction by reducing the role for competition and increasing the scope for co-operation.
At the Bill’s core are the integrated care systems considered by this group of amendments. Its provisions on ICSs enjoy considerable support from within the NHS and build on the NHS’s own proposals for reform to make it less bureaucratic and more accountable and to enable it to be more integrated with other local service providers, such as councils.
I will not be backing the amendments in this group except those tabled by the Government. I welcome Government amendment 25 for the clarity that it provides to ensure that appointments to ICBs will not in any way jeopardise their independence. By dismantling elements of the complex system for compulsory tendering of services, we will free up time and resources in the NHS and remove barriers to local co-operation so that we can improve patient care.
We all recognise that ever-increasing healthcare needs place great pressure on the NHS, which will rise in years to come as more of us become frail and need extra care. I ask the Minister, in his response, to emphasise how we will train, recruit and retain the professionals we need to deliver NHS services. Record numbers of doctors and nurses are working in our NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one, but it is crucial to step up the numbers, especially of GPs. GPs in my constituency are overstretched and we need more of them. That needs to be a priority for the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Members will appreciate that I have had to give precedence to people who have amendments in their names on the Order Paper, so not everyone else will have a chance to speak this evening.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will just speak to my amendment 99 and new clause 57 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
The Government often talk the talk on health inequalities but fail to walk the walk. New clause 57 sets out a requirement that NHS England must publish guidance in relation to health inequalities, which I wholeheartedly support. My amendment 99 seeks to put in provisions to reduce inequalities between non-migrant and migrant users of health services. Campaigners and experts have argued that the pandemic has shown more tangible action is needed to tackle health inequalities. The increased risks of those on lower incomes and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities catching and dying from covid-19 have been well documented, yet the provisions outlined in the Bill will likely make the situation much worse.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
This Bill can really help support giving every baby the best start for life.
First, new clause 55, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs specifically of babies. “The Best Start for Life” report, published in March, calls for every local area to publish a seamless start for life offer for every new family. That must include midwifery, health visiting, mental health support and targeted services such as couple counselling, debt advice and smoking cessation. Each of these services is currently provided from silos within the public, private and civic sectors, so properly integrating them is no small task. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure there is very clear guidance to every local area on how it should co-ordinate its support for babies.
I also want to support amendments 91 and 92, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), which call for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. Mental health support for families who are struggling in that critical early period is vital. The London School of Economics has assessed that perinatal depression, anxiety and psychosis carry a total long-term cost to society of about £8.1 billion for each one-year cohort of births in the UK. Prevention is not only kinder but so much cheaper than cure.
Finally, I would like to support amendment 102, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), which calls for integrated care boards to provide clarity about their plans to tackle domestic violence. I am delighted that the Minister has already agreed to accept it. Analysis by the WAVE Trust indicates that up to 30% of domestic violence begins during pregnancy. The WAVE Trust highlights the crucial nature of experiences in the period of conception to the age of three in the formation of seriously violent personalities, largely because of the sensitive nature of the infant brain in those formative years. Domestic violence within a family is incredibly damaging to the emotional development of a baby, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that plans for tackling domestic violence cover not just relations between partners, but reducing the impact on babies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may have heard me speak in this place before about giving every baby the best start for life, and I keep doing so because I am convinced that, if we invest in the 1,001 critical days, we really will transform our society for the better. It is in the period from conception to the age of two that the building blocks for lifelong physical and emotional health are laid down.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I was not expecting to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here we are. I want to tell a little story about my dad. My dad often rings me and tells me the things I should say in Parliament—I am not entirely sure any of you are quite ready for it, but I want to tell a story about my dad. He was born in the war, and they were given a council house by the Attlee Government—my dad could lecture us on it for weeks! He was given a council house, which his very Conservative parents bought in the 1980s. My granny, unbelievably—a lovely, generous woman—was a massive Thatcherite. She bought her council house in the 1980s, and that council house stands in my constituency. It is worth around £120,000.
My dad went on to get an education—a free education—and he moved into an area of Birmingham that was not very trendy at the time. He stayed there, I was born there, and my brothers lived there. All through our lives we watched that area get a little bit trendier, and the price of my dad’s house, which he bought for £30,000, went up and up and up. He didn’t particularly do much work—he likes to woodwork in his garage, but he has not done much. His house is probably worth around £700,000 now, and it was £30,000 when he bought it.
If my dad were here today, what he would say to hon. Members, and what he will almost certainly say to me, because he watches it all, lurking on Twitter, is that he does not deserve to keep his wealth for his children at any greater rate than the people who live in the council house that his parents bought on Frodesley Road in Sheldon. Yet today, the people who live in my constituency and the council house that my granny bought, to try to get a better life, will subsidise the care of my father, who has a £700,000 house that I do not need to inherit. I’m all right. I’ve got quite a good job. It is totally unacceptable that that is the situation we are putting almost all my constituents in, compared with constituents in Chipping Norton, for example, or the constituents of other hon. Members who have stood up and spoken. My constituents will largely be left with nothing. They will not be grateful.
Edward Argar
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will try to cover some of the main themes that have emerged from today’s debate. I am grateful for the debate we have had today. The vast majority of what is contained in the Bill is exactly what the NHS said that it wanted and needed, and it is the right legislation being brought forward at the right time, to drive forward those priorities highlighted by the NHS in its 2019 consultation. The Bill drives forward integration not only within the local NHS within a region, but also greater integration with a local authority. It provides the foundations on which we can continue to build, as we move forward with greater integration of health and social care services that are designed to work around the individual, rather than in institutional silos.
Despite misleading claims by campaigners—and, indeed, by some Opposition Members—the Bill does not privatise the NHS. The NHS will always be free at the point of delivery. It has been in the hands of the Conservative party longer than it has been in the hands of any other party, and the Conservative party has put in place record investment in terms of resources in our NHS. What we propose in the Bill continues to build on that. Government Amendment 25 on ICBs is clear: ICBs are NHS bodies. They have always been NHS bodies in our proposals, and we have put in place provisions regarding conflicts of interest. Just to make sure, and given the misleading claims about private involvement, new clause 25 puts beyond doubt that ICBs are NHS bodies and must act in the best interests of the NHS. It is an amendment that is much stronger and much more effectively drafted than the alternatives put forward by the Opposition, because we believe in putting this question beyond doubt.
On the ICBs and ICPs, we have sought to be permissive rather than prescriptive, giving those local systems, within a national framework, the flexibility to deliver what they need to deliver for their local areas, which they know best.
I have been happy to accept amendments 102 and 114. I will continue to reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker); in the nicest possible way, I suspect that—rightly—he will not go away. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), set out very clearly the case for his amendment 114, which I was happy to accept, and the importance it places on patient safety.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has done a huge amount of work in this space—I pay tribute to her—and she is right: we will look very carefully in the statutory guidance at how we can emphasise that. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) was not in her seat when I paid tribute to the work that she had done previously, but I put that on the record too.
On new clause 49, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), a distinguished former Care Minister, made the point extremely well that this is a significant improvement and step forward on where we currently are in respect of tackling the social care challenge.
Edward Argar
I am afraid I will not, because I have only a couple of minutes in which to try to address these points, and I did give way a dozen or so times in my opening remarks.
Equally, I recognise, as always in this House, the strength and genuine sincerity of the views and the points put by hon. Members on both sides, genuinely highlighting and wishing to explore certain aspects of new clause 49 to understand exactly what it does and how it works. I have complete respect for the strength of those views.
I believe that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) set out very clearly, this is a significant step forward. It will make a huge difference, and it must be treated as part of a package of measures rather than in isolation. As he quite rightly highlighted, we must look at the floors as well as the cap, at the support that is available, and at the increases in those floors from £14,250 to £20,000 and up to £100,000.
Edward Argar
I am afraid I will not, because I literally have only one minute, and I did give way multiple times in my opening remarks.
I believe that the measures in this Bill, which we have debated with these amendments today, give the NHS what it needs to further integrate to deliver the local services it needs and, crucially, move us a huge step forward in tackling the challenge posed by social care for future generations.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Amendment 102 has been selected for separate decision. I call Mrs Maria Miller to move the amendment formally.
The right hon. Lady is not here, but I understand that the Minister can move the amendment formally.
Clause 19
General functions
Amendment made: 102, in page 21, line 25, at end insert—
“(c) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps it proposes to take to address the particular needs of victims of abuse (including domestic abuse and sexual abuse, whether of children or adults).
Madam Deputy Speaker
There is great excitement on the other side of the House, but there is no doubt about the procedure. As the Minister had already indicated his intention to accept amendment 102, it was perfectly in order for him to move it.
Clause 25
Care Quality Commission reviews etc of integrated care system
Amendment made: 114, page 37, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) The priorities set by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”—(Jeremy Hunt.)
The Secretary of State has the function of setting priorities for the Care Quality Commission in carrying out assessments in relation to integrated care systems. This amendment requires the Secretary of State to set priorities relating to certain matters.
Clause 69
Procurement regulations
Amendment proposed: 72, in page 64, line 1, at end insert—
“(3A) The regulations must make provision in relation to the procurement of the services referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (other than primary medical services, primary dental services and primary ophthalmology services) that before any contract for a service with an annual value in excess of £5m may be awarded to an organisation that is not an NHS trust or NHS foundation trust—
(a) the business case for the award of the contract must be published;
(b) any responses to the proposal in the business case must be considered and published;
(c) the process for awarding the contract must be open and transparent and non-discriminatory at every stage, including (but not limited to)—
(i) procurement strategy and plan,
(ii) invitation to tender,
(iii) responses to invitations,
(iv) evaluation of tenders,
(v) decision to award, and
(vi) contract awarded;
(d) the process for awarding the contract must demonstrate due regard to the principles established in the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (S.I.2015/102) or any regulations which may supersede them;
(e) in any case where it is claimed that an emergency justifies an award without the process being used then the responsible body must within 14 days publish the business case for the award of the contract and the record of the decision.”—(Justin Madders.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 23rd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2021 - (23 Nov 2021)
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 240 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 280 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 239 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 244 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 37—Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales.
Government new clause 38—Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales.
Government new clause 39—Virginity testing offences in England and Wales: penalties.
Government new clause 40—Offence of virginity testing: Scotland.
Government new clause 41—Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland.
Government new clause 42—Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland.
Government new clause 43—Virginity testing offences in Scotland: penalties and supplementary.
Government new clause 44—Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 45—Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 46—Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 47—Virginity testing offences in Northern Ireland: penalties.
Government new clause 48—Virginity testing: consequential amendments.
New clause 1—Licensing of aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures—
“(1) No person may carry on an activity to which this subsection applies—
(a) except under the authority of a licence for the purposes of this section, and
(b) other than in accordance with specified training.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to an activity relating to the provision of aesthetic non-surgical procedures which is specified for the purposes of the subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) A person commits an offence if that person contravenes subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about licences and conditions for the purposes of this section.
(5) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the representatives of any interests concerned which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) Regulations may, in particular—
(a) require a licensing authority not to grant a licence unless satisfied as to a matter specified in the regulations; and
(b) require a licensing authority to have regard, in deciding whether to grant a licence, to a matter specified in the regulations.”
This new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures and makes it an offence for someone to practise without a licence. The list of treatments, detailed conditions and training requirements would be set out in regulations after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
New clause 12—Protection of the title of “nurse”—
“(1) A person may not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word ‘nurse’ unless that person is registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council and entered in sub part 1 or 2 of the register as a Registered Nurse or in the specialist community public health nursing part of the register.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent any use of the designation ‘veterinary nurse’, ‘dental nurse’ (for which see section 36K of the Dentists Act 1984) or ‘nursery nurse’.
(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four on the standard scale.”
New clause 21—Prohibition of virginity testing—
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they attempt to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they provide another person with a product intended for the purpose, or purported purpose, of establishing whether another person is a virgin.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to establish that another person is a virgin by making physical contact with their genitalia.
(4) No offence is committed by an approved person who performs—
(a) a surgical operation on a person which is necessary for their physical or mental health; or
(b) a surgical operation on a female who is in any stage of labour, or has just given birth, for purposes connected with the labour or birth.
(5) The following are approved persons—
(a) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (4)(a), a registered medical practitioner; and
(b) in relation to an operation falling within subsection (5)(b), a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person undergoing a course of training with a view to becoming such a practitioner or midwife.
(6) There is also no offence committed by a person who—
(a) performs a surgical operation falling within subsection (4)(a) or (b) outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) in relation to such an operation exercises functions corresponding to those of an approved person.
(7) For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
(8) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(9) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both.
(10) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”
New clause 22—Prohibition of hymenoplasty—
2(1) A person is guilty of an offence if they undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to re-create the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if they advertise the service of hymenoplasty or any service that purports to ‘re-virginise’ or otherwise re-create or re-attach the hymen of a patient by way of surgical procedure.
(3) A person is guilty of an offence if they aid, abet, counsel or procure a person to undertake a surgical procedure for the purpose of re-attaching membrane tissue, creating scar tissue or otherwise attempting to or re-creating the hymen in the vagina of a patient.
(4) This section applies to any act done outside the United Kingdom by a United Kingdom national or resident.
(5) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.
(6) The court must refer the case of any person guilty of an offence under this section who is subject to statutory professional regulation for investigation by the relevant regulator.”
New clause 28—Secretary of State’s duty to report on long term workforce planning—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on projected workforce shortages and future staffing requirements for health, public health and social care sectors in the following five, ten and twenty years.
(2) The report must report projections of both headcount and full-time equivalent for the total health, public health and care workforce in England and for each region, covering all regulated professions and including those working for voluntary and private providers of health and social care as well as the NHS.
(3) The projections must be independently verified and based on projected health and care needs of the population for the following 5, 10 and 20 years, consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(4) All relevant NHS bodies, arm’s-length bodies, expert bodies, trade unions and the Social Partnership forum must be consulted in the preparation of the report.
(5) The assumptions underpinning the projections must be published at the same time as the report and must meet the relevant standards set out in the National Statistics Authority’s Code of Practice for Statistics.
(6) The Secretary of State must update Parliament each year on the Government’s strategy to deliver and fund the long-term workforce projections.”
New clause 29—Duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce planning and safe staffing—
“(1) At least every five years the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a health and care workforce strategy for workforce planning and safe staffing supply.
(2) This strategy must include—
(a) actions to ensure the health and care workforce meets the numbers and skill-mix required to meet workforce requirements,
(b) equality impact assessments for planned action for both workforce and population,
(c) application of lessons learnt from formal reviews and commissions concerning safety incidents,
(d) measures to promote retention, recruitment, remuneration and supply of the workforce, and
(e) due regard for and the promotion of workplace health and safety, including provision of safety equipment and clear mechanisms for staff to raise concerns.”
Amendment 10, in clause 34, page 42, line 12, leave out from beginning to the end of line 17 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) This report must include—
(a) an independently verified assessment of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years; and
(b) an independently verified assessment of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish independently verified assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, based on the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and the likely impact of technology.
Amendment 40, in clause 108, page 96, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) In this Part ‘protected material’ means—
(a) all statements taken from persons by the HSSIB during a safety investigation or in the course of deciding whether an incident is going to be subject to an HSSIB investigation,
(b) records revealing the identity of persons who have given evidence in the context of the safety investigation,
(c) information that has been collected by the HSSIB which is of a particularly sensitive and personal nature, such as (but not limited to) copies taken by the HSSIB of health records, care records, clinical notes, or personnel records,
(d) material subsequently produced during the course of an HSSIB investigation such as (but not limited to) notes, drafts and opinions written by the investigators, or opinions expressed in the analysis of information obtained through the investigation,
(e) drafts of preliminary or final reports or interim reports, and
(f) information that would be subject to legally enforceable commercial privileges.”
This amendment would define more closely the materials covered by the “safe space” protection provided for by the Bill.
Amendment 41, page 96, line 32, leave out
“information, document, equipment or other item held by that individual”
and insert “protected material”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 40.
Amendment 43, in clause 109, page 96, line 43, leave out from “Part” to end of line 24 on page 97.
This amendment would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising disclosure of protected material beyond that provided for in the Bill.
Amendment 74, page 101, line 1, leave out clause 115.
Government amendments 24 and 127.
Amendment 57, page 110, line 11, leave out clause 127.
This amendment seeks to ensure that a profession currently regulated cannot be removed from statutory regulation and that regulatory bodies cannot be abolished.
Government amendments 86 and 87.
Government new schedule 1—Virginity testing: consequential amendments.
Government amendment 88.
Amendment 42, in schedule 14, page 218, line 30, leave out paragraph 6.
This amendment would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.
Edward Argar
This broad group of amendments concern improving patient safety and the quality of health and care services, both of which are a priority for this Government. For that reason, this Bill will put the Health Services Safety Investigations Body on a statutory footing. The HSSIB will be one of the first independent healthcare bodies of its kind, leading the way in investigating for the purpose of learning, not blaming. For the HSSIB to be able to perform this “no-blame” role, the integrity of safe space is paramount. I look forward to contributions from right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House, recognising the depth of expertise, particularly that residing in the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), on how best to make safe space work. As we discussed extensively in Committee, we recognise that ultimately this comes down to: what is the appropriate balance to be struck? Different views are likely to be aired again today.
Within this group, I will also address amendments brought forward by colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), on the health and social care workforce. Ensuring we have the workforce this country needs will, in the short-term, tackle the elective backlog. Crucially, in the long-term, as we build back better, it will help to reduce damaging health inequalities. For those reasons, I will later speak in more detail about this Government’s plans on the workforce, some of which of course are already in motion. I hope I can reassure the House that the provisions already made in this Bill, alongside the Government amendments I am about to discuss, do go sufficiently far to address these important issues.
I will begin by addressing new clauses 36 to 48, new schedule 1 and amendments 86 and 87, which comprise the package of Government amendments to prohibit virginity testing in the UK. I offer my deepest thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his tireless efforts in proposing these amendments originally and in supporting the Government in proposing our variations on them, which we believe achieve the right balance—I will turn to that in a moment—as we bring forward this ban.
I should also put on the record my gratitude to the Opposition Front-Bench team for their constructive engagement on this issue, which does not divide us on party political lines but is about doing the right thing. I am grateful to the shadow Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench: the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris).
In July, the Government promised in our violence against women and girls strategy that virginity testing will not be tolerated in the UK and will be banned at the earliest opportunity, so I am delighted that we are introducing amendments that demonstrate the strength of our commitment to the removal of all forms of abuse against women and girls. Our amendments will create three offences: conducting a virginity test; offering virginity testing; and aiding or abetting another person to conduct a virginity test in the UK or on UK nationals overseas. Each offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. This sentencing reflects the long-term physical and psychological damage that this repressive practice can cause.
The offences begin to tackle the harmful misconceptions that surround a woman’s sexuality. This House’s commitment to legislate is a profoundly important step forward in helping to tackle the damaging myths concerning the so-called purity of women’s sexuality. In response to concerns that, once the offence is banned in the UK, vulnerable women and girls will be taken abroad and subjected to virginity testing there, the offences will carry extraterritorial jurisdiction.
The proposals have been discussed by Health Ministers throughout the UK, including in the devolved Administrations, and I am working with them to ensure that the whole of the UK together tackles this abhorrent practice. I put on record my gratitude to the devolved Administrations for the constructive manner in which they have engaged on the issue. I hope that the House will pass the amendments today and allow us to take another step forward in our shared endeavour and important work on safeguarding and improving the lives of women and girls throughout the United Kingdom.
Let me turn briefly to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham—I thank him again for doing so. I hope that what I have said will reassure him and the rest of the House that the package of Government amendments that I have just discussed go further to protect women and girls from this form of abuse and are the most effective vehicle by which we can achieve what we seek to do. Our package of amendments set out that the conducting, offering or aiding of a virginity test is simply indefensible. The amendments ensure that victims are protected on our shores and abroad and that the sentencing of those convicted reflects the detrimental physical and psychological impacts of the practice. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will feel able not to press his new clause to a vote and instead to support our amendments. I am incredibly grateful to him—as, I am sure, is the House—for his campaigning vigour on this issue.
My hon. Friend also tabled new clause 22, which seeks to ban the practice of hymenoplasty. The Government remain concerned that hymenoplasty is also driven by a repressive approach to female sexuality and is closely related to virginity testing, which we have made clear today is not an acceptable practice in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. We announced in the violence against women and girls strategy that we would set up an independent expert panel to explore the complex clinical, legal and ethical aspects of the procedure in more detail. The panel, which includes key stakeholders with ethical and clinical expertise, has already met and will shortly make its recommendations to Ministers, before Christmas. It is crucial that, having asked the panel to contribute, we carefully consider its views before we make a firm decision to ban hymenoplasty. However, I assure the House that although we cannot accept the new clause today because we await the recommendations of the review panel, we will of course fully reassess our position as soon as the panel makes its recommendations.
If we are to ensure patient safety and quality of care, it is vital that we have the workforce in place to deliver it. That is a priority for the Government and I reassure the House that we are taking the necessary steps to secure the workforce of the health and social care sector. Members throughout the House would all agree that although investment in technology, in new hospitals and buildings, in therapeutics and in kit are all phenomenally important, the golden thread that makes that investment valuable is the workforce—the people who always go above and beyond, particularly in the past 18 months, to make that equipment more than just a shiny piece of kit but something that actually saves lives. They are absolutely the heart of what we are doing.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I am particularly concerned about the workforce situation in primary care. In my constituency, the practices are reporting back not only on an acute shortage of locums, but on their ability to recruit new GPs. One reason is that, 10,15, 20 years ago, there was inadequate planning for the future and we did not train enough doctors. That is one reason why I have signed amendment 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). May I urge the Government to go beyond where they have been and to look for any way available to deal with this issue now, and particularly to plan for the future so that this does not happen again?
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is perspicacious in his prediction of where I was about to go. I was about to turn to amendment 10 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey and new clause 28 tabled by the shadow Minister, which go to the heart of what my right hon. Friend is talking about.
I hope the shadow Minister will agree that amendment 10 and new clause 28 are, essentially, broadly unified in their intention and therefore I hope that he will allow me to take them both together. They require the Government to publish independently verified assessments of current and future workforce numbers for the needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
There has rightly been much discussion on workforce planning for the NHS and adult social care. That reflects the deep debt of gratitude that the country owes the staff and also, as I said, their absolute indispensability in delivering on all our aspirations for healthcare and social care in this country and for our constituents’ care.
As part of our commitment to improving workforce planning, my Department is already doing substantial work to ensure that we recover from the pandemic and support care. We have already committed to publishing, in the coming weeks, a plan for elective recovery and to introducing further reforms to improve recruitment and support for our social care workforce, with further detail set out in an upcoming social care White Paper. We are also developing a comprehensive national plan for supporting and enabling integration between health, social care and other services, which support people’s health and wellbeing.
Let me turn to that framework, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was alluding, for a longer-term perspective. The Department has already commissioned Health Education England to work with partners to develop a robust, long-term 15-year strategic framework for the health and social care workforce, which, for the first time, will include regulated professionals in adult social care. That work was commissioned in July by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) when she was in post in the Department. That work will look at the key drivers of workforce demand and supply over the longer term and will set out how they impact on the required shape and numbers of the future workforce to help identify those main strategic choices, and we anticipate publication in spring of next year.
It is vital that the workforce planning is closely integrated to the wider planning across health and social care and, as such, Health Education England, which has established relationships with the health and care system at a local, regional and national level, is best placed to develop such a strategy. Crucially, following the announcement yesterday of HEE merging with NHS England in improvement, we will, for the first time, bring together those responsible for planning services, for delivering services on the ground, and for delivering on the workforce needs of those services so that we can have a more integrated approach to delivering on that framework.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. There is much to commend in the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and in what the Minister is saying. One thing that is not obvious in either, though, is the focus on labour costs and productivity. For example, how is technology going to reduce labour costs in the delivery of the same quality or higher quality of service? What is the possibility of creating new care pathways, which require less qualified staff to deliver as good or better service? What is going on in terms of reducing the proportion of non-clinical staff by the adoption of technology and other means in healthcare? Perhaps the Minister could address that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be doing so later, too.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We see huge opportunities, almost every day, from new technology and new ways of using that technology to deliver more efficient and shorter turnaround times—for tests and diagnostics, for example. He is also right to talk about the need constantly to examine care pathways, and, where opportunities exist, to use highly qualified healthcare professionals but to look carefully at the most appropriate level at which a treatment or test can be carried out; historically, we may have used healthcare professionals for particular tasks for which they were almost over-qualified. It is right that care pathways are informed by clinical and scientific expertise and judgment, but that we continue to review how new technology, new ways of working and new care pathways can improve the productivity of our amazing workforce.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
As part of the Minister’s workforce review, will he look at the Carr-Hill formula, which local GPs tell me incentivises GPs to go to areas with longer life expectancy—therefore, wealthier areas—at the expense of areas such as Hull? It feels like the funding mechanism for GPs is not fair.
Edward Argar
The Carr-Hill formula has been through many “almost reviews” over the years and has been looked at by different Governments. Various GP practices in my constituency—as I am sure is the case in the hon. Lady’s—understandably raise opinions about how the formula might be improved. The point does not necessarily goes to the entire heart of what we are discussing, but she has managed deftly to make it within scope, in the context of GPs and so forth.
Finally, the report in clause 34 will increase transparency and accountability of the workforce planning process. It is for those reasons that I encourage—perhaps unsuccessfully—my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, to consider not pressing their amendments to a Division.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Fifteen years is a long time in workforce planning. The make-up of the workforce could change significantly over that time, not least as we are trying to address some real workforce crises now. Will the Minister put in place a road map to fill those vacancies over that time, and interim reports so that we can review progress?
Edward Argar
I set out the commissioning of the 15-year framework to look at need. Within that, the House will be regularly updated, as happens now—not least in oral questions, as we saw in the session preceding this debate—with plenty of opportunities for Members to challenge the Government and to see updates. There is also the regular publication of figures and workforce statistics, which will continue. Once we have that 15-year framework back and see what HEE says, we will be able to look at how best that might be interrogated by Members of the House and the wider public. I am hopeful that it will report back in the spring, and I suspect that that may well occasion a debate in this House. If not, I suspect that it may well occasion an urgent question from the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston.
Let me turn to new clause 29, which also addresses the issue of workforce planning. This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce planning and safe staffing. I have just elaborated at some length on the substantial work that my Department is doing to improve workforce planning. It remains the responsibility of local clinical and other leaders to ensure safe staffing, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The ultimate outcome of good-quality care is influenced by a far greater range of issues than how many of each particular staff group are on any particular shift at any one time, even though that is clearly important, which is why the Government are committed to growing the health workforce. It is also important that local clinical leads can make decisions based on the circumstances in their own particular clinical setting, utilising their expertise and knowledge.
The amendment would also require the report to contain a review of lessons learnt. In the last decade, the Government have introduced significant measures to support the NHS to learn from things that go wrong, reduce patient harm and improve the response to harmed patients, such as: a regulated duty of candour that requires trusts to tell patients if their safety has been compromised and apologise; protections for whistleblowers when they raise safety concerns; the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, which we are building on and establishing as a separate statutory body through the Bill; and the first-ever NHS patient safety strategy, with substantial programmes planned and under way to create a safety and learning culture in the NHS.
I hope I have given the House some reassurance that we are doing substantive work to improve safe staffing and workforce planning. Again, I encourage the shadow Minister—perhaps it will be unsuccessful, but it is always worth trying—to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
New clause 29(2)(d) has merits, as I am sure the Minister will accept, in that we need to incentivise people to join health and care, and, crucially, to be retained with the system. Will he give some consideration to this, particularly given that, for example, somebody working in the care system can work for years and years and still be in the same place when it comes to applying for a training place in a profession allied to medicine as somebody who simply has a couple of A-levels? That seems to be wrong. Does he agree that we need to complete the structure so that there is some prospect of progression with health and care and to try to break down the barriers between the two?
Edward Argar
As ever, my right hon. Friend—my friend—makes his point well, and, as ever, I will commit to taking it away and reflecting on it very carefully. He is always very considered in the points he makes in this House, so I am happy to look at it.
I turn to Government amendment 127, which I bring forward with support of the Welsh Government. Clause 127 on professional regulation provides additional powers that will widen the scope of section 60 of the Health Act 1999 and enable the Privy Council to make additional changes through secondary legislation. One of the powers within this clause is to enable the regulation of groups of workers concerned with physical and mental health, whether or not they are generally regarded as a profession. This element of the clause falls within the legislative competence of the Senedd. When the section 60 powers are used, they are subject to the existing statutory requirements in schedule 3 of the Health Act 1999— namely, consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure. When legislation made using section 60 powers also falls within areas of devolved competence, it will be developed in collaboration with the devolved Administrations. Orders may require the approval of the Scottish Parliament where they concern professions brought into regulation after the Scotland Act 1998, or of the Welsh Assembly where the order concerns social care workers. In Northern Ireland, where the regulation of healthcare professions is a transferred matter, the UK Government will continue to seek the agreement of the Northern Ireland Executive when legislating on matters that effect regulation in its territory.
The amendment introduces a requirement to obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers before an Order in Council can be made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 when it contains a provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd. It would apply if we were seeking to bring into regulation in Wales a group of workers who are concerned with physical or mental health of individuals but who are not generally regarded as a profession. The UK Government recognise the competence of the Welsh Government regarding this provision and are respecting the relevant devolution settlement in making this amendment. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to support the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the amendments related to part 4 of the Bill on the health services safety investigations body. These are the most significant set of provisions found within this Bill to enhance patient safety. The establishment of an independent healthcare body focused on learning from mistakes to improve safety and quality is a world first. For the health service safety investigations body to be able to perform this “no-blame” role, the integrity of safe space is paramount. Without it, health and care staff will not have confidence to come forward, and potential learning will be lost. This principle runs throughout the drafting of these clauses. We have made a small number of exceptions in the Bill—for example, to ensure that coroners can continue to perform their vital functions as judicial office holders and effectively as part of the judiciary. We have also provided for a regulation-making power to ensure that safe space can evolve in line with innovation in technology or medical practice. However, nothing in the Bill can or will undermine the imperative that the HSSIB is an independent organisation or the fundamental importance of safe space to the effective working of that organisation.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Edward Argar
Yes, of course, although I do so with a degree of trepidation, because the hon. Lady is well versed in these issues.
Dr Whitford
The Minister does not need to be anxious, because he has already heard it all in Committee. Does he not recognise that there is nothing in HSSIB that takes away from coroners’ investigations that they carry out at the moment, and that HSSIB should not be seen as replacing that work by another health body? Adding coroners to it has already created a campaign relating to the ombudsman and freedom of information, and there is a real danger that it weakens the safe space.
Edward Argar
I am grateful for the manner in which the hon. Lady puts her points. She is right; we have debated this previously. We have been publicly clear that we do not believe that the exemption or exception should be extended to the ombudsman. She is right that there are campaigns saying we should have no exceptions or that we should widen the exceptions. We believe we have struck the right balance with this measure, while respecting the fact that a coroner is a judicial office holder and has a very specific function to perform, as set out in legislation in—this is where my memory may fail me—the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which recognises their particular and special status. I suspect that she and I may have to agree to disagree on whether the appropriate balance is struck, but that sets out why we have done what we have done.
How best to achieve an effective safe space is complex and the current drafting has been arrived at through years of detailed policy work, including pre-legislative scrutiny before the Health Service Safety Investigations Bill was introduced in the other place in autumn 2019. The issue was also debated at length in Committee, and I look forward to hearing contributions from Members on that, particularly the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire.
Turning to the two minor and technical Government amendments to the health service safety investigations body provisions, amendment 24 is a technical amendment to clarify the definition of “investigation” that applies to part 4 of the Bill. Investigations carried out by HSSIB by agreement under clause 114, which relate to Wales and Northern Ireland, were never intended to be part of the main investigation function of HSSIB and therefore will not be covered by the safe space or other investigatory power provisions provided for in the Bill. The amendment ensures that the drafting of the Bill fully reflects that original policy position. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will be content to pass this technical amendment.
Finally, I turn to Government amendment 88 to schedule 13. Schedule 13 contains a regulation-making power which allows the Treasury to vary the way any relevant tax has effect in relation to associated transfer schemes. Regulations made under this power will be used to ensure that no unintended tax consequences arise. The amendment ensures that value added tax is included in the taxes which the Treasury can, by regulations, vary when considering the transfer schemes in this Bill. Without this amendment, it is possible that complications with VAT bills may arise when transfer schemes are made and transactions take place. It is for those reasons that I ask hon. Members to support this amendment.
I am conscious that other hon. and right hon. Members may wish to speak to their amendments. I look forward to addressing those that I have not directly addressed thus far when I wind up debate on this group of amendments. With that, I conclude.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction. It seems like only yesterday that we were having a similar exchange across the Dispatch Box.
I will begin with our new clauses 28 and 29 and amendment 10. This discussion about workforce could well be the most important of all today. Just this weekend, Chris Hopson from NHS Providers was trying to get the Government to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem when he tweeted:
“93k NHS staff vacancies. £6bn spend on temporary staff to fill gaps. 55% of staff working unpaid extra hours each week. 44% saying they’ve felt ill with work related stress. NHS desperately needs long term workforce planning. Govt must make this happen this week.”
Everything comes back to workforce and the failure to invest in it consistently over a sustained period. Today we have a chance to correct that.
While we favour our new clause 29, it is obvious that amendment 10 has captured the attention of many and may well be put to a vote. In many ways, as the Minister said, it closely mirrors what we have put forward, so I will be making my general points on both the new clauses and the amendment. In supporting amendment 10, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. Given his previous role, he is well placed to have an informed view on what needs to be done, and he has done that with this amendment without undue hype or drama. The support he has obtained more widely from stakeholders outside the House is impressive; indeed, the way he has united just about the entire sector shows not only his powers of persuasion, but the importance of the issue. He has come close to uniting the entire sector in the past, but that was usually in opposition to something he was proposing, rather than in support. There may be many other areas where we have disagreed in the past, but that does not diminish our support for his call.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
May I just comment that it feels a lot better this time?
Justin Madders
Let us just say that the more I hear of the right hon. Gentleman, the more I like what he has to say—I will leave it there.
We all accept the urgent need to address the workforce crisis, but I cannot find anyone who thinks that what the Government have put forward in clause 34 is the solution.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
A doctor in my constituency, Dr Tom James, told me that he and his colleagues in the hospital were demoralised, exhausted and at the end of their tether, particularly after the covid crisis, in a building that was falling apart around them. He said there was no more goodwill, and the Government needed to grab hold of this crisis and resolve it. Are new clause 29 and amendment 10 not a minimum, rather than a maximum, for what we should be looking to achieve?
Justin Madders
New clause 29 and amendment 10 are the starting point, not the whole answer. They are a framework for getting this right in the future and offering the workforce, which, as the Minister said, has given so much in recent times, some hope that there will be better times along the way. I will refer later to the report by the Health and Social Care Committee on workforce burnout, which brought home just how demoralised the workforce have become and why they need to be given some positive news today.
Rachael Maskell
Anyone who on Sunday was on the March with Midwives will understand the real crisis now facing that profession—a particularly acute once since it is also about women’s health. Is there not a need to ensure that plans are not just on paper, but expedited, so that we are sure of seeing real delivery of those much-needed staff?
Justin Madders
Like just about every profession and sector in the NHS, midwives are under tremendous pressure and are understaffed. We need a clear plan, and a plan that is delivered. Of course, having a plan is not the whole answer, which is why it is important that we hear regular reports back from the Secretary of State on progress. That is why we hope amendment 10 will be supported.
Emma Hardy
One reason I want to emphasise the importance of new clause 28 is that we are anticipating a greater demand for mental health services, and therefore a greater demand for mental health professionals working in the NHS. Only by having regular reviews will we be able to anticipate what that demand will be and prepare accordingly.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is correct; we could not have anticipated what has happened in the past 12 to 18 months, but we can see what it means moving forward. Regular reviews of demand are critical, and we know that training these highly qualified and skilled staff takes time, which is why a longer-term view and approach are required.
Richard Fuller
I want to pick up on the increasing demand for mental health services. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in general, it is utterly impossible to meet the expectation of increasing demand for health services without vast improvements in the efficiency with which people working in the health and care sector deliver that service? Is it not a shortcoming of both the Government and the Opposition that there is not an intense focus on solving that problem of labour cost productivity? Without that, we will not be able to meet current needs and we certainly will not meet future needs.
Justin Madders
We are always looking at ways to improve productivity, but we know that on the current figures there are 100,000 staff vacancies in the NHS. No amount of productivity gains will cover for that.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) talks about efficiency, but the figures show that in 2019-20, some £6.2 billion was spent on bank and agency staff. If we are talking about efficiency and using all the extra money the Government are saying they will put in to catch-up, we need to provide value for money for the taxpayer. Therefore, long-term planning to recruit the right skills is critical.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The point about agencies and locum spend is not a new one. It will be interesting to see the figures for the last 12 to 18 months when the Minister has finally ratified them, because I suspect they will be even higher than those we have heard recently.
Dr Whitford
Having spent over three decades in the NHS, I know that this is not just about senior staff and what are called frontline staff. It is said, “We’ll protect frontline staff, but we’ll cut administrative staff or backroom staff.” However, if I am not in a clinic with the right results with the right patient at the right time, I am a waste of space. In actual fact, we need to look at the whole team. There is a sweet spot where I am working flat out but I have a team who are helping me. If we cut any of those, then we lose efficiency, and as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) said, costs are going up, so we are becoming not more productive, but less productive.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Indeed, this actually covers some of the debate we had in Committee. There has been a rhetoric coming out of Government in recent months that managers are somehow a cost burden and that administrative staff do not actually help deliver the services. Of course, as the hon. Member has just pointed out, they are a vital source of support for those on the frontline.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Member is being generous in giving way. Would he avoid the temptation to suggest that productivity is in some way simply a demand for hard-pressed people in health and social care to work harder? It is not that at all. It is just doing what they want to do, which is to work smarter and thus get more out of the system, which I think is what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has just said.
Justin Madders
I accept what the right hon. Member has said. There has been a gap in investment in IT and other things that make people’s jobs easier and more efficient, and that has been a characteristic of NHS spending over the last decade.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to make some progress, but it is important, as we have talked about the staff, that we pay tribute to all those who make the NHS what it is today. On Nursing Support Worker Day, I pay tribute to all those who work in wards, clinics and community settings to support our nurses and provide that essential hands-on care to patients.
Our care system does indeed face a crisis—over waiting times, over recovery—but as with all other crises, the root cause is inadequate funding. The most visible and significant symptom is an inadequate workforce, plus the scandal of social care provision. There is no plan at the moment; it is just a plan for a plan. When we talk about a workforce crisis, that cannot be in any way a reflection on the huge value and contribution of the workforce we have now.
There are particular positive aspects to amendment 10 to which I would like to draw attention. Explicit recognition of the need to consult with the workforce through trade unions is very welcome. The planning covers health and social care, which is also absolutely essential. Given the scope of the review, the timescale is about right—every two years is demanding, but not too onerous—but a regular update each year might be preferable. However, the main point, which I have made already, is to compel a regular report and review of demand. The central role is that the Secretary of State has a duty to get planning done, and we hope that will be a crucial lever for the change we need to see.
If the amendment has a weakness, it is probably the one we have touched on already, which is that it does not ensure that the plan is feasible or delivered. A plan that shows the gap is not a plan unless it has a credible funding solution alongside it. Even if that is not explicit in the amendment, we assume that funding would follow any such assessment and plan that is set out. Our suggestion would be that any such financial projections in a plan are subject to the same level of independent expert verification as we see with the Office for Budget Responsibility. Since all the various think-tanks are going to do an assessment anyway, we may as well have a built-in process for verification.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that many of the recruitment challenges often sit in outsourced services in the private sector, and as a result it is really difficult to find the complement of staff required because people want to work in the NHS? That needs to be taken into consideration in any workplace plan.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will later talk a little about outsourcing and the role it has to play. We believe that plans should be built from the bottom up, not from the top, and that implies the involvement of ICBs, NHS trusts and foundation trusts. ICBs and their strategic arms, integrated care providers, will not be functional for some time. That is a shame, but it does not mean we should not proceed with the amendment.
The scale of the workforce challenge is well established: high rates of vacancy, inadequate levels of retention, and much more. It goes far deeper than numbers and structures, to issues of workforce terms and conditions, particularly in social care. It must also cover cultural issues, as there is a clear indication that all is not well in the NHS in terms of diversity. There is also whistleblowing, and aspects of how staff are nurtured and supported. At its very best, the NHS is very good, but unfortunately that is not the story across the board. It should be good in every part.
On that theme, let me mention the continuing disgrace in the way that some members of the NHS workforce are treated. I find it unacceptable that cleaners, porters, catering and IT staff are still being outsourced by trusts that are trying to make tax savings or outsource services to the lowest bidder. Perhaps the Minister can look into the current dispute at South Warwickshire in that regard, as we do not think that is a template to follow. Workforce planning is not a problem that can be solved quickly, although increased funding in social care could help that. For the NHS, the long term is indeed a long time—for example, the time needed to develop and train GPs and consultants. More money is not the only answer; technology and reform of the way we work must all be part of the mix. However, the labour-intensive nature of care will not fundamentally change, so we must look at workforce numbers as the priority. It is often said that failing to plan is the same as planning to fail. Some colleagues believe that a failure to plan is exactly that—a route to ending the NHS as we know it by showing that it fails. However, the Bill suggests an acceptance that a plan is needed, and work is under way. Hopefully that work is not being handed out to more consultants, of whom we see enough already.
Labour will support the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, which we hope will be pushed to a vote. I hope I have not been too effusive in my comments about him—I have a reputation to maintain after all—but I will refer to the excellent report done by his Committee on workforce burnout, which in many ways is the cornerstone of what we are debating. In its conclusion, the Committee said:
“The emergency that workforce burnout has become will not be solved without a total overhaul of the way the NHS does workforce planning. After the pandemic, which revealed so many critical staff shortages, the least we can do for staff is to show there is a long term solution to those shortages, ultimately the biggest driver of burnout. We may not be able to solve the issues around burnout overnight but we can at least give staff confidence that a long term solution is in place.
The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.
It is clear that workforce planning has been led by the funding envelope available to health and social care rather than by demand and the capacity required to service that demand. Furthermore, there is no accurate, public projection of what health and social care require in the workforce for the next five to ten years in each specialism. Without that level of detail, the shortages in the health and care workforce will endure, to the detriment of both the service provision and the staff who currently work in the sector. Annual, independent workforce projections would provide the NHS, social care and Government with the clarity required for long-term workforce planning.”
That conclusion shows what we are trying to achieve today. That is the nub of it: if not now, when? When will the Government finally accept the obvious that has been staring them in the face for years?
New clause 29 would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a fully funded health and care workforce strategy to ensure that the numbers, skill and mix of healthcare staff are sufficient for the safe and effective delivery of services. It builds on other amendments, and seeks further assurances by putting patient safety and safe staffing levels at the heart of workforce planning, by setting out how the Government will be required to act to assess and rectify shortages. It seeks to ensure that the workforce will be on a sustainable footing in future. Patient safety should be our primary concern. We have the evidence base: when there are not enough registered nurses, mortality rates change and health outcomes are worse. I accept that the level of detail in the new clause is significant, but we consider that necessary to underscore the importance of setting out how this will be delivered.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the very start; I was on a train back from a ministerial visit in my constituency. I would just like to pay tribute to some of the campaigners who are in the Public Gallery at the moment, particularly those from Karma Nirvana, the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Does the hon. Member agree that it is those campaigners and charities who have worked on this issue for a very long time who have really brought it to the fore—they have just been supported by some Members of this House—and that it is they who deserve the credit?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he is being very modest, but he is absolutely right that these things do not happen by accident. It is often the hard work, over many years, of campaigners and campaign groups who being these issues to the fore and do the diligence and the hard work behind the scenes that leads us to the sort of outcome that we will hopefully get today—an end to this abhorrent practice.
On the hon. Member’s other amendment, new clause 22, we also want to see hymenoplasty ended. It has no medical benefit whatsoever. As the Minister said, there is currently an expert panel looking at the issue, and he is waiting on its recommendations. I think the outcome is in little doubt, to be frank. However, I wonder whether the Minister can give us an assurance that, should those recommendations turn out to be as we would expect, he will be able to act on them quickly and get something down in statute as soon as possible so that we do not miss the boat.
Turning to the amendments on the health services safety investigations body, much of the proposed legislation is the same as that proposed in the other place, and there were extensive debates on this matter in Committee. There are, however, issues that remain, which are covered by amendments we will be debating today. I can imagine the other place having quite a lot to say about some of these issues. In general, we support the move to the new body, but over time attention must be applied to some aspects of the way it will function in practice. Our major reservation is, yet again, with the involvement of the Secretary of State. Our amendment 74 would have the effect of leaving out clause 115, which is another clause that gives the Secretary of State extra powers to interfere.
Our general observation would be that there is far too much extra power going to the Secretary of State in the Bill anyway, but we are particularly concerned at the powers set out in clause 115, which give him what we consider to be wholly unnecessary powers to direct. It is pretty much a blank cheque to enable him to step in and interfere any time he likes as long as he considers that there has been a significant failure. Under subsection (2), the Secretary of State can direct the HSSIB in whatever manner he determines, which I would have said is about as far away from independence as we can get—until we get to subsection (4), which means the Secretary of State can also effectively step into the HSSIB’s shoes and undertake the duties himself. I can do no better than refer to the evidence Keith Conradi gave to the Public Bill Committee, when he said:
“Ultimately, we end up making recommendations to the Department of Health and Social Care, and in the future I would like to ensure that we have that complete freedom to be able to make recommendations wherever we think that they most fit.”––[Official Report, Health and Care Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 60.]
We also support the amendments put forward by the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), which are important in preserving the principle and status of protected spaces. We feel it is important that they cannot be nibbled away at, as the Bill currently allows.
The purpose of amendment 57, which we also tabled in Committee, is simply to delete clause 127, which deals with the role of the Secretary of State in professional regulation. So far, we have had no convincing explanation of why the Secretary of State needs these powers. If there are no professions that he wishes to remove, we do not need the clause. If there are, he should say so, so we can have a debate now on whether it is appropriate to hand over those powers to him.
Finally, on new clause 1, I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing, whose work in this area has been influential in producing it. Many of the group’s members have put their name to it. As we know, cosmetic treatments can include a wide range of procedures aimed at enhancing or altering appearance. Many of those procedures are becoming increasingly popular and new clause 1 speaks to the well-articulated concern that non-medically and medically trained practitioners are performing treatments without being able to provide evidence of appropriate training, and without required standards of oversight and supervision.
I hope the Members moving new clause 1 will have the opportunity to speak to it, as there are far too many stories of people suffering horrific, life-changing injuries. There would undoubtedly be a saving to the NHS in reduced visits to accident and emergency and GPs to correct mistakes made by poorly trained and unregulated practitioners. We therefore think the new clause has value. Some of the impacts on the NHS from the lack of regulation include outbreaks of infection at a skin piercing premises, resulting in individuals being hospitalised; disfiguration and partial removal of an ear; second and third-degree burns from lasers and sunbeds; allergic reactions due to failures to carry out patch tests or medical assessments, which led to hospitalisation; and blindness in one eye caused by the incorrect administration of dermal filler.
New clause 1 seeks to put the protection of the public at the forefront by giving the Secretary of State power to bring into force a national licensing scheme for cosmetic procedures. Clearly, given that this is a departure from the wild west we face at the moment, we recognise that significant research and engagement with stakeholders will be needed to develop a scheme, as well as the provision of a practical and efficient system for people to become regulators and practitioners. If that does not make it on to the face of the Bill today, we hope this is an issue the Government will return to shortly.
Jeremy Hunt
I rise to speak in support of amendment 10 but, before I do, I also want to express strong support for amendments 40 to 43, tabled by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), which will make a big difference in making the new health services safety investigation body a success. I strongly encourage the Minister to listen to what she says later not just with the deference due to an experienced surgeon, but with the enthusiasm to follow a doctor’s advice, because what she says is extremely important.
I also thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his generous comments about me. Having sat opposite him at the Dispatch Box on many an occasion, I realise how difficult they must have been for him to say. He must have wrestled with those thoughts for a long time, and I am delighted that he has been able to unburden himself today.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to focus on burnout in the NHS workforce. All of us would agree that NHS and care staff have done a magnificent job looking after us and our families in the pandemic, but right now they are exhausted and daunted. They can see that A&E departments and GP surgeries are seeing record attendances. They can see nearly 6 million on waiting lists, which is more than one in 10 of the population. They also have the vaccine programme and covid patients.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for amendment 10. With 2,700 vacant nursing posts in Northern Ireland, and 40,000 in the NHS as a whole, will the amendment offer more nursing bursaries, train nurses up to relieve the pressure, and provide a decent working environment?
Jeremy Hunt
I believe it will. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, because medical training is relevant to the whole United Kingdom, not just one part of it. I hope the amendment will be beneficial to Northern Ireland as well.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of any frontline doctor, nurse or care worker, we would see that they are all completely realistic that this is not a problem that can be solved by next Monday. It takes a long time to train a doctor or nurse. All they have is one simple request: that they can be confident that we are training enough of them for the future, so that even if no immediate solution is in place, there is a long-term solution. That is the purpose of amendment 10. It simply requires the Government to publish every two years independently verified estimates of the number of people we should be training across health and care.
The Government have recognised the pressures on the NHS by giving generous amounts of extra funding. I commend the Government for doing that, but extra money without extra workforce will not solve the problems that we want to solve. At the moment, the NHS just cannot find the staff.
Munira Wilson
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on amendment 10 and on how he has built such a coalition of support. Many of the challenges facing those with mental health concerns are because, as he says, there simply is not the workforce—it has hardly grown over the past decade. There are over 16,600 full-time equivalent vacancies and a waiting list of 1.5 million. His amendment, which would require a report every two years, is so important for ministerial accountability because the targets in the five year forward view have not been met, so we have no chance with the 15-year projection.
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady gives a good example, because mental health is an area that we have all recently come to realise can be immensely beneficial to ourselves, our families and our constituents. However, while there has been explosive growth in demand, we have not had growth in the supply of people able to look after those with mental health issues. We can only do that with the kind of long-term planning that amendment 10 will make possible.
The royal colleges say that, as of today, there are shortages of 500 obstetricians, 1,400 anaesthetists, 1,900 radiologists, 2,00 A&E consultants, 2,000 GPs, 39,000 nurses and thousands of other allied health professionals. That is why this problem has become so acute.
The Minister has engaged thoughtfully with me on the issue on a number of occasions. He and I both know that there is some concern in the Government about the cost of training additional doctors and nurses. I want to take that concern head on. Yes, the amendment would lead to more doctors, nurses and professionals being trained. Yes, that would cost extra money. Yes, it would save the NHS even more money, because every additional doctor we train is an additional locum we do not need to employ. Locums are not only more expensive for the NHS, but less good for patients. Patients prefer to see the same doctor on every visit if they possibly can, which is much harder with a high number of temporary workers.
Dr Whitford
It is not just that patients prefer to see a doctor long term. There are safety issues when locums in acute specialties move from hospital to hospital, particularly if they are dealing with an acute case. They do not know where things are or who to phone; passwords and phone numbers change. There is a real safety issue with having too many locum staff in the very exposed acute services.
Jeremy Hunt
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, who knows about acute services. I also point to recent evidence from Norway that shows the same for general practice: patients who see the same GP over and over again go to A&E departments less than patients who see different GPs.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is absolutely right about acute safety; I speak from personal experience. My right hon. Friend is right about general practice, but the issues are different. In general practice, the issue is chronic long-term care: patients need to know that practitioners have a view of their condition that spans a long period—sometimes generations. The issues are very different in acute and primary care, but they come to the same thing.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the workforce is not recruitment, but retention, particularly the retention of senior doctors in their mid-50s? It pains me to say it in this consensual debate, but the root cause is the GP contract and the consultant contract brought in by the last Labour Government. Those contracts incentivise people—in my demographic, as it happens—to leave, potentially leaving the service short of 10% of their entire career.
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend is right that there are problems with the GP contract. I do not want to get into too many discussions about doctors’ contracts in this very consensual debate, but Conservative Members have to take responsibility for not having remedied the pensions anomaly, which gives people an incentive to retire much earlier than we would want. We have to address that issue.
Lots of people might reasonably ask whether I did enough to address the issues in the nearly six years that I was Health Secretary. The answer is that I set up five new medical schools and increased by 25% the number of doctors, nurses and midwives we train. However, that decision was taken five years ago and it takes seven years to train a doctor, so not a single extra doctor has yet joined the workforce as a result.
That is the nub of the problem: the number of doctors, nurses and other professionals we train depends on the priorities of the current Secretary of State and Chancellor. As a result, we have ended up with a very haphazard system that means that although we spend about the average in western Europe on health, as a proportion of GDP, we have one of the lowest numbers of doctors per head—lower than any European country except Sweden.
Dr Whitford
All Governments in the UK are expanding medical school places and trying to train more students, but that has led to a shortage of foundation places. In the first two years after a doctor graduates, they are not allowed to practise outwith a foundation job, and they can never practise if they do not go through a foundation job. In the summer, about 400 young graduates were still struggling to find a place. It took 19 years from my entering medical school to my becoming a consultant surgeon. We need to think not just about medical school, but about the whole pathway.
Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Medical school, the foundation years and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said, the retention of staff—all those things need to be built into long-term planning and baked into the system.
That long-term planning strikes a contrast, if I may say so, with some of the short-termism that we have seen recently. Even in the recent Budget and spending review, the budget for Health Education England, which funds the training of doctors in this country, was not settled. Although I think that the proposed merger with NHS England is probably the right thing to do, I fear it will mean that the budget is not settled for many more months, at precisely the moment when the workforce crisis is the biggest concern for the majority of people in the NHS.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I strongly support his amendment. Will he add to the list of factors that need to be considered in the future the requirement for many research scientists in medical sciences to be trained in medical schools first? If we want to expand and build on the excellence that we have there, it is not just a question of meeting the needs of the NHS workforce; we need to have extra people who can become the brilliant researchers and discoverers of new medicines in the future.
Jeremy Hunt
My right hon. Friend speaks about these issues with a great deal of knowledge, given his former ministerial and Select Committee roles, and he is absolutely right. I think that the big lesson from the pandemic, and indeed an issue that emerged in the report that our Committees jointly produced, is the way in which science can add value to clinical practice and clinical practice can add value to science.
Rachael Maskell
One of the key workforces is, of course, in public health, where the aim is to shift the balance by increasing prevention so that we do not need all the doctors and nurses and other health professionals further down the road. The health visitor delivery programme led to a heavy stream of new health visitors, but it had other consequences. That is another reason why the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment is so important: we see rapid changes in the workforce which could have other consequences.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady, who before entering this place spent her time campaigning to support NHS and care staff. She speaks with great experience, and I think that the fundamental point she makes is very important. Unless there is long-term strategic planning, when we have a priority such as the one we have at the moment of tackling the backlog, we will often make progress on that priority by sucking in staff from other areas, which then suffer. That is an unintended consequence which happened when I was Health Secretary, and I fear that it will happen again without a long-term strategic framework.
Amendment 10 has wide support. It is supported by 50 NHS organisations, including every royal college and the British Medical Association—an organisation which, to be honest, is not famous for supporting initiatives from me—and by six Select Committee Chairs and all the main political parties in this place. I am sure that the Government will ultimately accept it, because it is the right thing to do, but if they are intending to vote it down today, I would say to them that every month in which we delay putting this structure in place is a month when we are failing to give hope to NHS staff on the front line.
Let me end by quoting the Israeli politician Abba Eban, who said that
“men and nations behave wisely when they have exhausted all other alternatives.”
Let us prove him wrong today by supporting amendment 10.
Dr Whitford
I am delighted to follow the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, and, in this rather unnerving outbreak of consensus and good humour, to mirror his speech and add my support to his amendment on workforce planning.
It is important to remember that healthcare is not delivered by hospital buildings or fancy machines; it is delivered by people to people, which is why the most important asset in any health service is its workforce. As I pointed out in an earlier exchange with the right hon. Gentleman, we need a long-term view, because it takes a long time to train senor specialists. As I said to him, it took 19 years from my entering medical school to my becoming a consultant breast cancer surgeon. We will struggle to work out what specialties we might need in 20 years’ time, because medicine is evolving, but many aspects and many sectors of staff do not change. If we do not get even those right, we are constantly in a position of drought and thirst, and it is not possible for staff to evolve—to pick up new rules, to use new techniques and to develop new services.
Although this workforce strategy would apply only in England, I would encourage consultation with the Health Secretaries and the workforce bodies in the devolved nations, because junior doctors in particular tend to move around during their training. During the junior doctors’ strike, which the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) might remember rather painfully, I talked to students on the picket lines whom I had trained. People move around, and it is important that such a strategy does not end up just sucking staff out of the three devolved health services. Also, many aspects of medical training are controlled on a UK basis. Foundation places for new graduates are decided on a UK basis, for example, so it is important to take that wider view.
The workforce shortage is the biggest single challenge facing all four national health services across the UK. It has been exacerbated by the loss of EU staff after Brexit, with an almost 90% drop in EU nurses registering to come and work in the UK. Early retirements are being taken due to the Government’s pension tax changes, which, as has been highlighted, have not been sorted out and are resulting in senior doctors paying to go to work. There is only so long that they will continue to do that. Finally, there is the exhaustion of dealing with a pandemic for the past 18 months. This is why it is really important, when we talk about NHS recovery, to have a greater focus on staff wellbeing and on their recovery. There can be no recovery of the NHS without them. I am really disappointed to see how the clapping of last spring has turned to severe criticism and attacks directly from members of the public, from sectors of the media, and even from some Members in this place and members of the Government.
I shall now speak to my own amendments 40 to 43, which seek to tightly define the materials covered by the safe space protections as part of Health Service Safety Investigations Body investigations. The idea behind HSSIB was to learn from air accident investigations and to provide a confidential and secure safe space in which healthcare staff could be open and candid in discussing any patient safety incidents. I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), and the recommendations of that cross-party—and indeed cross-House—Committee were very clear: evidence gathered under the safe space protocols should be protected and disclosed to third parties only in the most pressing situations, such as an ongoing risk to patient safety or criminality. Despite that, there are aspects of this Bill that could undermine the principle of the safe space, and that is what I am seeking to amend.
Amendment 40 would define he safe space materials much more tightly, because it seemed as though anything that HSSIB was using would be covered by the safe space protocol and that exemptions would then be made, whereas it makes much more sense to be very clear about the materials that are defined as protected materials. Therefore, all the original clinical information—medical notes, etc—would still be available to all the other bodies to enable them to carry out their investigations as they do now.
Amendment 43 would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to use regulation at a later date to authorise the wider disclosure of protected materials beyond the provision that is finally passed in this Bill. Amendment 42 would remove the provision allowing coroners to require disclosure of protected materials, as this has already led to calls for access by other health bodies and even freedom of information requests, as I highlighted in my earlier intervention. If a coroner uses safe space materials in their report, that report is public. The question is: how are they going to handle that so that the safe space materials are not further disclosed? It is critical to defend this. It is important to stress that HSSIB does not limit anyone else’s access to original materials, but nor should HSSIB be seen as an easy way for other bodies to avoid doing the legwork and carrying out their own investigations.
HSSIB will not apply in Scotland, where the Scottish patient safety programme is focused more on preventing patient safety issues in the first place. My interest is purely personal, as a surgeon. I experienced the impact of the Scottish patient safety programme when it was introduced to operating theatres in 2007. It cut post-operative deaths by 37% within two years. It has subsequently been rolled out to maternity, psychiatry, primary care and all the main sectors. It has not just reduced hospital mortality, but prevented morbidity—such as pressure sores, leg thrombosis or sepsis, which all in their own way cost the NHS a huge fortune.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I will speak mainly to new clause 1, but I cannot start without paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his work to ban virginity testing. It is an abhorrent practice and high time it was made illegal.
I speak to new clause 1 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), among others. The existing situation, absurdly, is that someone may walk into a clinic and easily and legally get a treatment that could blind them, and there is absolutely no regulation whatever. For some time, we have talked about fixing the issue, and my private Member’s Bill—now the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021—which was passed with the support of many Members of the House, has been able to bring some regulation to this space. Under-18s are now able to get only non-cosmetic interventions, and that by legal practitioners alone.
For those over the age of 18, however, there is no protection. Save Face, a campaigning organisation, last year received 2,000 complaints from people. Those are complaints not about the clinics people were in being dirty, but practitioners being uninsured or unable to fix the problems created when patients were given injections or fillers. People had necrotic or rotting tissue, which individuals would have to pay for themselves to get fixed. It is unacceptable that we are in a situation where that can take place with no regulation by Government.
I am afraid that is a pattern over time, across many Governments, of issues that primarily affect women not having the attention that they deserve. I am hopeful that we make some progress today. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North on tabling her amendment.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Health and Care Bill allows for
“a profession currently regulated to be removed from statutory regulation when the profession no longer requires regulation for the purpose of the protection of the public.”
Labour voted against the relevant clause in Committee, but we were defeated by the Government. I therefore tabled amendment 57, which would remove clause 127 from the Bill and ensure that a profession currently regulated cannot be removed from statutory regulation, and that statutory regulatory bodies cannot be abolished. I am grateful that the amendment received cross-party support.
The removal of a profession from regulation is deeply concerning because, once a profession is deregulated, we can expect the level of expertise in that field to decline over time, and along with that the status and pay of those carrying out those important roles. It also brings with it serious long-term implications for the health and safety of patients. In the White Paper that preceded the Bill, the Government stated:
“This is not about deregulation—we expect the vast majority of professionals such as doctors, nurses, dentists and paramedics will always be subject to statutory regulation. But this recognises that over time and with changing technology the risk profile of a given profession may change and while regulation may be necessary now to protect the public, this may not be the case in the future.”
It is notable that the Government only “expect” that the vast majority of professionals will be subject to statutory regulation, but they give no guarantee. The fact is, if the Bill passes, Ministers will be able change their mind at any point and make changes through secondary legislation.
The Government appear to be arguing that technological advances may change roles to such a degree that the high level of professional expertise that currently serves the NHS will no longer be needed. I will make two points about that. First, if the work of an NHS profession has changed to such a degree that regulation is no longer needed, I would argue that it is a different profession and needs a new job title. Secondly, when deploying new technology, there is always a need for professional staff with a high level of expertise and understanding of not only the functionality of that new technology, but its shortcomings. Technology has the power to improve productivity, but it should not be used as an excuse to deregulate professions.
It is important to consider where the impetus for that proposal may be coming from. The recent lobbying scandal certainly gives us a clue when we consider the number of MPs on the Government Benches with private interests in medical technology—I do not want to elaborate on that today, but to make the point. Certainly, big business is keen on deregulation, because it allows them to pay lower salaries to staff.
During a seminar on wellbeing, development, retention, and delivering the NHS people plan and a workforce fit for the future, a representative of Virgin Care said:
“We should have flexible working for all. We should consider what that means. We should embrace what that means. Both of those things really push what has been quite a traditional work model across the NHS. We need to be more modern. We need to have a think about how we rip up the old rule book. But change in an area that is very risk averse because the nature of the work we do is really tricky, so we need our leaders and our workforce to embrace trying things”.
That was an alarming statement for her to make. I think we would all agree that healthcare professionals’ understanding of risk and the importance of mitigating risk is incredibly important. It is always a matter of concern when business says that it wants to “rip up” the rule book on employment rights and pay.
Yesterday, in the Minister’s summing up, he said that
“the Bill does not privatise the NHS.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 151.]
I have to say, however, that I disagree. ICBs—integrated care boards—will be able to delegate functions, including commissioning functions, down to provider collaboratives, and provider collaboratives can be made up of private companies. I do not understand what it is that the Minister does not understand about that.
Add to that the fact that the abolition of the national tariff will open up the opportunity for big business to undercut the NHS, this is a potent situation indeed, and one that will be exploited by big business if the Bill goes through. The late Kailash Chand, former honorary vice-president of the British Medical Association said:
“The core thrust of the new reforms is to deprofessionalise and down skill the practice of medicine in this country, so as to make staff more interchangeable, easier to fire, and services more biddable, and, above all, cheaper”.
The removal of professions from regulation is a part of that scenario he described.
I turn now to workforce planning. There is a workforce crisis in the NHS. In fact, that is probably an understatement. Earlier this year, I met members of the Royal College of Nursing in the north-west, who told me of the sheer exhaustion that they are experiencing because of staff shortages. I was struck by how, even at this point when they were describing how they are on their knees with exhaustion, their primary concern was patient safety. We owe it to them to address the matter. The British Medical Association highlighted:
“Burnout has led to significant numbers of medical professionals considering leaving the profession or reducing their working commitments”.
According to the latest figures, there are well over 90,000 full-time equivalent vacancies in England’s NHS providers. The best the Government can come up with is in this Bill is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report, at least once every five years, describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health service in England. That is woefully inadequate. The Royal College of Physicians says that this duty on the Secretary of State
“falls short of what is needed given the scale of the challenge facing the health and care system”.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is among those who have called for this duty to be strengthened in the Bill. I ask the Government to listen to the expertise of those bodies.
The Government’s plans to remove NHS professions from regulations is wholly unacceptable and it is particularly alarming at a time when there are such acute shortages of staff, right across NHS professions. We all value the NHS highly and respect the high level of professionalism in the service. Instead of looking to deregulate professions, the Government should be investing in the training of the next generation of professionals.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my interests, which are set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that my wife is an NHS GP and has been for the past 30 years.
I rise to support amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), as it seems to be absolutely right. I cannot understand why the Minister, an extremely good Minister, is not obliging the Government to accept it in full. It is clear from what is being said across the House that my right hon. Friend has achieved an unexpected unity. Even brilliant junior hospital doctors who in the past have marched against some of his policies are four-square behind what he is saying today and the work his Committee is carrying out so brilliantly.
I wish to make three points about why the House and indeed the Government would be wise to support my right hon. Friend’s amendment today. The first is that, for reasons he has set out eloquently, as has the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who speaks on these matters for the Scottish National party, burnout in the NHS is an incredibly serious issue. The need for us to project how many people we are going to need in all the different disciplines in the health service has never been greater, and the workforce requirements have never been more uncertain. As has been so eloquently set out, the cost of that uncertainty is paid in locums, with all the difficulties and downsides that have been mentioned.
I wish to quote a note I have had from Dr Rahul Dubb, the lead doctor in Royal Sutton Coldfield. He successfully led the roll-out of the vaccinations in our town hall and he is extremely experienced. He says, “A greater understanding is needed as to why doctors are leaving the profession. It is clearly multi-factorial across the generations. One of the reasons includes pension rules. These penalise staff wanting to work more hours due to capped taxation rules, deterring senior staff from staying, and may lead to a significant exodus from the profession. In these circumstances, it is essential that far more effort is put into projecting future workforce numbers and how many are required to meet future need.” In my judgment, Dr Rahul Dubb is absolutely right in what he is saying.
The second reason is that the Government should listen carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said. During his time as Health Secretary—no one in the House has been so long at the crease and has as much experience as him—he significantly increased the number of doctors who will be trained. We were particularly pleased in Birmingham to see the additional work that Aston University has been able to do to bring those who might have felt themselves excluded from the medical profession into contention, so that they could go to university and achieve their ambition of qualifying as medics. Having that sort of analysis—the analysis that is behind his amendment—is right in securing value for money. I have been dismayed that when we had the measures to increase national insurance earlier this year—this was greatly to the credit of the Government for grasping a nettle that so many have not grasped before—those on the Treasury Bench were extraordinarily disinterested in checking that value for money for this additional taxpayer spend was achieved. When I suggested that we should account to our constituents through the Treasury, making certain that we understood where this £1.2 billion was going, the answer from those on the Treasury Bench was extremely lacklustre. Ensuring value for money and that we get these judgments right will save money and, for the reasons that have been set out, will make medicine and the treatment of our constituents that much safer. As my right hon. Friend set out, the whole sector is united behind this amendment, and the Government should hear that loud and clear.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 12, which stands in my name and those of many hon. Members across this House, on the protection of the title of “nurse”. The Government’s response to Alison Leary’s petition implies that we are on the same page on the issue of protecting the title. As the Minister said, this is not a party political thing; it is about the safety and protection of patients and the public. I hope that the Government will vote in favour of new clause 12 today, as it is long overdue and brings nurses into line with paramedics and physiotherapists in terms of the protection of titles.
It is shocking that anybody can call themselves a nurse, whether or not they have any qualifications or a first aid certificate—they may have no qualifications at all and they can call themselves a nurse. As we know, when someone calls themselves a nurse, that gives them a certain standing in society and people automatically think they know what they are doing. The nursing profession has some harrowing stories of parents taking advice from somebody who called themselves a nurse but was not one, and the tragic and devastating consequences. It is really important that we have the opportunity to put this right today—in fact it would be dangerous not to do so. Throughout the pandemic, people have been struck off as nurses, yet they are still using the title of “nurse” as they publicly deliver misleading and dangerous information about the pandemic. The public and patients have the right to know that the treatment and advice they receive is from a registered healthcare professional.
Many other countries protect the title of “nurse”. The protection of the title is supported by more than 70 nursing organisations, including the Queen’s Nursing Institute, the Institute of Health Visiting, charities, those representing the public using health and social care, Unison Health, Unite and the Royal College of Nursing and its Professional Nursing Committee.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I would like to put on record my support for nurses, particularly on Nursing Support Workers’ Day. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priority that nurses are asking for and that NHS staff are looking for is not restructuring, but investment in resources, a plan to address the staff shortages and retention struggles that the NHS has, and a clear strategy to address the winter waiting times and demands on services such as operations and GP services?
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend makes a valid and valuable point. One way we can show our appreciation for nurses’ work is to protect their title, but we should not do that instead of addressing any of the issues she mentioned, along with ensuring that they receive a pay rise.
I thank the people who have petitioned for the change in my new clause for a number of years, including the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who is no longer in his place but supports my new clause; the Labour Front-Bench team; Ann Keen; the chief nursing officer for England, Ruth May; Professor Mark Radford, the chief nurse at Health Education England; the previous chief nursing officer for Northern Ireland, Charlotte McArdle; Andrea Sutcliffe, Matthew McClelland and the Nursing and Midwifery Council; Mr Paul Trevatt; Professor June Girvin; Dr Crystal Oldman; Ms Shamim Donatta Ayiecho; Ms Leanne Patrick; Mr Gerry Bolger; Ms Catherine Eden; and the Florence Nightingale Foundation leadership scholars. The Government know that there is a lot of support for new clause 12 and I hope it passes today.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and specifically to speak to new clause 1, tabled in my name and the names of the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and many other Members throughout the House. First, though, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for his incredibly important amendment on the workforce. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his crucial new clauses on virginity testing and hymenoplasty. As the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I was pleased to be able to support those amendments and am delighted that the Government have introduced their own new clauses on those issues.
I wish to talk specifically about aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which may seem quite trivial in comparison with the important matters I just referred to, but I vividly remember visiting a doctor in my constituency and talking to her about her experience when a patient came to her after she had had far too much lip filler placed into her lips by an unqualified and inexperience practitioner. The poor girl’s lips had, frankly, exploded, leaving her permanently scarred and with the prospect of many years of corrective surgery to try to rebuild her face. That is the stark reality.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) spoke about people being able to call themselves nurses when they are not nurses; aesthetic cosmetic practitioners can not only call themselves that but perform all sorts of procedures, some of which we would find it bizarre and disturbing to talk about and, indeed, at some of which we might look with absolute horror when they are reported on the internet and in the pages of national newspapers. I am talking about semi-permanent make-up and permanent tattooing, which can leave people permanently disfigured. The semi-permanent variety can fade to leave people with bizarre blue eyebrows that require many different procedures to be put back to normal. The list is long: we are talking about tattooing, botox and laser treatment—just imagine the damage that high-powered lasers can do to somebody’s skin when in unqualified, untrained hands.
Dr Whitford
Along with the damage to patients who trustingly go for such procedures, is it not also about the fact that when they go horrifically wrong, as sometimes they do, it is the NHS that ends up having to pick up the pieces?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Lady for using exactly that term because she is right: it is about the NHS picking up the pieces and spending taxpayers’ money trying to correct something that should not have been done in the first place. If it is to be done to somebody, it should be done only by the qualified, trained and, as my new clause argues, licensed. I call today for some form of licensing or regulation. I absolutely accept that the Minister may view my new clause as deficient and not doing what he would want it to do. I appreciate the fact that he took the time to meet me and other Members last week to discuss the issue, because there are concerns throughout the House.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has done so much work on injectables in respect of under-18s and deserves absolute credit for getting her private Member’s Bill on to the statute book. That is amazing work and I really appreciate the fact that she has done it. Nevertheless, we need to do more and to go further.
I pay tribute to a number of my constituents who, following the work I did last year on the beauty industry, approached me on this issue. In particular, I pay tribute to Dr Chris Rennie of Romsey Medical Aesthetics, and to Dr Mitra Najafi, who has developed an incredible process by which plasma-rich platelets are extracted from a patient’s blood and injected back into them. It is a highly medicalised procedure and her big worry is that if it falls into the hands of somebody who is unregulated and unlicensed, it could be extremely dangerous indeed. Those with medical qualifications absolutely understand how they have to treat blood products; the stark reality is that those without do not.
I pay tribute to aestheticians—I struggle to say that word—such as Naomi O’Hara who came to me, as someone who practises, to call for regulation and licensing.
I pay tribute to a lady who is not my constituent but travelled to Romsey to see me: Tania Gough, who publishes the Image Directory. Her concern was that it is perfectly possible for someone to set themselves up in practice with next to no training whatsoever. She spoke to me of some of the horror stories that she herself had seen and some of the training courses she had gone on that she said were quite simply not worth the money she paid for them or the waste of her time. She said that certificates were issued at the end of such courses that gave the impression that people were qualified and trained when in fact they had had no more than a couple of hours—in one case it was 90 minutes—of training.
I also pay tribute to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners; they have been incredibly supportive and helpful in the drafting of new clause 1. The Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners says:
“The creation of a national licensing scheme for practitioners of aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures would ensure that all those who practise are competent and safe for members of the public.”
To my mind, that is the abiding word: safe. We want those who receive these sorts of treatments not to be putting themselves in harm’s way.
I look forward to the Minister’s response; I know he is listening on this issue. He can expect me not to push my new clause to a vote, but I very much hope he can show us a constructive way forward that may take us to the regime that we want to see.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I could speak about so many aspects of the Bill—such as the U-turn on the social care cap, the lack of action to include health inequalities, allowing private healthcare providers to access our NHS and, frankly, whether a reorganisation of the NHS at this time of crisis is what we need to support all our healthcare workers—but I am sure that colleagues will more eloquently cover a lot of those points in their contributions. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I will restrict my comments to the amendment on the NHS workforce tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
Staffing is the biggest challenge facing the NHS. The Prime Minister claims to be building 40 new hospitals; if that ever happens, they will be of no use to anyone if there are not the doctors, nurses, radiotherapists, pharmacists, porters, cleaners and other staff to look after patients. As we have already heard, the NHS had 100,000 vacancies before the pandemic started. That, coupled with the intense strain and burnout that staff have suffered over the past 18 months, is causing a crisis in staffing that needs bold action now.
The Budget was a missed opportunity to invest in the people who make the NHS great, but amendment 10 would go some way to rectifying that. According to research from Macmillan, it is estimated that we need an extra 3,371 cancer nurse specialists by 2030—that is a doubling of the number of cancer nurses in just over eight years if we are to have any chance of providing the care and support that patients deserve. Macmillan has worked out that it would cost £174 million to train and develop specialist cancer nurses to plug the gap. Any increase in funding would be passed on to devolved Governments through Barnett consequentials. In the grand scheme of things, £124 million in England, £31 million in Scotland, £12 million in Wales and £7 million in Northern Ireland is not too much to ask of the Government—it is probably in the region of the amount of money spent on security for the Prime Minister’s trip to Peppa Pig World at the weekend.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I rise to speak on amendment 10. I want to start by relaying a conversation that I had soon after being elected 11 years ago in Gloucester. I talked to the chief executive of a hospital trust—he has subsequently moved on—and asked him how many nurses a year we needed to replace those who have retired and resigned, and to cope with increasing demand, not just in the hospital trust but including district nurses and nurses to cover the whole panoply of our needs in the county of Gloucestershire. He explained that we needed roughly 400 a year at that time. I asked him how many we were training. He said that the University of the West of England trains around 120 graduates a year from its nursing outlet in Gloucester. How do we meet the gap, I asked, and he said, “Well, we advertise. We try to encourage people from London to look for a change in their lifestyle and we recruit from abroad.” I asked him where that got us to. He said, “Well, it increases the numbers, but it never gets us enough. We struggle with a permanent shortfall of recruitment.”
Over the next few years, I worked on three things. The first was to support the Government push to create nursing associates. The second was to encourage the University of Gloucestershire to become a nursing teaching university and to submit an application to get pilot project status for the nursing associates’ training. Both of those came to pass. They were a credit to the Government, a credit to the university and a credit to the Nursing and Midwifery Council that supported them. None the less, we were, and are, still short; that gap has not been closed.
One other thing that I have done recently is to support the close engagement with the Government of the Philippines, who have kindly allowed us to carry on recruiting nurses from the Philippines to the United Kingdom during the pandemic. I ask everyone here to join me in paying tribute to the roughly 35,000 nurses from the Philippines who have made such a difference to our NHS. All those things have helped, but anyone who has played the role that all of us in this House have over the past two years will know that the people problem is the greatest problem that we have.
I chaired, first every week and now every two or three weeks, a meeting between all the MPs in Gloucestershire, the heads of the NHS trusts, public health and the county council. Time and again, the same issue comes up in a slightly different way: it is about people. Yes, we could build extra wards. Yes, we could convert offices into wards. Yes, we could build bed capacity, but we do not have more people to look after the patients in them. Yes, we have plenty of spaces in care homes, but we need to be able to send people back to their home from hospital, because that is how they recover best, and we do not have enough domiciliary care workers.
We have gone round and round for the past 10 or 11 years on this issue of staff—doctors in primary care surgeries, nurses everywhere and domiciliary care workers. I do not believe that we can resolve this problem until we start planning for the needs in different parts of the country and then working out how we can provide the training, the skills and the recruitment of individuals to make that happen. Of course it will not be perfect. Of course disasters such as the pandemic will make a bad situation much worse. We recognise that, but until we start that process, I do not believe that things will change. For as long as I am MP for Gloucester, I am absolutely certain that I will be having the same conversations about human resources—the people who deliver the care and health that all the people in my constituency and across the county and country need and deserve. It is not the best use of MPs’ time to constantly have to sit down with our health professionals in local NHS trusts to work out how we are going to mind the gap. That whole process has to be started from higher up, in the Department of Health and Social Care.
Today, we have an amendment that has enormous support not just from the Select Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) chairs, but from outside this House from the royal colleges, the NHS trusts and many others beside. I am frustrated that the Government have so far not indicated whether they will accept the amendment. In their hearts, the Minister and his colleagues, all good people trying to do their best, recognise that this problem will have to be tackled. Perhaps part of the solution will be in the White Paper that we are all so eagerly waiting for and that we wish that we had been able to have a few days ago, before the votes last night, on which I supported the Government on the basis of trust. None the less, there comes a time when we have to say and vote for what we believe in. I do believe that we need this change and that the Government can and should do it, and I will vote for it.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I rise to support new clause 1, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), myself and 18 other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I first took an interest in this subject through a constituent, Dawn Knight, from Tanfield in my constituency. Dawn raised issues around the cosmetic surgery industry having been a victim of a particular hospital group. She has been a tireless campaigner in ensuring not only that victims get a voice, but that we press for more regulation.
I join others in paying tribute to the all-party group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing for its recent report and to my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for their work on that report, which highlights what my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) called the “wild west”. That is exactly what it is: it is a wild west without any regulation. It is a multibillion-pound industry, which is not only putting people at risk, but costing the NHS money.
In April 2013, the Health Secretary at the time—Andrew Lansley, now Lord Lansley—commissioned Sir Bruce Keogh to carry out a review of the regulation of cosmetic surgery. The review came out not only when we were having problems in the sector itself, but when interest was heightened around Poly Implant Prothèse breast implants, which people will well remember. When the review concluded, it explicitly advised the Government to increase regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry to prevent unlicensed treatments and increase patient safety. The review stated that a person having a non-surgical procedure
“has no more protection and redress than someone buying a ballpoint pen or a toothbrush”,
and
“dermal fillers are a crisis waiting to happen.”
As the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, that crisis has actually happened already.
I have been campaigning on this issue for a number of years, during which time I have gone through a succession of Health Ministers, all of whom have come back with two points. The first is, “We are going to implement the Keogh recommendations”. But because Ministers were too terrified previously to make any health legislation, they were reluctant to bring those recommendations forward in that way.
The only good news in the area has been private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021. That legislation was tightly focused—as all private Member’s Bill have to be—and banned botox injections for under-18s. I congratulate the hon. Member on that work. However, any other regulations have been left unfinished. I have sheaves of letters from former Health Ministers saying, “The Keogh recommendations will be implemented”, but they have not been to date. If we do not do that in this Bill, when will it be done? I doubt that the Department will come forward with a Bill just to implement those recommendations; that is wishful thinking.
There is clearly no regulatory framework in the UK at present for those performing aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic treatments. The area is completely unregulated and lacks any national standards. There is no consumer protection, education, training or qualifications for those administering such treatments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said, some people call themselves nurses with no qualifications whatever. There is a huge discrepancy between the standards and qualifications of the training of these people. The other side of the issue, to which I will turn in a minute, is the regulated system, which, frankly, is failing as well.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North raised the issue of training. If hon. Members visit any website tonight, they will see huge adverts saying, “Become a dermal filler specialist: training and qualification online within half an hour”—even less time in some cases. The people offering such services have no qualifications whatever, because the qualifications are not worth the paper that they are written on, but these people start carrying out invasive procedures without anybody stopping them. They can do it in a kitchen, or in any area that has not been clinically cleaned and is not of a standard that we would expect for medical procedures. It is a multimillion-pound racket that includes both the people offering the training and those carrying out procedures. It is an increasing issue, which needs to be addressed.
We also need to address the issue of advertising. As I have said before in the House, the Advertising Standards Authority is frankly a complete waste of time. If hon. Members go on any website tonight, or even open the national newspapers, they will see people advertising these services—potentially dangerous procedures—without any qualifications. We might ask, “Why would people have these procedures?” Well, I suggest that everyone reads the Mental Health Foundation’s 2019 report on body image, which shows the increasing pressure on young people.
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North is correct that this issue mainly affects young women, but it is increasingly an issue for some young men. The pressure of factors such as advertising and photo enhancements lead people to think that there is the perfect individual, but—apart from you, Mr Deputy Speaker—I am not sure that there is. The foundation’s reports highlights the pressure that is put on young people, but particularly young women. If they look at prices for procedures, they end up going to people who are completely unqualified. It is a scandal that there is no legislation to prevent this.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 10 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have spoken in the House before about being involved in health policy for about 20 years. The same thing tends to happen every three or four years: the NHS says it needs more money, it needs more capacity and it needs a plan, and that is what we are doing again in the Bill. When we talk about more capacity, we mean not just more hospitals, more theatres and more diagnostics, but a bigger workforce. Thanks to this Government and the investment that has been made, I do not think anyone with any credibility can now say that the NHS does not have enough money. NHS England’s resource budget will rise to £162.6 billion in 2024-25—a 3.8% average annual real-terms increase. The Government also plan to spend a further £8 billion to tackle the elective backlog. This is the biggest ever catch-up programme in our NHS for elective surgery. Department of Health and Social Care capital spending will rise to £11.2 billion by 2024-25. I repeat: I do not think that anyone can say with any credibility that our NHS is now underfunded. We have the new diagnostic centres. We have the new pathways that should be adopted to increase NHS productivity. A long-term deal with the independent sector can ensure that we have the capacity to power through the elective backlogs—the hip and knee, hernia and cataract procedures that make up the vast majority of cases.
Of course, we need the nurses, the doctors and the consultants—the workforce—to carry out those procedures. This is a historical problem; it did not just happen overnight. All past Governments and, I dare say, past Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care have a degree of responsibility for this. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey said, there are an estimated 93,000 vacancies in our NHS—consultants, GPs, nurses and allied health professionals. I was proud to stand on a manifesto at the last election that pledged to increase the number of healthcare workers in our NHS, and I know that considerable progress has been made, but just as the Government are doing with social care by putting in place a plan that focuses, laser-like, on resolving some of the long-term issues we face in that sector, we need the same laser-like focus to deal with some of the challenges with our NHS workforce. Any changes we make to our NHS workforce, or any long-term plans, need to reflect the real needs of our NHS. That is incredibly important. Some sort of duty to report independent figures about how we will make up the workforce is a very sensible measure.
Many years ago, I worked with the British Society of Interventional Radiology. The proposals we made and the work that we called for then were about workforce. Some argued that a lot of people were reaching the end of their professional career and retiring and there was a lack of new people coming through, so ultimately this would have an impact on patient care—on the number of procedures that could be carried out. The same arguments are now being made across a number of disciplines. Since I became an MP, I have met the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians, and the same arguments are being made there. It is sobering to think about these challenges, and that is why this laser-like focus has to be considered very carefully.
We have talked about overseas recruitment. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is no longer in his place, said about that, and he made a very powerful argument. In some ways, we are going to have to use overseas recruitment to plug the gaps in our NHS, but there are other solutions. We have heard hon. Members talk about retention. I was alarmed and shocked by the number of healthcare professionals who—understandably—wish to work part-time because they are parents and they have childcare responsibilities. I understand that, but it is going to leave our NHS with recruitment challenges.
When I speak to clinicians—members of the Royal College of Surgeons and others—they talk to me about the ability to work independently and autonomously. Many clinicians want that ability, but do not feel that they have it. There is also the idea that they want to be part of something bigger than their own small team. It is not that they want to be part of this thing called the NHS and that they are all working towards that goal; it is more that, once we have come through the challenge of the pandemic—once we have got ourselves over that mountain—there is an even bigger mountain ahead of them, which is dealing with the elective backlog, where they feel that things never change. That is what I have been told, and those are very powerful things.
What are the solutions to this problem? Ministers need to think about how we can encourage our consultants, our GPs and our medical professionals to practise at the top of their licence. Speaking to medical professionals, I have been told alarming things. About 40% of a GP’s time is spent on sickness notes or providing medical records to insurance companies and other people. That is admin staff work. As valuable as those admin staff are, that is not what GPs and medical professionals went into their professions, and went to medical school for all that time, to do. It is absolutely right that that burden be lifted from our medical staff and placed elsewhere. Nurse-led prescribing has existed for quite some time, but we have not really had the push and the drive there that we should have. GPs should not be spending their time prescribing very simple things such as the pill. We can certainly be doing a lot better and working a lot more productively, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said. This is not about working harder; it is about working smarter.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Listening to the hon. Member’s speech, I think he is giving the game away in some ways, because what I am hearing, if I understand him correctly, is that he wants to see a core of healthcare provided by the NHS and then the more lucrative parts of the NHS—administration and other parts—siphoned off to the private sector, which is a model we have seen in the US and which this Bill makes so much easier.
Paul Bristow
I would ask the hon. Member to listen a bit more carefully, because nowhere have I said admin should be carried out by the private sector. I said that it should not be carried out by medical professionals. They did not go to medical school to work in admin; they went to medical school to treat the sick. That is what we want our medical professionals doing—operating at the very top of their licence.
I also do not want to see situations where untold numbers of consultants are spending just one day a week in the operating theatre. I understand that consultants need the opportunity to train junior colleagues and to continue their own professional development, but they should be operating in our theatres a lot more frequently than that.
Dr Whitford
I gently point out that surgeons do not just operate—we run clinics; we run endoscopy lists and colonoscopy lists—so it is not that they are only working one day a week. They investigate the patient before they operate, and that is one of the strengths of the system in the UK in comparison to other countries, where surgeons only operate and someone else has done the diagnostics.
Paul Bristow
I agree with the hon. Lady that surgeons work incredibly hard. What I am talking about is operating at the top of the licence and for our consultants to be able to do the things that we want them to do. She is absolutely right; they are doing vital work in other areas running clinics and so on, but ultimately what we have is an elective challenge, and we need to ensure that we spend as much time addressing that elective challenge.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the challenges for primary care is that general practitioners have absorbed a great deal of the role of social advocacy in our society? People are trying to get a face-to-face GP appointment, and it is sometimes being suggested to them that such things as getting a fitness note or a letter to go to a school might be better served by someone else in the wider multi-disciplinary team. People are getting frustrated, because our messaging about how to use the health service and the different range of roles and responsibilities offered is sometimes getting a bit diluted.
Paul Bristow
My hon. Friend speaks with much experience and makes a powerful point. I think he would agree that that core admin function is not what he went into medicine to do. He went into medicine to treat patients. I am grateful that the Minister laid out some of the plans that the Government have to deal with this issue. It is right that we should be looking to the long term, and the 15-year framework for future workforce is to be welcomed, but there also needs to be a much more regular reporting mechanism attached to that to ensure that we as Members are informed, but more importantly the NHS is informed, about how that challenge is going. The integration between NHS England and Health Education England—aligning the delivery arm and the workforce capacity arm—is probably also the right thing to do.
I end with this point: the challenges around workforce will be addressed not only by employing and training more NHS staff, although that is crucial—that is why I have some sympathy for amendment 10—but by ensuring that we work more productively by asking clinicians to operate at the top of their licence. It is also about ensuring that the NHS works smarter. We have created organisations such as Getting It Right First Time and NICE and asked them to go away and do the hard work of coming up with the most cost-effective and efficient ways of delivering care. If we ask those organisations to come up with the pathways and the ways of doing these things, surely it is only right that the NHS then adopts them instead of sitting there and saying, “These things will not necessarily work here.” We ask experts to come up with the right way of performing procedures; I suggest we go ahead and adopt them.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, because the amendment reflects the key issue facing the NHS and all our health and care services at this time: the workforce. Access to healthcare services is the No. 1 issue raised with me by constituents at the moment, and I know that concern is being echoed in other constituencies across the country.
People are experiencing the issue in many different ways. Some are struggling to get a GP appointment. I regularly speak to parents in great distress because of the lack of available help for their children’s mental health needs. The accident and emergency department at Kingston Hospital in my constituency has regularly had to ask patients to consider whether there are more appropriate sources of help for their needs. Patients waiting in the backlog of elective procedures are regularly having appointments rescheduled or cancelled. Ambulances do not always arrive when called.
The impacts are many and various, but when I speak to health service leaders in my local area, the answer is pretty much the same: there is a lack of available staff. Even in cases where lack of funds is not in itself a limiting factor, the lack of people with the relevant skills makes it impossible to fill all the vacancies they are able to pay for.
Many of these problems are covid-related. The current NHS waiting list is estimated to be over 6 million, and it is clear that much of that is because so many elective treatments were delayed during lockdown. Demand for mental health services has accelerated because of the impact of the lockdown, particularly on young people. Covid is still with us, of course, and workforces in every part of the economy are being impacted by the need for individuals to isolate when they have symptoms or test positive. Healthcare staff need to be more vigilant than the rest of us.
Many of these problems are also Brexit related. A lot of young Europeans decided to return to their home countries at the start of lockdown and have not since returned. Brexit has stymied our ability to recruit from the EU, shutting off an extremely important supply for all parts of the labour market, but the effect is being felt most markedly in health and social care, since it is having to manage the extraordinary demand of a global pandemic at the same time.
Many of these problems are also the result of a long-term failure to correctly predict or prepare for workforce demand. One of the huge advantages of a national health service is that it is possible to get clear data from right across the sector and to make appropriate plans and decisions. For some reason, that has not been done, and it is absolutely right that the Government should adopt amendment 10 to start to put that right.
I want to amplify a Backbench Business debate that I was able to bring to this Chamber a few weeks ago, in partnership with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). It was on the subject of giving every baby the best start in life, and it was the firm view of all who attended that debate that the health visiting workforce needs to be substantially boosted to enable all new parents to receive a home visit from a trained healthcare professional. During the course of that debate, we heard of the many ways in which a health visiting workforce can support new families and the critical role they play in supporting babies and their families. One estimate is that the cost of poor parental mental health in the first year of life is more than £8 billion. It is clear that the cost of boosting our health visiting workforce would more than pay for itself in a very short time.
I also want to reflect briefly on a conversation I had with a constituent in the street in Richmond town centre on Saturday. Despite having two degrees, she was working in the care sector, and she was talking to me about her terms and conditions of work. She is employed by an agency and is not allowed to engage with any other agency. She is on a zero-hours contract, so she has to sit at home and wait to hear how many hours she might be required to work the following week. For various reasons that suits her, but I feel that it underpins the recruitment crisis we are experiencing in our social care sector, because that is no way to retain skilled and committed staff.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not just about levels of pay and uncertainty for those individuals, but ensuring that we nationally accredit the qualifications of those individuals and address the career paths that do not exist in those sectors at the moment?
Sarah Olney
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is the point I want to make: we need to boost the status of our care home staff and improve their terms and conditions. We need to improve their pay. This lady who I spoke to on Saturday was telling me that she gets paid for the hours she spends in people’s homes, but not the time spent travelling in between. It is clear to me that the crisis of staffing we are experiencing in our care sector—I think every one of us as MPs is hearing about it regularly from our constituents, who are at the sharp end of that—is as much about workforce planning and improving terms and conditions. The Government needs to give that the most urgent attention, and amendment 10 would go some way to resolving that, although it will not resolve it entirely.
I know that Ministers will push back against the cost of boosting the workforce in all areas of the NHS, but they must surely realise the cost of failing to do so. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey. along with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), spoke about the cost of locum resource in the NHS. It is not just about the direct cost of locums or of worsening health outcomes as people wait longer for treatment; it is also about the lost productivity of days off sick, the cost of poor mental health as lives are put on hold and, as has been mentioned many times, the cost of exhausted and demoralised staff who are overwhelmed by the demands on the NHS. We cannot afford to continue to fail to effectively plan our healthcare workforce.
I am also very happy to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on virginity testing and hymenoplasty. I am delighted that the Government are adopting the provisions on virginity testing. We still have much to do to make this country a safe place for women and girls, but all progress is to be welcomed, and I am very glad that this opportunity to bring to an end the degrading practice of virginity testing has not been lost. I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham on all the work he has done and, although they may have left the Chamber, the representatives of the other charities referred to earlier. I hope in due course we will see the provisions for hymenoplasty as well, when the review has concluded.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have three people indicating that they wish to speak. I ask people to make really short contributions, because I want to give the Minister six minutes to wind up and we will then go into the votes at half past.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should declare that I am married to a doctor.
Staff are the No. 1 priority for the health service, and have been historically for this Government, so I will support the Government today, but somewhat through gritted teeth. I implore the Minister to include a few things in his 15-year review. I ask him to engage with the feeling of staff, which we have all heard about: if there are fundamentally not enough staff within the system, it is impossible for them to feel that they can do the job they went into medicine to do as well as they possibly can. I know his plans in this 15-year review will address some of that, but I hope he will also address the fact that there is a huge role to play for technology and for the increasing integration between health and social care. If more patients are stuck in hospitals because they cannot be sent on to the social care system, then we need more doctors to staff those hospitals.
I hope the Minister will consider those multiple facets in the review, and also consider that perhaps more important than anything else is how we retain staff. Even if we are putting more and more people into the beginning of a career pipeline, we will never be able to fill up that pipeline sufficiently if people, whether for pension-related reasons or a whole host of other reasons, are leaving more rapidly than we currently imagine they will in the planning.
That retention aspect has to be a hugely important part of the review. I hope that the possibility of addressing all those multiple factors will be core to what the Minister has been talking about. As others have said, I also hope he will be as transparent as possible within that, and that he or his Department will come to the House to make those plans transparent. Fifteen years is good, and transcends the political horizon that so often derails good intentions for the NHS, but the more transparent we can be, and the more support we can give to recruitment, retention, technology, social care and a host of other issues, the less my teeth will be gritted as I support the Government today.
Mr Holden
I shall keep my comments very brief. I apologise to the Minister for not having been here for his speech, because I was with one of his colleagues in my constituency earlier today.
I welcome what the Government are doing today in new clauses 36 to 48. There has been a huge campaign for a long time by people from so many different organisations, particularly Natasha Rattu of Karma Nirvana, Sara Browne and Payzee Mahmood from IKWRO, Halaleh Taheri and Natasha Feroze at the Middle Eastern Women and Society Organisation, Rosie Walworth and Zoe Russell from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who have worked closely with me over the past few months, Janet Fyle from the Royal College of Midwives, barristers Dr Charlotte Proudman and Naomi Wiseman and consultant gynaecologist Dr Ashfaq Khan, who did some excellent briefing for us in earlier stages of the process. I also thank Adam Mellows-Facer and Huw Yardley from the Public Bill Office, who did some excellent work with my office manager, Robbie Lammas, who has kept going on this throughout.
I am pleased that the Government are coming forward with the amendments on virginity testing today. I particularly welcome the fact that they are UK-wide and have had support from scores of Members, including the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and many other hon. Members from across the House who I can see here today.
It is excellent that the Government have listened so much and responded so thoroughly. I would like to hear the Minister talk about new clause 22, which I tabled today, on hymenoplasty. I know we are on Report, but I want his assurance that, if all goes well, we should see those amendments to this Bill in the House of Peers before too long. It is vital that banning hymenoplasty and banning virginity testing go hand in hand.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I rise to speak on amendment 10 on workforce planning, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). However, surely the Government’s urgent priority is to look at effective ways to attract back into the NHS all those consultants, nurses and social care workers who have left, and to find any way they can to bring back that experience and expertise.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk about some lived experience. Just last Friday, I came across a lady who had fallen over and clearly injured herself. I phoned 999, knowing full well that I would be entering a system under severe stress and pressure. I confess that, as it happened. I put the phone down, because the priority for me was to ensure that she was safe, warm and comfortable.
The ambulance service called me back and told me it would be a wait of several hours. I knew that that was caused by the pressure on the ambulance service and on A&E and the subsequent pressure on beds, hindering the effective and timely treatment of people who go to hospital. The pressure on admission to A&E also affects surgery. All that pressure goes down to one place in Cornwall, and Cornwall will not be unique: delayed transfers of care.
We have been in this place before: in 2016, a system-wide review of the situation in Cornwall found far too many people who would be better off in the community, being looked after in homes or care homes, but were stuck in hospital. In Cornwall today I understand the figure is more than 100 people in that exact situation. The pressure on the whole system is largely to do with those delayed transfers of care. While much has been said about the workforce planning for the NHS, I will quickly touch on workforce planning for the care workforce.
The emphasis on workforce planning should transform the current state of the care workforce, leading to better support, better training, better pay and better status. I am hopeful that the White Paper will address that, as it is the only way to effectively ease the pressure on acute NHS settings. There is an urgent need to understand and address the pressure on care staff, GP practices and community care across the board.
Maybe I should have said this at the beginning, but I chair the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes. Several years ago, we found that, in the whole of the south-west, training for podiatry was coming to an end because of a lack of funding and the way it was delivered across the region. That had an immediate impact on community care and how people could be cared for and enabled to live with and manage their condition, which ultimately puts more pressure on urgent care.
As we look at workforce planning and how to understand exactly what is needed, I particularly thank the NHS staff who have worked so hard, especially those I met at the beginning of the year, who, as they delivered the vaccine roll-out, told me they were doing it for the national effort. Workforce planning and the commitment to ensuring that we have the workforce where they are needed, with the skills they need, is the best way to reward our NHS workforce.
Edward Argar
This is a little more generous than the six minutes I feared I might have to work with, Mr Deputy Speaker.
If I may, I will address each set or theme of amendments in turn. First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for the work he has done. He rightly highlights that in a sense he is but the voice of the campaigners who have worked so hard on this issue over a very long period. I am pleased that today, while it is not his exact amendment, we have been able to work together to table an amendment that I hope will command cross-party support across the House to deliver on what he has campaigned so effectively for.
I have known my hon. Friend a very long time, so I should not have been surprised by the persistence with which he beat a path to my door to seek to secure agreement on exactly this policy issue.
Mr Holden
Can I just say that the Minister has been absolutely superb in engaging throughout this process? I would like to thank the shadow team as well, who in Committee and today—and throughout—have shown real conviction towards this end. I thank the Minister and his team and also the shadow team for all they have done.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I think covered both bases there very eloquently. He makes an important point on this issue. The change will make a real difference to people’s lives, so I commend him for his work.
New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and would give the Secretary of State the power to introduce a licensing regime for aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures, making it an offence for someone to practise without a licence. I thank her for bringing this to the House today. In that context, I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones); my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who has taken a very close interest in the issue; and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) not only for taking a close interest in the issue, but for her success, with her private Member’s Bill, in moving the dial further forward on the issue more broadly.
As I said in Committee, I entirely understand the intention behind the amendment and that a strong case has been made for further regulation in this area. I and the Department are keen to work with stakeholders, including Members of this House on both sides, to see whether we can take this forward in the most appropriate way and clarify the scope of any further regulation. We are happy—we had a very positive meeting, which was alluded to—and I hope that we will be able to continue to explore the issue with hon. and right hon. Members.
In this context, I also commend the all-party parliamentary group on beauty, aesthetics and wellbeing for its important work. Its inquiry highlights the huge range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures available, which vary in their level of complexity and invasiveness. We are carefully considering the findings of that report, including, in that context, its recommendation for a licensing system. We look forward to reporting our conclusions from that work early in 2022. I look forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North and others on that.
Amendment 57 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood). I can entirely understand where she is coming from—that the professions protected in law must be the right ones, with the right regulatory oversight, recognising that regulation is there for safety. We believe there is no immediate case to change the professions that are regulated, but we will consider whether any new groups of workers should be brought into statutory regulation, and the power to remove professions from regulations would only be used where regulation is no longer required for the protection of the public. For these reasons, we think the approach we are adopting is the right one, but I always reflect on what she says. Even when I do not entirely agree with all of it, I always reflect carefully because she has taken a long-standing interest in these issues.
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) raised the issue of the title of “nurse” and protection for it. The title “registered nurse” is protected in law. Currently —she is right—the title “nurse” is not protected, given that it is used across multiple professions, including dental nurses, school nurses, veterinary nurses and similar. As has been pointed out by the interim chief nursing officer for Scotland, any change would need careful consideration of the impact on other groups currently using the title “nurse” outside healthcare settings.
I can see the benefit in providing reassurance and clarity for both patients and professionals. I would also note that the protection of a title is only one part of the regulatory system and the complexities associated with that. I understand where the hon. Member is coming from with her new clause 12. What I would say is that any subsequent change could form part of the legislative reform programme for the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which will be taken forward by secondary legislation made under section 60 of the Health Act 1999. But we do not feel we are able to accept her new clause, as drafted at the moment, because we do not feel that it addresses those fundamental challenges.
Edward Argar
If the hon. Member is going to be brief, I will of course give way to her.
Dawn Butler
I was going to quickly say that the Government’s response to Alison Leary’s very good petition says that the Government understand it. We could pass the new clause today and then the Minister could amend it in Committee.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but we have had the Committee. We are now at the stage where we have been through this, and I therefore do not think it would be appropriate to pass an amendment that we thought was flawed in its drafting. I can understand the intent behind it, and I have said that I will continue to reflect on that, but we do not feel we can support the amendment as drafted.
On amendment 10 and new clause 28, hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken to those amendments from both sides of the House have raised something that I think is of huge importance to all Members of this House. As I said in my opening remarks, we all recognise that technology, kit and buildings are all wonderful if we invest in them, but they are nothing without the people—the professionals—who know how to care, are able to care and are able to use that kit to provide the best possible outcomes for our constituents. The workforce are in a sense the beating heart of our NHS, and it is important that I again recognise and join the Opposition in paying tribute to the work undertaken by the workforce.
I appreciate entirely the strongly held, sincerely held and, as ever with my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), well-informed views that he brings to this debate, based on his extensive experience. I would extend that to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), in a spirit of bipartisan cordiality. I hope I have been able to help to reassure colleagues just how seriously we take this issues. Hon. and right hon. Members have been right to raise the issue. We reflect very carefully on it. We have already, as I have said, not only set out plans for elective recovery and further reforms to improve recruitment and support for our workforce, but announced yesterday the merger of Health Education England with NHS England, which we believe is an important next step in making sure that workforce needs can be considered in the round. The other key element is, as I say, the development, commissioned in July, of a robust, long-term—15-year—strategic framework for the health and social care workforce.
We are in no way complacent or resting on our laurels in the case of the workforce. Despite the significant progress we have made in recruiting more nurses and more doctors, there is clearly a lot more to do. We recognise that, and I believe it was a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). He declared his interest. I do not know whether I need to, but his wife is a friend of mine; I should probably declare that too. He made some important points, a key point being that this is not just about projections for recruitment. It is absolutely right that we are focused, as we are, on the retention of our existing highly trained, highly skilled and highly experienced workforce. We look at what measures we can continue to take to address those challenges.
There is the need to recognise that that workforce—the workforce who are delivering on elective recovery and who are delivering on tackling those waiting lists—are the same people who have been working flat out throughout this pandemic, and emotionally and physically need the space and time to be able to recover. We recognise that and take it extremely seriously. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow)—he has jumped around the Chamber slightly in taking his seat—who made the point about reporting and monitoring mechanisms to know how the framework is working and that we are doing the right thing. While we are not, I have to say, fully convinced by the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey, I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough about that. I will continue to reflect very carefully on that, on what my right hon. Friend has tabled and on the points he made in debate and in his many meetings with me and other ministerial colleagues.
In the minute or so I have left, I want to briefly touch on the HSSIB amendments, which I know are important, particularly to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), but I think she reflects broader opinion in this House. As discussed in Committee, the definition given in clause 108(2) is intentionally broad. HSSIB will be carrying out a range of investigations, and we believe it would be impossible to prospectively identify the material that will be gathered and should therefore be protected by safe space. Similarly, while I take the point she makes about senior coroners and coroners’ involvement, we believe that we have struck the right balance in not extending the safe space exemptions more widely, but recognising the unique status that those judicial office holders have.
I hope I have been able to cover the main themes of the amendments tabled in this group. I hope I have been able to reassure hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of this House, particularly in respect of the workforce, just how seriously Her Majesty’s Government take that issue, and the points genuinely and sincerely made by Members on both sides of the House in that context.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 36 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 37
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of England and Wales—
(a) for a person in England and Wales to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in England and Wales.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of England and Wales of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 38
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of England and Wales for a person who is in England and Wales, or for a person who is outside England and Wales but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in England and Wales, to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales)(2).’. —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 39
Virginity testing offences in England and Wales: penalties
‘(1) A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: England and Wales), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: England and Wales), is liable—In subsection (1)(a) “the maximum summary term for either-way offences” means—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum summary term for either-way offences or a fine (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
(c) in relation to an offence committed before the time when paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 comes into force, 6 months;
(d) in relation to an offence committed after that time, 12 months.’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of England and Wales relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 40
Offence of virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland for a person to carry out virginity testing.
(2) “Virginity testing” means the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose (or purported purpose) of determining virginity.
(3) An offence is committed under subsection (1) only if the person—
(a) is in Scotland, or
(b) is outside the United Kingdom, and is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland.
(4) “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
(5) In subsection (2), “female genitalia” means a vagina or vulva.’
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Scotland of virginity testing.—(Edward Argar.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 41
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland—
(a) for a person in Scotland to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Scotland of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 42
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Scotland for a person who is in Scotland, or for a person who is outside Scotland but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Scotland, to aid, abet, counsel, procure or incite the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 43
Virginity testing offences in Scotland: penalties and supplementary
‘(1) A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland), is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).
(2) Where a person outside Scotland commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Scotland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Scotland) the person may be prosecuted, tried and punished for the offence—
(a) in a sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or in custody, or
(b) in a sheriff court district determined by the Lord Advocate,
as if the offence had been committed in that district.
Where subsection (2) applies, the offence is, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial and punishment, deemed to have been committed in that district.
(3) In this section “sheriff court district” is to be construed in accordance with section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation).’—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of Scotland relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland for a person to carry out virginity testing.
(2) “Virginity testing” means the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose (or purported purpose) of determining virginity.
(3) An offence is committed under subsection (1) only if the person—
(a) is in Northern Ireland, or
(b) is outside the United Kingdom, and is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland.
(4) “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
(5) In subsection (2), “female genitalia” means a vagina or vulva.’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Northern Ireland of virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 45
Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland—
(a) for a person in Northern Ireland to offer to carry out virginity testing in the United Kingdom or virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection, or
(b) for a person anywhere to offer to carry out virginity testing if the person is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) a United Kingdom national, or
(b) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence under the law of Northern Ireland of offering to carry out virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 46
Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland
‘(1) It is an offence under the law of Northern Ireland for a person who is in Northern Ireland, or for a person who is outside Northern Ireland but who is a United Kingdom national or habitually resident in Northern Ireland, to aid, abet, counsel or procure the carrying out of virginity testing that has a sufficient jurisdictional connection.
(2) Virginity testing has a sufficient jurisdictional connection for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is carried out in relation to a person who is—
(a) in the United Kingdom,
(b) a United Kingdom national, or
(c) habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) This section does not affect the application to an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland) of any rule of law relating to aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.
(4) In this section—
“United Kingdom national” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(4);
“virginity testing” has the meaning given by section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland)(2).’ —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause creates an offence of aiding etc a person to carry out virginity testing in circumstances where the carrying out of that testing might not itself be an offence (depending on the location or status of the person carrying out the testing).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 47
Virginity testing offences in Northern Ireland: penalties
‘A person who commits an offence under section (Offence of virginity testing: Northern Ireland), (Offence of offering to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland) or (Offence of aiding or abetting etc a person to carry out virginity testing: Northern Ireland) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).” —(Edward Argar.)
This new clause sets out the penalties for the new offences under the law of Northern Ireland relating to virginity testing.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 48
Virginity testing: consequential amendments
‘Schedule (Virginity testing: consequential amendments) contains consequential amendments.’—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause introduces a Schedule of consequential amendments relating to the new virginity testing offences.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are now coming on to the next group of amendments. As hon. Members can see, we have only an hour left, so can I plead to everyone who is participating, including the Front Benchers: short contributions, please, so we can get as many people in as we possibly can?
New Clause 62
Pharmaceutical services: remuneration in respect of vaccines etc
“(1) In section 164 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (remuneration for persons providing pharmaceutical services)—
(a) in subsection (8A) for ‘special medicinal products’ substitute ‘any of the following—
(a) drugs or medicines used for vaccinating or immunising people against disease,
(b) anything used in connection with the supply or administration of drugs or medicines within paragraph (a),
(c) drugs or medicines, not within paragraph (a), that are used for preventing or treating a disease that, at the time the regulations are made, the Secretary of State considers to be a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease,
(d) anything used in connection with the supply or administration of drugs or medicines within paragraph (c), or
(e) a product which is a special medicinal product for the purposes of regulation 167 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916).’;
(b) in subsection (8D)—
(i) for ‘special medicinal products are’ substitute ‘anything within subsection (8A)(a) to (e) is’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘special medicinal products’ substitute ‘that thing,’;
(c) subsection (8E), omit the definition of ‘special medicinal product’;
(d) after subsection (8E) insert—
‘(8F) Where regulations include provision made in reliance on subsection (8A)(c) or (d) and the Secretary of State considers that the disease to which it relates is no longer a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease, the Secretary of State must revoke that provision within such period as the Secretary of State considers reasonable (taking into account, in particular, the need for any transitional arrangements).’
(2) In section 88 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (remuneration for persons providing pharmaceutical services)—
(a) in subsection (8A) for ‘special medicinal products’ substitute ‘any of the following—
(a) drugs or medicines used for vaccinating or immunising people against disease,
(b) anything used in connection with the supply or administration of drugs or medicines within paragraph (a),
(c) drugs or medicines, not within paragraph (a), that are used for preventing or treating a disease that, at the time the regulations are made, the Welsh Ministers consider to be a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease,
(d) anything used in connection with the supply or administration of drugs or medicines within paragraph (c), or
(e) a product which is a special medicinal product for the purposes of regulation 167 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916).’;
(b) in subsection (8D)—
(i) for ‘special medicinal products are’ substitute ‘anything within subsection (8A)(a) to (e) is’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘special medicinal products’ substitute ‘that thing,’;
(c) in subsection (8E), omit the definition of ‘special medicinal product’;
(d) after subsection (8E) insert—
‘(8F) Where regulations include provision made in reliance on subsection (8A)(c) or (d) and the Welsh Ministers consider that the disease to which it relates is no longer a pandemic disease or at risk of becoming a pandemic disease, the Welsh Ministers must revoke that provision within such period as the Welsh Ministers consider reasonable (taking into account, in particular, the need for any transitional arrangements).’”—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment replicates the amendments currently made by clause 76 and makes corresponding provision for Wales. As a consequence clause 76 is left out by Amendment 115.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 13—National self-care strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a National Self-Care Strategy to fully integrate self-care for minor ailments into the wider health system.
(2) The National Self-Care Strategy must have regard to the need to—
(a) address inequalities in health literacy;
(b) enhance the understanding of primary and secondary age children on how to self-care;
(c) introduce self-care modules in healthcare professionals’ training curricula and continuing professional development;
(d) make best use of, and expand, the Community Pharmacist Consultation Service;
(e) improve access to effective self-care treatments;
(f) enable community pharmacists to refer people directly to other healthcare professionals;
(g) ensure better support for primary care networks to deliver self-care;
(h) evaluate the use of technologies that have been developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote greater self-care; and
(i) accelerate efforts to enable community pharmacists to populate medical records.”
This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care publishes a national self-care strategy to integrate self-care for minor ailments into the health system.
New clause 18—Secretary of State’s duty to report on access to NHS dentistry—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report setting out levels of access to NHS dentistry across England and average waiting times for primary care dental treatment in each region, and describing the action being taken to improve them.
(2) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the levels of access to NHS dentistry in England, setting out average waiting times for primary care dental treatment in each region, and describing action being taken to improve them as necessary.
New clause 19—Inclusion in the NHS mandate of cancer outcome targets—
“(1) Section 13A of the National Health Service Act 2006 (Mandate) is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (2), insert the following new subsection—
‘(2A) The objectives that the Secretary of State considers NHS England should seek to achieve which are specified in subsection (2)(a) must include objectives for cancer treatment defined by outcomes for patients with cancer, and those objectives are to be treated by NHS England as having priority over any other objectives relating to cancer treatment.’”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set objectives for the NHS on cancer treatment which are defined by outcomes (such as one-year or five-year survival rates), and would give those objectives priority over any other objectives relating to cancer treatment (such as waiting times).
New clause 20—Annual parity of esteem report: spending on mental health and mental illness—
“Within six weeks of the end of each financial year, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the ways in which the allotment made to NHS England for that financial year contributed to the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—
(a) in the mental health of the people of England, and
(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make an annual statement on how the funding received by mental health services that year from the overall annual allotment has contributed to the improvement of mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.
New clause 23—NHS Good Governance Commission—
“(1) Regulations shall provide for the establishment of an NHS Good Governance Commission as a Special Health Authority.
(2) The Commission shall have responsibility for ensuring that anyone appointed to, or elected into, a non-executive role on an NHS Body—
(a) is a fit and proper person for that role; and
(b) has been appointed or elected by a process that the Commission considers appropriate.”
This new clause returns to the position prior to 2012 and ensures independent oversight of important NHS appointments.
New clause 24—Appropriate consent to transplantation activities when travelling abroad—
“The Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows—
‘(1) Section 32 (Prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(f) travels outside the United Kingdom—
(i) to a country with a system of deemed consent for the donation of controlled material which does not meet the criteria in subsection (1A) and receives any controlled material, for the purpose of transplantation, and
(ii) to a country with a system of explicit consent for the donation of controlled material and receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation where the material was obtained without—
(A) the free, informed and specific consent of a living donor, or
(B) the free, informed and specific consent of the donor’s next of kin, where the donor is unable to provide consent; and
(g) receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation for which, in exchange for the removal of controlled material—
(i) the living donor, or a third party, receives a financial gain or comparable advantage, or
(ii) from a deceased donor, a third party receives financial gain or comparable advantage.
(1A) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of countries with a system of deemed consent for donation of controlled material determining whether each of those countries—
(a) provides a formal, publicly funded scheme for opting out of deemed consent for donation of controlled material, and
(b) provides an effective programme of public education to its population on the deemed consent system and the opt-out scheme which delivers a high level of public understanding of both.
(1B) For the purposes of paragraphs (f) and (g) in subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the offence of dealing in controlled material for transplantation is caused by an act or an omission.
(1C) For the purposes of paragraph (g) in subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the acts or omissions which form part of the offence take place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(1D) In paragraph (g) in subsection (1), the expression “financial gain or comparable advantage” does not include compensation for loss of earnings and any other justifiable expenses caused by the removal or by the related medical examinations, or compensation in case of damage which is not inherent to the removal of controlled material.
(1E) Subsection (1F) applies if—
(a) no act which forms part of an offence under subsection (1) takes place in the United Kingdom, but
(b) the person committing the offence has a close connection with the United Kingdom.
(1F) For the purposes of subsection (1e)(b), a person has a close connection with the United Kingdom if, and only if, the person was one of the following at the time the acts or omissions concerned were done or made—
(a) a British citizen,
(b) a British overseas territories citizen,
(c) a British National (Overseas),
(d) a British Overseas citizen,
(e) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 was a British subject,
(f) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act,
(g) an individual ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,
(h) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom,
(i) a Scottish partnership.
(1G) In such a case, proceedings for the offence may be taken in any criminal court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.”
(3) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.
(6) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.
(7) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(f) or (1)(g) shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction—
(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or
(iii) to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment—
(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 9 years,
(ii) to a fine, or
(iii) to both.”
(6) Section 34 (Information about transplant operations) is amended as follows.
(12) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require specified persons to—
(a) keep patient identifiable records for all instances of UK citizens who have received transplant procedures performed outside the United Kingdom; and
(b) report instances of transplant procedures performed on UK citizens outside the United Kingdom to NHS Blood and Transplant.
(2B) Regulations under subsection (1) must require NHS Blood and Transplant to produce an annual report on instances of UK citizens receiving transplant procedures outside the United Kingdom.”’”
New clause 25—Regulation of the public display of imported cadavers—
“(1) The Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 1 (authorisation of activities for scheduled purposes) after ‘imported’ insert ‘other than for the purpose of public display’.”
New clause 26—Report on claims for reimbursement of the immigration health surcharge—
“The Secretary of State must publish and lay a Report before Parliament giving the numbers of completed claims that have been made under the immigration health surcharge reimbursement scheme within 6 weeks of the commencement of this Act.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report the number of completed claims under the Immigration Health Surcharge for NHS and care workers from overseas.
New clause 27—Secretary of State’s duty to report on waiting times for treatment—
“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report annually on waiting times for treatment in England, disparities in waiting times for treatment in England and the steps being taken to ensure that patients can access services within maximum waiting times in accordance with their rights in the NHS Constitution.”
New clause 30—Problem drug use as a health issue—
“(1) The UK Government will adopt a cross-government approach to drugs policy which treats problem drug use as primarily a health issue (‘the health issue principle’).
(2) In accordance with the health issue principle, the Prime Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable—
(a) make the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care responsible for leading drugs policy in England,
(b) lay before Parliament a report on the steps that will be taken to transfer responsibilities to the Department for Health and Social Care from other departments, and
(c) undertake a review of devolution and drugs policy in light of that transfer and in accordance with subsection (3).
(3) The review of devolution and drugs policy must consider—
(a) steps to transfer responsibility for drugs policy to the devolved administrations in a manner consistent with the health issue principle and the transfers of responsibilities in England in subsection (2), and
(b) the consistency of the devolution settlement, including the specific reservation of the misuse of drugs under paragraph B1 of Part II of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, paragraph 54 of Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and paragraph 9f of Schedule 3 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 with the health principle and any associated recommendations for change.
(4) In undertaking that review, the Prime Minister must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.
(5) A report on the findings of the review must be laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to approach problem drug use primarily as a health issue and, in so doing, to make the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the lead minister for drugs policy in England. The Prime Minister would also be required to undertake a review of the devolution of responsibility over drugs policy in the new context of recognising problem drug use primarily as a health issue.
New clause 31—Reduction in upper gestation limit for abortion to 22 weeks’ gestation—
“(1) The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 is amended as follows.
In section 1(2) for ‘twenty-eight’ substitute ‘twenty-two’.
(2) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
In section 1(1)(a) for ‘twenty-fourth’ substitute ‘twenty-second’.”
This new clause would reduce the upper gestational limit for abortion in most cases to 22 weeks’ gestation.
New clause 32—Resolution of differences over the care of children with life-limiting illnesses—
“(1) This section applies where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment about—
(a) the nature (or extent) of specialist palliative care that should be made available for the child, or
(b) the extent to which palliative care provided to the child should be accompanied by one or more disease-modifying treatments.
(2) Where the authorities responsible for a health service hospital become aware of the difference of opinion they must take all reasonable steps—
(a) to ensure that the views of the parent, and of anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child, are listened to and taken into account;
(b) to make available to the parent any medical data relating to the child which is reasonably required as evidence in support of the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion);
(c) to refer the difference of opinion to any appropriate clinical ethics committee (whether or not within the hospital) or to any other appropriate source for advice.
(3) Where the responsible authorities consider that the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved informally, they must take all reasonable steps to provide for a mediation process, between the parent or parents and the doctor or doctors, which is acceptable to both parties.
(4) In the application of subsections (2) and (3) the hospital authorities—
(a) must involve the child’s specialist palliative care team so far as possible; and
(b) may refuse to make medical data available if the High Court grants an application to that effect on the grounds that disclosure might put the child’s safety at risk in special circumstances.
(5) Where the difference of opinion between the parent and the doctor arises in proceedings before a court—
(a) the child’s parents are entitled to legal aid, within the meaning of section 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Lord Chancellor’s functions) in respect of the proceedings; and the Lord Chancellor must make any necessary regulations under that Act to give effect to this paragraph; and
(b) the court may not make any order that would prevent or obstruct the parent from pursuing proposals for obtaining disease-modifying treatment for the child (whether in the UK or elsewhere) unless the court is satisfied that the proposals—
(i) involve a medical institution that is not generally regarded within the medical community as a responsible and reliable institution, or
(ii) pose a disproportionate risk to the child of significant harm.
(6) Nothing in subsection (4) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution; in particular, nothing in subsection (4)—
(a) requires the provision of resources for any particular course of treatment; or
(b) requires a doctor to provide treatment that the doctor considers likely to be futile or harmful, or otherwise not in the best interests of the child.
(7) Subsection (4)(a) does not prevent the court from making an order as to costs, or any other order, at any point in the proceedings.
(8) In this section—
‘child’ means an individual under the age of 18;
‘health service hospital’ has the meaning given by section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation);
‘parent’ means a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989; and
‘person concerned with the welfare of the child’ means a parent, grandparent, sibling or half-sibling.
(9) Nothing in this section affects the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—
(a) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and
(b) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned within the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”
This new clause has a single purpose, which is to make provision about the resolution of differences of opinion between a child’s parents and the doctors responsible for the child’s treatment.
New clause 34—Visits to care homes—
“(1) Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After Regulation 9, paragraph (3), sub-paragraph (i), insert—
‘(j) facilitating face to face contact between the service user and persons significant to the service user so as to meet the service user’s needs and preferences, having particular regard to their emotional and psychological needs;
(k) where the registered person determines following an individualised risk assessment that unrestricted face to face contact between significant persons and the service user is not possible, facilitating face to face contact with the significant person or persons whom the registered person reasonably believes best meets the needs and preferences of the service user;
(l) where the registered person determines following an individualised risk assessment that no face to face contact between any significant persons and the service user is possible, facilitating contact with significant persons in such other ways as best meets the needs and preferences of the service user and is in accordance with the individualised risk assessment.’
(3) After Regulation 9, paragraph (6), insert—
‘(7) In this regulation
“face to face contact” means contact without fixed physical barriers between the service user and the significant person, but includes contact where the service user and/or relevant person or persons are wearing appropriate personal protective equipment if such is required to prevent or control the spread of infections, including those that are health care associated;
“an individualised risk assessment” means a risk assessment which considers—
(a) the risks to the health and well-being of the service user both of having and not having face to face to contact with either two or more significant persons (for purposes of paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (k)) or one relevant person (for purposes of paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (I));
(b) the risks to the health and well-being of other service users arising from the registered person facilitating face to face contact between the service user and a person or persons significant to that service user; and
(c) the risks to the health and well-being of the service user (and to other service users) of alternative options for contact to minimise the risks identified in (a) and (b).
“significant person” means any person falling within section 4(7) sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of the 2005 Act (whether or not the service user lacks capacity for purposes of the 2005 Act to decide whether or not to have face to face contact with them) and “person significant to the service user” is to be read accordingly.’”
This new clause would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to require individualised risk assessments for care home residents, and to ensure procedures are in place for such assessments to be queried where adequate efforts have not been made to enable safe visits to care homes.
New clause 35—Visits to patients in hospital—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure that arrangements are made to allow visitors to patients staying in hospital.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any such arrangements observe the following principles—
(a) Safety – The approach to visiting must balance the health and safety needs of patients, staff, and visitors, and ensure risks are mitigated.
(b) Emotional well-being – Allowing visitors is intended to support the emotional well-being of patients by reducing any potential negative impacts related to social isolation.
(c) Equitable access – All patients must be given equitable access to receive visitors, consistent with their preferences and within reasonable restrictions that safeguard patients.
(d) Flexibility – The physical/infrastructure characteristics of the hospital, its staffing availability, the risks arising from any outbreak of disease in the hospital and the availability of personal protective equipment are all variables to take into account when setting hospital-specific policies.
(e) Equality – Patients have the right to choose their visitors.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for rights to visit patients in hospital.
New clause 50—Amendment of the law relating to abortion—
“(1) The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 58 (administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion)—
(a) omit the words from the beginning to ‘intent, and’;
(b) at the end insert ‘; but this section does not apply to a woman in relation to the procurement of her own miscarriage.’
(3) In section 59 (procuring drugs, etc. to cause abortion), at the end insert ‘; but this section does not apply to a woman in relation to the rocurement of her own miscarriage.’”
This new clause would have the effect that a woman could not be held criminally liable under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 in relation to procuring, or attempting to procure, her own abortion.
New clause 51—Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the foetus—
“Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the foetus.”
This new clause would clarify that abortion on the grounds of the sex of the foetus is illegal.
New clause 52—Introduction of upper gestational limit on abortion on the grounds of disability—
“(1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (Medical termination of pregnancy) at the beginning of sub-paragraph (d) to paragraph (1), insert—
‘that the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit identified in sub-paragraph (a) and’”.
This new clause would introduce an upper gestational limit on abortion on the grounds of disability equal to the upper gestational limit on most other abortions
New clause 53—Review of effect on migrants of charges for NHS treatment—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the effect on migrants of charges for NHS treatment, and lay a report of that review before Parliament.
(2) Before completing the review, the Secretary of State must consult representatives of groups subject to such charges.”
New clause 54—Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passage of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of those provisions on—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each section of the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.”
New clause 56—Abolition of prescription charges—
“(1) Charges may not be made for NHS prescriptions.
(2) Within six weeks of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the relevant powers under the National Health Service Act 2006 to give effect to subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any charges which may be made before the action necessary to give effect to that subsection has been taken under subsection (2).”
New clause 60—Duty to consider residents of other parts of UK—
“For section 13O of the National Health Service Act 2006 substitute—
‘130 Duty to consider residents of other parts of UK
(1) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, NHS England must have regard to any likely impact of the decision on—
(a) the provision of health services to people who reside in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or
(b) services provided in England for the purposes of—
(i) the health service in Wales,
(ii) the system of health care mentioned in section 2(1)(a) of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c. 1 (N.I.)), or
(iii) the health service established under section 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS England on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1).
(3) NHS England must have regard to guidance published under subsection (2).’”
This new clause places a duty on NHS England to consider the likely impact of their decisions on the residents of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to consider the impact of services provided in England on patient care in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
New clause 61—Interoperability of data and collection of comparable healthcare statistics across the UK—
“(1) The Health and Social Care Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 250 (Powers to publish information standards)—
(a) in subsection (3), at the beginning, insert ‘Subject to subsection (3A)’;
(b) after subsection (3), insert the following subsection—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may also exercise the power under subsection (1) so as to specify binding data interoperability requirements which apply across the whole of the United Kingdom, and an information standard prepared and published by virtue of this subsection may apply to any public body which exercises functions in connection with the provision of health services anywhere in the United Kingdom.’
(c) after subsection (6E) (inserted by section 79 of this Act), insert the following subsection—
‘(6F) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament each year on progress on the implementation of an information standard prepared in accordance with subsection (3A).’
(3) In section 254 (Powers to direct Information Centre to establish information systems), after subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must give a direction under subsection (1) directing the Information Centre to collect and publish information about healthcare performance and outcomes in all parts of the United Kingdom in a way which enables comparison between different parts of the United Kingdom.
(2B) Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers must arrange for the information relating to the health services for which they have responsibility described in the direction made under subsection (2A) to be made available to the Information Centre in accordance with the direction.’”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to specify binding data interoperability standards across the UK, require the collection and publication of comparable information about healthcare performance and outcomes across the UK, and require Ministers in the devolved institutions to provide information on a comparable basis.
New clause 63—NHS duty to carers—
“NHS bodies must identify unpaid carers who come into contact with NHS services and ensure that their health and wellbeing is taken into account when decisions are made concerning the health and care of the person or people for whom they care.”
New clause 64—Review of public health and health inequalities effects—
“(1) The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care must review the public health and health inequalities effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on socioeconomic inequalities and on population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK, and
(d) the effects of the provisions of this Act on health inequalities.”
Amendment 89, in clause 4, page 2, line 40, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment requires NHS England to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 67, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS England to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 90, page 3, line 10, after “of” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment requires NHS England to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 44, in clause 6, page 3, line 40, leave out “person” and insert “relevant public body”.
Amendment 45, page 4, line 1, leave out “person” and insert “public body”.
Amendment 46, page 4, line 4, after “employees”, insert
“, within their terms and conditions of employment,”.
Government amendments 83 and 84.
Amendment 70, page 48, line 34, leave out clause 39.
Amendment 93, in clause 44, page 49, line 31, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require NHS Trusts to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 94, page 49, line 36, after first “of” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require NHS Trusts to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 71, page 49, line 39, at end insert—
“(d) health inequalities.”
This amendment would modify the triple aim to explicitly require NHS trusts to take account of health inequalities when making decisions.
Amendment 95, in clause 58, page 55, line 23, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require NHS foundation trusts to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 96, page 55, line 28, after first “of” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require NHS foundation trusts to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 97, in clause 66, page 61, line 26, after first “the” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require decisions on licensing of health care to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Amendment 98, page 61, line 32, after first “of” insert “physical and mental”.
This amendment will require decisions on licensing of health care to prioritise both the physical and mental health and well-being of the people of England and to work towards the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of both physical and mental illness, replicating the parity of esteem duty introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Government amendment 115.
Amendment 60, page 71, line 6, leave out clause 80.
This amendment is to ensure that social care assessments take place prior to discharge from hospital.
Amendment 73, in clause 80, page 71, line 9, at end insert—
“(2A) A social care needs assessment must be carried out by the relevant local authority before a patient is discharged from hospital or within 2 weeks of the date of discharge.
(2B) Each integrated care board must agree with all relevant local authorities the process to apply for social care needs assessment in hospital or after discharge, including reporting on any failures to complete required assessments within the required time and any remedies or penalties that would apply in such cases.
(2C) Each integrated care board must ensure that—
(a) arrangements made for the discharge of any patient without a relevant social care assessment are made with due regard to the care needs and welfare of the patient, and
(b) the additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments after a patient has been discharged are met in full.
(2D) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs after hospital discharge, including a figure of how many patients are readmitted within 28 days.”
Government amendments 116 to 121.
Government amendment 85.
Government amendments 122 to 126.
Government amendment 128.
Amendment 82, in clause 135, page 117, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations may only be made under this Act with the consent of the—
(a) Scottish Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) Welsh Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru, and
(c) Northern Ireland Ministers insofar as they make provision for any matter which falls within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to obtain the consent of the relevant devolved government before powers to make regulations under the Act in an area falling within the legislative competence of a devolved institution, are exercised.
Government amendments 129 to 133.
Amendment 103, in schedule 6, page 186, line 4, at end insert—
“‘relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee’ means any Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in an area to which the proposal for a reconfiguration of NHS services relates.”.
Amendment 104, in schedule 6, page 186, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) must consult relevant Health Overview & Scrutiny Committees.”
Amendment 105, in schedule 6, page 186, line 43, at end insert—
“(aa) have regard to, and publish, the clinical advice of the Integrated Care Board’s Medical Director in relation to any decision under sub-paragraph (2)(a),
(b) publish a statement demonstrating that any decision made under sub-paragraph (2)(a) is in the public interest, and”.
Amendment 54, in schedule 10, page 204, line 7, after “(1),” insert
“not undermine an NHS provider’s ability to provide a service whilst maintaining the pay rates in Agenda for Change, pensions and the other terms and conditions of all eligible NHS staff and”.
This amendment aims to ensure that the pay rates of Agenda for Change, pensions, and other terms and conditions of all eligible NHS staff are not undermined as a result of the adoption of the NHS payment scheme.
Amendment 55, in schedule 10, page 204, line 39, after “following” insert
“on the likely impact of the proposed scheme”.
This amendment requires NHS England to consult stakeholders on the likely impact of the NHS payment scheme.
Amendment 56, in schedule 10, page 204, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) all relevant trade unions and other organisations representing staff who work in the health and care sectors;”.
This amendment aims to ensure that all relevant trade unions and other organisations representing staff who work in the health and care sectors are consulted by NHS England on the likely impact of the proposed NHS Payment Scheme.
Edward Argar
Being conscious of the time, I will endeavour to be brief and try to scoop up in my winding-up speech any particular concerns expressed during the debate.
While this Bill is predominantly about the health service in England, and the majority of measures are England-only, a small number of provisions in the Bill will deliver benefits to residents in all four nations of the United Kingdom. The Government have worked with the devolved Administrations to improve services and outcomes for people across the country, and we have now agreed a package of amendments to some provisions in the Bill to address concerns raised by the DAs. Following that constructive engagement, we are pleased that DA Ministers supported our approach. On 15 November, the Northern Ireland Assembly voted to grant legislative consent motions for the provisions on reciprocal healthcare, medicine information systems and professional regulations.
This group of amendments contains the amendments negotiated with the DAs, and I extend my thanks not only to the DA Ministers and officials, but to the territorial Secretaries of State and offices of this United Kingdom in London for their work. There remain a small number of areas in which final agreement is needed, and one area where work is still ongoing. The group also contains technical Government amendments to ensure that no unintended tax consequences arise as a result of the powers in this Bill.
I will speak briefly to new clause 62 and amendments 115 and 129 and then I will pause to allow hon. Members on both sides to make their contributions and seek to address their points subsequently.
New clause 62 replicates the amendments currently made by clause 76 for England and makes corresponding provision for Wales and, as a consequence, clause 76 is removed by amendment 115, so that the changes made by it, together with the corresponding changes for Wales, can be set out in one place.
The new clause amends both the National Health Service Act 2006 and the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, enabling regulations to be made in respect of both England and Wales, allowing for further exemptions from the obligation to reimburse pharmacies under the standard NHS arrangements when centrally stocked products have been supplied free of charge to community pharmacies without the need to reimburse them. That will allow the respective Ministers to create limited additional exemptions to those that can already be created by the existing regulation-making powers introduced in 2017 for unlicensed medicines—more commonly known as “specials”. The additional exemptions are restricted to vaccinations and immunisations, medicinal products used for the prevention or treatment of disease in a pandemic, and associated products, such as diluents and syringes.
There are various reasons why we may seek to centrally procure vaccines or products used to treat a pandemic. When supplying products directly to pharmacies free of charge, we do not want to reimburse pharmacies as well as purchasing the stock itself. Currently, the Government would pay twice as the legislative framework makes provision for the reimbursement price paid to pharmacies to be set at zero only for specials and not for other products.
I am conscious that a considerable number of Members will want to speak either on the devolution aspect of this legislation, which was debated extensively in Committee and to which I will respond in my winding-up speech if I have time. I am also conscious that other right hon. and hon. Members have amendments to which they wish to speak at some length—well, hopefully not at some length, but clearly—to put their points across on important issues, because this group of amendments covers a wide variety of matters. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will pause now to allow maximum time for Back Benchers and others to speak and then try to pick up any points in my winding-up speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Fantastic. I am grateful to the Minister for his brevity; he can see how many people are trying to catch my eye.
Justin Madders
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] It has been a long day, Mr Deputy Speaker, but we will get there.
I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As the Minister said, this group of amendments covers a large range of important areas, so I will be brief.
New clause 27 flags up the issues around waiting times. Passing any amendment requiring a report is, of course, not a total solution, but it might be a source of focus. As Labour has said many times since 2010, winter pressures, waiting times and the flight into private healthcare to get earlier treatment have exacerbated the issues.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Many of my constituents find it increasingly difficult to book an appointment with an NHS GP or dentist, forcing them either to go private or to suffer without treatment. Does the shadow Minister agree that, after a decade of failure and misguided policies, the Government must take urgent remedial action? However, the term “waiting time”, to which he has just referred, is not mentioned once in the Bill.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right that one of the criticisms we have levelled against the Bill is that it does not address the issues and challenges facing the NHS. I will take no further interventions, because I am conscious that many Members have contributions to make.
I will move swiftly on to our two amendments dealing with inequality and to new clause 64 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). To show that this is an NHS and social care Bill, not just an NHS Bill, local authorities need to be more involved and more emphasis must be placed on wellbeing and better outcomes. We support the NHS triple aim—improving health, quality of care and cost control are, of course, important functions. Nevertheless, we live in a country where significant inequalities remain, and narrowing those gaps should be a national priority.
Research from the IPPR last month highlighted the 10-year gap in life expectancy between a person living in the poorest community and a person in the best off. That gap doubles when we talk about healthy life expectancy. Tackling that disparity must be a priority in the Bill. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in his first speech that said he wanted to tackle the “disease of disparity”, so why is that missing?
Turning to clause 39—one of my favourites—why it remains in the Bill is a mystery given that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who requested these powers, is no longer in the role. Perhaps he will give us his insight into that later on. It is the absolute antithesis of the Lansley view that politicians should be distanced from NHS operational issues and makes a mockery of the overall thrust of this Bill, which is about encouraging local decision making. It is no exaggeration to say that, taken literally, clause 39 and its accompanying schedule 6 require the Secretary of State to be told if there are, or even if there might be, proposals to vary service—even moving a clinic from one location to another nearby.
As has been pointed out by wise heads, the power is not one that many Secretaries of State should want to get involved in. A Secretary of State who used it could be accused of favouring certain areas or decisions for political purposes. The well-articulated fear is that it will be used to block necessary but unpopular changes and that expediency will rule. Such decisions should be left to the clinicians or maybe the health economists but not politicians. Labour opposes this new power and would gently say to the Minister, “Be careful what you wish for.”
Finally, the issues around discharge to assess are complex. As we worked our way through in Committee, we heard evidence from many stakeholders, and it is fair to say that views on the matter were polarised. We are led to believe, and have some confirmation, that this development is working well for some acute settings, helping ease the perennial and disruptive issues around delayed transfers of care, but in other places we hear voices calling for much greater caution and for tougher safeguards or even, as amendment 60 requests, to stop it altogether. While we have sympathy with amendment 60, it would only pose more problems for the NHS if it was passed, so we have opted in our amendment 73 just to tighten up on safeguards.
Of course the real solutions are far more complex and would require higher investment both in the NHS and in social care. It should be mandatory that all aspects of ongoing care have been properly discussed and agreed with the patient and carers prior to discharge. An assessment should include carers with special attention if a child carer is involved, and there is a concern that unpaid carers will not be identified and consulted at the point of discharge.
The system for step-down care outside acute hospitals must be adequate, and there must be sufficient high-quality and funded places in care settings of all kinds. We are literally a whole generation away from having that kind of system, even if the funding started to become available today. On a related point, new clause 63 from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) also deserves support.
I will leave my comments there, as I know many hon. Members want to speak.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 93 to 98, whose purpose is very simple.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 established parity of esteem between physical and mental health in their treatment in the national health service. The Bill is silent on the issue. I know that Ministers have given assurances, in a variety of ways, that it is not the Government’s intention to move away from that parity of esteem, but if that is the case, the answer is simple: accept the amendments. The Government do not even have to write them; they have been written for them. There would then be absolutely no doubt about the continued commitment to ensuring parity of esteem between physical and mental health.
Mental health was clearly in the long-term plan for the national health service that I was pleased to see introduced. It was there because of the need to accept, as Members across the House do, that for too long mental health has not been given the attention that it deserves. People who were suffering with mental health problems were not getting the services that they need.
It will take time to ensure that we can provide for all, but sadly the issue has been exacerbated by the pandemic. In March 2021, there were 26% more referrals for mental health services than in March 2019, before the pandemic. The Centre for Mental Health reckons that 10 million additional people will need mental health care as a result of the pandemic. I am particularly concerned about the impact on young people; I am sure that Members across the House are seeing young people in their constituencies whose mental health may have been suffering anyway, but has suffered even more as a result of the pandemic.
More people now require mental health services. The Government talk a lot about dealing with the backlog that is a result of the pandemic, but it is only ever spoken about with reference to surgery or operations. The great danger is that in their focus on dealing with that backlog, which we all accept is necessary, the Government will push the issue of mental health services to one side.
The amendments stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), in my name and in the names of Members across the House—there is cross-party concern. I say to the Minister once again: it is very simple. If the Government wish to maintain parity of esteem between physical and mental health and ensure that people with mental health problems are given the services and care that they need, they must put uncertainty to one side, accept the amendments and make it clear that physical and mental health will be treated with parity of esteem in our national health service.
Dr Whitford
I rise to speak to my amendment 82, which is on legislative consent if the Bill is used in the devolved aspects of healthcare in future. The bulk of healthcare—certainly its delivery through the Scottish NHS—is devolved. Having been on the Bill Committee, I was surprised that in the original version of the Bill there was not one mention in that context of the word “consultation”, let alone the word “consent”.
I do welcome amendments 118 and 121. I recognise that the Minister is trying to work constructively with the devolved Governments, but health is devolved. I am sorry, but after the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, because of how the funds to replace EU funding post Brexit are being used to cut the devolved Governments out of decision making, there is a real fear among the public in Scotland that their health services could be changed in future. I ask anyone who supports devolution in principle to support amendment 82.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to support new clauses 60 and 61, which relate, like the amendments that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) spoke about, to the UK-wide application of the Bill.
Health is rightly devolved, and as Secretary of State I worked very closely with Ministers in the three devolved nations, but there are nevertheless areas in which it is vital that the NHS, as a British institution, supports all our constituents right across this United Kingdom. Two areas in particular are critical and, in my view, need legislative attention.
The first area is the interoperability of data. As well as being vital for stronger research, it is necessary not least so that if you travelled to Caerphilly or Glasgow and were ill, Mr Deputy Speaker, the NHS could access your medical records to know how best to treat you. We can see right now, in the application of the NHS app for international travel, what happens without the data interoperability that new clause 61 would require.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in Wales, where we are protecting the private personal data of people receiving medicine and healthcare, that in England there will now be a gateway for the private sector to take people’s data and use it for its own reasons? That is one reason that we would not want to give the English our data.
Matt Hancock
On the contrary: data protection laws are UK-wide, so it is appropriate that this should be done UK-wide.
The second area is services. For instance, if a new treatment is available to Scottish patients in Edinburgh, which has one of the finest hospitals in the country, and if on rare occasions it is available to a Welsh person in Wales with a rare disease, should that person not be able to benefit from it? Likewise, if a treatment is available in one of the great London teaching hospitals and somebody from Stirling needs it, should they not be able to get it? At the moment, access to such specialist services is available on an ad hoc basis, but it is not broadly available. That is what new clause 60 seeks to address.
Dr Whitford
I simply point out that it is available; it is just that funding has to follow from the domestic health board to pay for it. I have sent patients to Leeds for MRI-guided biopsy, and patients used to come to Glasgow to have eye melanoma removed without losing their eye. That already exists.
Matt Hancock
It happens on an ad hoc basis, but it is not a right. The NHS is a great British institution, and access should apply right across the board.
Finally, in my last few seconds, may I simply say how strongly I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about amendments 93 to 98?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 73, which would introduce safeguards around the discharge-to-assess process.
The discharge-to-assess process may have been a necessary element of the NHS’s pandemic response, but it contains gaps in safeguarding that leave unpaid carers vulnerable to financial impact and risks to their health. Many unpaid carers have to begin caring overnight, when their relative or friend, who may be quite unwell, is discharged from hospital without a plan for their care at home. Without a carer’s assessment to check whether a person has the capability or capacity to take on such a commitment, weeks can pass before any plan is made, leaving carers and the people they care for struggling in a desperate situation.
The Government’s own impact assessment on discharge to assess states baldly:
“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this could require a reduction in workhours and associated financial costs.”
Organisations that support unpaid carers are outraged by that statement. The Government’s expectation that carers can just drop everything to take on a new caring burden is insulting, particularly given the extra caring burden that 3 million people have already taken on during the pandemic.
I recently queried that point with the Secretary of State at the Health and Social Care Committee. In response, the he wrote to the Committee to say that the Government do
“not expect unpaid carers to need to give up work or reduce their working hours to look after friends or family while their long-term health and care needs assessments are completed”.
When the impact assessment says one thing and the Secretary of State, after being questioned about it, says another, I have to question the understanding in the Department and among Ministers of the discharge-to-assess policy and its impact on the 13 million carers in the country.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that it would be helpful if the NHS had a duty, as I have attempted to capture in new clause 63, to identify carers, so that their health and wellbeing is taken into account when decisions are made about the people for whom they care? Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister responded to new clause 63 in winding up?
Barbara Keeley
I do indeed. The hon. Member may not know that, a few years ago, I introduced a Bill to try to persuade the Government to accept that the NHS should have a duty to identify carers. I have tried to introduce it on two more occasions since then, and I will send her a copy. I hope that the Minister will respond to what she has said.
Carers UK has reported high levels of fatigue and stress among unpaid carers, three quarters of whom feel exhausted and worn out because of' caring responsibilities during the pandemic. It would constitute a poor recognition of the sacrifice and dedication of those carers if discharge to assess was left without adequate safeguarding measures for them. Although discharge guidance already states that unpaid carers must be involved in discharge planning decisions when a patient has new or additional care needs, more than one in four are not consulted prior to discharge, and 60% say that at the point of discharge they received insufficient support to protect the health and wellbeing of the patient, or their own health.
Amendment 73 would protect carers from being left waiting an indefinite amount of time for care plans it would ensure that integrated care boards held responsibility for monitoring and reporting on any failures. I support its inclusion in the Bill, and, like the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), I hope that the Minister will respond to these points when he sums up the debate.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank Mr Speaker for selecting my new clause 19. I also thank all those who have kindly supported it.
It remains an inconvenient truth that although our cancer survival rates are improving, we continue to lag behind international comparators. The primary reason for this is that the NHS does not diagnose cancers early enough. New clause 19 seeks to put that right by placing improved outcomes—that is, survival rates—at the heart of the NHS.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I strongly support the new clause. Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that there can be delays in obtaining GP appointments in the first place, and someone who feels that they may be suffering from some form of cancer often loses several days—if not, on some sad occasions, weeks— before they get into the NHS system for treatment?
Mr Baron
I tend to agree, and that is in part what the new clause is intended to address.
I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on cancer for nine years. We were painfully aware that the Government had once estimated that if the country matched the best survival rates in Europe, 10,000 lives a year would be saved. In 2013, the OECD confirmed that that our survival rates ranked near the bottom when compared to those of other major economies. As we have improved our rates, so have other countries, and we are not closing the gap. A more fundamental change is required.
Back in 2009, when I first became its chairman, the APPG conducted a major inquiry which showed that the main reason our survival rates lagged behind others was not that the NHS was any worse than other healthcare systems at treating cancer once it was detected, but that it was not as good at catching cancers in the crucial early stages. In other words, late diagnosis lay behind our comparatively poor survival rates. The APPG had some success in getting the one-year survival rates—rates of survival one year after diagnosis—into the NHS DNA.
A key advantage of focusing on this kind of “outcome measure” is that it gives healthcare professionals much greater freedom and flexibility to design their own solutions, which could include running wider screening programmes and better awareness campaigns, and establishing greater diagnostic capabilities at primary care. A further advantage of focusing on outcome measures is that it will better align NHS priorities with patient needs. Survival rates are what really matter to patients. However, clinical commissioning groups are too often focused on “process targets”—the 62-day wait for treatment being an example—because they are often linked to funding. The one-year survival rate measure was not.
Research produced by the House of Commons Library found that nine such process targets were applicable to cancer alone, such as the 62-day wait. Process targets have a role to play in improving the NHS, but all too often they are a blunt tool offering information without context, and they can be exclusive, especially when funding flows are attached. Also, I consider it unacceptable that, in the case of certain cancers at least, patients should have to wait for 62 days—two months, in effect—for treatment. That is simply not right. Furthermore, process targets can easily become a political football between the two Front Benches, and only short-term points are scored. All sides are guilty of this, but it rarely helps patients.
In addition, process targets are not the best way of helping those with rarer cancers, with often fall between the cracks because data on those cancer types have not been routinely collected. That is a real problem. If we want to drive up survival rates, we cannot exclude rarer cancers, if only because they account for more than half all cancer cases.
Given the advantages of outcome measures such as one-year survival rates, I have tabled my simple amendment, new clause 19. Its aim is to ensure that NHS England puts outcome measures above process targets.
Mr Baron
I will not. I do apologise, but time is short.
New clause has been endorsed by the founding chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Professor Sir Alex Markham, who has commented that
“comparable health services abroad continue to outperform the NHS in terms of cancer survival. They all remain focused on cancer outcomes and the UK would be foolish not to do likewise.”
The new clause has also been endorsed by others, including the Teenage Cancer Trust. I assure those who are concerned that it will not detract from process targets; quite the opposite because, by implication, improved outcomes can only be facilitated by improved processes and inputs.
I urge the Minister to adopt the new clause. He will then have more time to assess its impact, and perhaps, following consultation, suggest amendments—if necessary —in the other place. I am confident that sufficient cross-party support could be achieved if acceptable nuances were required. If that is not possible, I intend to press the new clause to a vote, but I sincerely hope that I—we—can work with the Government and other parties to drive up survival rates in the NHS across the United Kingdom.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must ask for brief contributions from now on. I call Margaret Greenwood.
Margaret Greenwood
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The proposed NHS payment scheme in the Bill will, in effect, give private healthcare companies the opportunity to undercut NHS providers, and I believe we will then see healthcare that should be provided by the NHS increasingly being delivered by the private sector, with money going into the pockets of shareholders rather than being spent on patient care. If that happens, NHS staff may well find themselves forced out of jobs that currently provide Agenda for Change rates of pay, NHS pensions and other terms and conditions, and find that only private sector jobs with potentially lesser pay and conditions are available for them to apply for if they wish to continue working in the health service.
My amendments 54, 55 and 56, which are supported by the Royal College of Nursing, are intended to ensure that the pay rates of Agenda for Change, pensions, and other terms and conditions of all eligible NHS staff are not undermined as a result of the adoption of the NHS payment scheme, and that all relevant trade unions and other organisations representing staff who work in the health and care sectors are consulted by NHS England on the likely impact of the proposed scheme.
On hospital discharge, I have tabled amendment 60, which would remove clause 80 from the Bill. The hospital discharge proposals pose risks to patients and staff. In its written evidence given to the Bill Committee, the RCS said:
“In the context of current high vacancy rates across district and community nursing, and poor understanding of workforce shortages across the health service, public health and social care, along with chronic underfunding due to failure of the current service payment model to recognise community nursing, this legislation should not seek to demand a service delivery approach which transfers such disproportionate risk to nursing staff and patients.”
As of May this year, 4 million patients had been discharged since 2020 under discharge to assess and the temporary measures of the Coronavirus Act 2020. I asked the Government how many of those patients had been readmitted within 30 days but they told me that they did not hold the data. In effect, they did not know; they do not have that information. Back in June of this year, the Government told me that the national health service had commissioned an independent evaluation of the implementation of hospital discharge policy, and that the evaluation was under way. It was due to report in autumn 2021—that is, now. Yet the NHS told me last week that the report containing the evaluation had not yet been finalised. It is therefore a matter of extreme concern that the Government are pushing ahead with a policy that is risky to both patients and staff without properly understanding its clinical outcomes, and that they know they are doing so. I ask the Minister to withdraw clause 80 from the Bill.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I would like to speak to new clause 31 in my name, which would reduce the upper gestational limit for abortion in most cases to 22 weeks gestation. This time limit amendment would replace the current 24-week time limit for abortions on the ground where there is a greater risk of injury to the physical or mental health of a pregnant woman or any of her children of proceeding with the pregnancy, under section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967. The current 24-week limit law is based on an outdated understanding of the viability of premature babies, and it needs to be updated.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Is it not absurd that in one ward of a hospital doctors can be fighting to save the life of a 22-week gestation baby while arguably, under the law, a 24-week baby can be aborted? That is ridiculous, and whatever anyone’s views on abortion, this is now the time to review this law, which is based on outdated technology and medical practices.
Fiona Bruce
My right hon. Friend makes exactly the right point.
Our law needs to be updated. The current 24-week limit was set over 30 years ago, in 1990. That legislation removed the previous time limit of 28 weeks. In 1990, 24 weeks was considered the point of viability outside the womb, but the scientific advances in those 31 years have been enormous. The latest guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine establishes 22 weeks gestation to be the point of viability and enables doctors to intervene to save premature babies from 22 weeks. A study from a neonatal intensive care unit in London found that survival rates for babies born at 22 and 23 weeks gestation went from zero in the period from 1981 to 1985 to 19% in the period from 1986 to 1990, and then up to 54% in the years from 1996 to 2000. We would no doubt find that the figures had increased substantially since then, were those figures available. Just in the past few weeks, we have seen the incredible story from the American state of Alabama of the birth of a baby boy at just 21 weeks old. Weighing just 14.8 ounces, Curtis Means needs oxygen support and a feeding tube, but he is in good health. New clause 31 is a probing amendment, so I will not be pressing it to a vote on this occasion. However, I would welcome the Minister’s views and I look forward to a greater debate on this issue.
I also want to take a few moments to give my support to new clause 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), which would clarify that abortion on the ground of the sex of the foetus is illegal. This relates to the truly awful exploitative practice whereby women can be pressurised into abortions based on the sex of their unborn child. I also support new clause 52, also in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann, which seeks to bring parity to the law in equalising time limits on abortions that take place on the ground of disability, so that they would be equal to the limits on most other abortions. The current law permits abortions up to birth if the baby is deemed likely to be born seriously handicapped. This is interpreted to include entirely non-fatal disabilities such as Down’s syndrome and easily surgically rectifiable conditions such as cleft palate and club foot. One of my sons was born with club foot, and I know how rectifiable it is. The law is plainly inconsistent with the disability discrimination legislation that applies after birth, and it sends a dreadful message to people who are living and thriving with disabilities about how little their lives are valued under abortion law. Again, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to try to get as many people in as possible, I am going to put on a three-minute time limit.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Forced organ harvesting in China is one of the worst crimes against humanity of the 21st century. That is why I wish to speak to new clauses 24 and 25 in my name. It is a crime that no British citizens should be taking part in, and a crime that humanity has a duty to stop. New clause 24 aims to put a dent in the forced organ harvesting trade. It would prohibit UK citizens from receiving a transplant abroad without the clear consent of the donor. The forced organ trade is a big money business. The organs of a young healthy adult are worth in the region of half to three quarters of a million US dollars. That is money that people would, and do, kill for.
China started with political prisoners, with the religious Falun Gong group being the main source. Now it has moved on to Uyghur Muslims, some Christians and other minority groups. Evidence was heard at the China and Uyghur tribunals that mass DNA testing is taking place in the internment camps in Xinjiang, enough to compile a Uyghur organ database and bank ready for withdrawals on demand. The world might believe that China had an ethnical organ donation system based on the World Health Organisation’s assessment, yet that assessment from the WHO is based on a country’s self-assessment—in this case by the Chinese Communist party. It is a barbaric practice, and every democracy in the world should be looking at what it can do to stop it.
I am grateful to Members from every party across this House for supporting my new clause. It will not stop the trade, but it will show that we in Britain are doing our part and helping to influence other countries to do the same. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for raising these new clauses in Committee. The Minister sympathised, but expressed certain concerns. He was worried that countries could have a deemed consent system in which everyone was automatically a donor. Deemed consent is acceptable only if people can opt out. Under a new provision, the Secretary of State will assess the deemed consent of each country. The Minister was also concerned that the recipient of an organ could face criminal consequences. It is the duty of a Government to ensure that people are aware of what is a crime, and supporting or funding a crime against humanity must be illegal.
New clause 25 would make imported cadavers require the same consent as bodies sourced from within the UK. The Minister claimed that a revised code of practice covered this, but a code of practice is not law. Surely the sanctity and dignity of the human body demand the power of legislation. I call on the House and this Government to step up and do their part to stop this crime against humanity.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 60 and 61 in my name. Simply, they would put patients first. I am thankful to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for his comments on new clause 60, but as I do not seek to press it to a Division, I will mention no more of it now.
On new clause 61, let me simply say this: good data is needed for good services. Good data allows professionals and planners to assign resources and guide interventions where they are needed most. Good data allows patients to make informed decisions about where to be treated, or where to live. Good data allows politicians to be held to account when services fail. Therefore, new clause 61, at its simplest, is about collecting and comparing data. It would standardise the publication of a set of UK-wide NHS data and ensure the interoperability of that data.
In Wales, unfortunately, Welsh reporting standards mean that waiting list statistics are not available for most procedures. Before the pandemic, it took a journalistic investigation in north Wales to highlight that patients were waiting for more than two years for hip operations. Constituents now report that they are being told that they face a two-year wait just for a first out-patient clinical appointment. That is distressing and disappointing, and it is simply because data is not available.
We must ask the question, if for want of a nail, the shoe was lost, what are we losing for the want of good data? If the Government are to bring digital transformation into the heart of the NHS, the Minister must know that that heart can only be animated when good data courses through its veins.
In the months I have worked with colleagues on new clause 61, we have heard overwhelming support from patients—they agree. Healthcare professionals, IT experts and administrators have told us that they agree. In fact, I do not believe that the clause would divide the House, in compassion or common sense. I accept, however, that there is a challenge in delivering it and I know that the Government are exploring ways to address that.
I note the Minister’s comments at the start of the debate about close working with the devolved Administrations, and I welcome that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I do not question that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is well intentioned. Does he believe that the standardisation would happen in conjunction with the four Governments working together or, in his view, would the process be driven solely from Westminster?
Robin Millar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which is a good and relevant one, and it speaks directly to the heart of what the Minister said in his opening comments. There is good collaboration and an emerging consensus on this, so I am optimistic that that will be the case. In fact, my concluding remark is to say that I will not press new clause 61 to a Division, but I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response.
Emma Hardy
I will be brief, speaking to new clause 32 in my name. It is an amendment based on the proposed Charlie’s law. I thank my dear friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who has been working on the issue with the Charlie Gard Foundation and the tireless campaigning of Charlie’s parents.
I will be as brief as I can be. In short, my new clause seeks to do five things: first, to require the Secretary of State to put in place measures to improve early access to mediation services in hospitals where conflict is in prospect; secondly, to provide for access to appropriate clinical ethics committees, so that both doctors and parents are supported in making difficult decisions by impartial ethical experts; thirdly, to provide the means necessary to obtain second medical opinions swiftly and to ensure that, when requested, parents receive access to their child’s full medical data, so that the second opinions are fully informed; fourthly, to provide access to legal aid to ensure that families are not forced to employ costly legal representation or to rely on outside interest groups to fund representation in court; and, finally, to create a new legal test of whether an alternative credible medical treatment would cause a child a disproportionate risk or significant harm in deciding whether a parent is able to seek that treatment for their child.
In essence, the provisions set out in the new clause would mitigate conflicts at the earliest stage, ensure that the voices and opinions of parents are listened to, save hundreds and thousands of pounds for parents, doctors and the NHS in protracted legal battles, and ensure that a critically ill child is given the best care and support available at a crucial time in that child’s life. No parent wants to spend time in court or in battle against the NHS when their child is critically ill. There must be a better way to resolve conflict. I hope that the Minister looks seriously at my new clause 32 and at ways to incorporate it into future legislation.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I speak to new clause 50, tabled in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
We badly need a wake-up call, because at the moment we are allowing the criminal law as currently drafted to drive a fundamental wedge between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, treating women in Northern Ireland in a completely different way from women in England and Wales when it comes to abortion. Two years ago, the Government changed the law governing abortion in Northern Ireland after a vote in this place, removing criminal sanctions on abortions in Northern Ireland, while leaving women in England and indeed Wales facing the possibility of the harshest criminal sanctions for abortion in the world, under laws passed more than 50 years before any women was even able to vote for the people representing them in this place.
New clause 50 would change that. It would decriminalise abortion and ensure that women in England and Wales are treated in the same way as women in Northern Ireland when it comes to abortion. Our values and our rights are what unite our four nations. To treat women differently in those nations weakens those ties. That needs to be rectified. The new clause does just that, and it would change nothing about abortion services, access to abortion or the time limits on abortion.
The women most likely to be affected and governed by the criminal law are some of the most vulnerable in our society: victims of domestic abuse, of honour-based violence and of rape, and those who are too poor or marginalised to travel to a clinic to seek help. If a desperate woman attempts to end her pregnancy, do we really want her to not seek medical help for fear of arrest and prosecution? New clause 50 simply removes women from being subject to the criminal law for seeking an abortion, and it is fully supported by the medical experts, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Yesterday, regrettably, the Minister did not respond to my exhortations on self-care in his summing up, although to be fair it did not take Sherlock Holmes to work out that he had his mind occupied with more contentious issues. New clause 13 gives him the opportunity to formalise the role of self-care by introducing a national self-care strategy that is more than just a footnote or passing reference in the NHS plan. The new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care publishes a national care strategy, to integrate self-care for minor ailments into the national health system. Surveys by the Proprietary Association of Great Britain have shown that people have been more amenable to seeking health advice that is outwith the GP practice, the walk-in centre or accident and emergency. Why not build upon that behavioural change? As shown during the pandemic, self-care is a crucial element of our healthcare system and it reduces the strain on GPs and A&E, so that those with more serious conditions can be treated with greater efficiency.
As the NHS seeks to recover from the most recent waves of the pandemic, there will be a unique opportunity to integrate self-care behaviours into the NHS and people’s lives. So by developing and implementing a national care strategy, the Government can ensure that a vision for self-care is realised whereby individuals understand and are willing to practise self-care, knowing how to take care of themselves and where to go when they are feeling unwell. The system will also be supportive of self-care, with pharmacy being much more embedded into the primary care pathway. What is there not to like in this new clause?
Finally, may I mention new clause 18, on the Secretary of State’s duty to report on access to NHS dentistry and to which I am a signatory. Dentistry is a vital component in people’s health. It is not just about teeth; it is about overall health. It can be the first port of call for many people whose symptoms may appear to be related to their teeth but may in fact be symptomatic of another disease, such as oral cancer. So let us make sure that dentistry gets the recognition it deserve—
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Dowd
I am afraid that I do not have time. Let the Secretary of State report on access to NHS dentistry and give it a seat at the table on integrated care boards and partnerships, along with other health professionals. In conclusion, these proposals are about a comprehensive national care strategy that will help both patients and the NHS, and giving dentistry the attention that it deserves. Those are the areas we need to focus our attention on. They need a bit of tender loving care.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I will be exceptionally brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak on amendments 103 to 105. It seems clear to me that when a House has made a decision to impose statutory obligations on local authorities and other local bodies, we need to ensure that they are effectively consulted, in order to bring their expertise and local insight to bear in improving the quality of services that are offered to our patients. I hope that Ministers will be taking that on board in their response tonight.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I wish to speak to new clauses 51 and 52, both of which stand in my name. New clause 51 relates to the practice of abortion based on sex selection, and it seeks to clarify that abortion on the grounds of the sex of the foetus alone is illegal. Hon. Members from across the House would doubtless agree that aborting a baby on the basis of their sex is immoral, yet the status of this in law remains unclear.
Unfortunately, there is growing evidence that this horrible practice is taking place in Great Britain today. A 2018 BBC investigation found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being used on a widespread basis to determine babies’ sex early in pregnancy. We know that women are being coerced into having abortions based on sex selection. This was confirmed by a 2015 report from the Department of Health that detailed the awful testimonies of women who had been forced into a sex-selective abortion. The problem has been made much worse by the use of abortions pills to be taken at home. Abusive partners who do not want a particular sex of child—usually a girl—can more easily force their partner into having an abortion via telemedicine. The new clause seeks clarification that this practice is illegal, so provides an opportunity for the Government to do more to help women who are pressured into having an abortion on the basis of sex.
I wish briefly to touch on new clause 52—also tabled in my name—which would introduce an upper gestational limit on abortion on the grounds of disability that is equal to the upper limit on most other abortions. It would correct the current deeply discriminatory situation that permits abortion up to birth if
“there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”
That has been interpreted as permitting abortions up to birth following the diagnosis of either a cleft lip, a cleft palate or a club foot. This is inconsistent with disability discrimination legislation, because it allows for abortion on the grounds of disability more widely than most abortions are allowed.
Jim Shannon
Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that a large number of people throughout the whole United Kingdom object to this? We have had hundreds and hundreds of emails from my constituents about this issue. I commend my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and totally oppose new clause 50—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. That intervention is quite long enough.
Carla Lockhart
I will not push either of my new clauses to a vote. However, legal clarification on sex-selective abortion is urgently needed for the sake of women and the missing girls who are the victims of this abhorrent practice.
I commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). As evidence changes, so should the law, and 22 weeks’ gestation is the point of foetal viability. At heart, this is a debate about human rights, and the most basic human right is the right to life.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I support new clause 19, which I signed, and will wait to see what the Minister says about it.
I want to take issue with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who turned around and said to Ministers, “Be careful what you wish for.” Our constituents send us here to represent how their taxation is spent in the NHS. When trusts are refusing to build new hospitals in our constituencies when they have the money to do so, and they want to refurbish hospitals and ignore public opinion and their local MPs, that is where the system goes wrong. I am not saying we should go all the way back to the old system, but there should be accountability in trusts when they do not do what our constituents would expect from them. My constituents would expect me to stand up and say this, because we want a new hospital on a greenfield site to look after the people of west Hertfordshire and our trust is refusing. If the shadow Minister ever becomes a Minister, I hope he has those powers.
Edward Argar
This group of amendments has clearly been popular and it is a shame that more right hon. and hon. Members did not get to speak. My remarks will be relatively brief.
On the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), those are deeply emotive and important issues. I entirely respect the strength and sincerity of genuinely held feelings on both sides of the debate. It is important that such matters are aired in the House, but they quite rightly remain a matter of conscience for individual Members, so I shall say no more than that it is important that everyone recognises the genuine views on both sides of the debate.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for tabling his new clause 19 and am happy to say that the Government are content to accept it. I know that my hon. Friend’s first concern is the quality of cancer services in this country and the welfare of the patients that they serve. I am pleased that he is keen for us, in accepting the new clause, to explore ahead of the Lords stages of the Bill whether it may give rise to any unintended consequences, with a view to supporting any changes that might need to be made. I look forward to working with him on that in the coming weeks before the Lords stages.
Mr Baron
I thank the Minister and the Government for listening and for accepting the new clause in its entirety. It is a progressive step. I and the whole group behind the new clause look forward to working with him. If nuanced changes were required, then, by all means, we would consider them.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
Let me turn briefly to amendments 93 to 98 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I can reassure all right hon. and hon. Members that the Government remain committed to supporting everyone’s mental health and wellbeing. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that she did in advancing this agenda when she was Prime Minister.
Secondly, let me clarify that the current references in the Bill to illness and health cover mental and physical health and, therefore, the view taken was that it was not necessary to make that explicit.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Edward Argar
I fear that I do not have time to cover the other amendments in the four minutes that I have left.
Although I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will continue to press this matter, may I offer them a meeting with me and the Mental Health Minister to discuss further what they are proposing in advance of the Lords stages? I cannot make any promises or say anything beyond that, but I will meet them to further discuss the sentiments that sit behind their amendments.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar), who made his points powerfully and eloquently, as he always does. As a Government of the whole United Kingdom, we have a duty of care to all citizens in the UK, which is why I welcome the clauses already in this legislation that will bring benefit to residents across the UK.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend has made his point. He has made it to me before. I will not forget either him or unavoidably small hospitals, particularly in the Isle of Wight.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, we do recognise the importance of making sure that health and care data can be shared safely and effectively across the UK to support individual care and improve outcomes for people across the UK.
Edward Argar
I am afraid that I cannot give way, because I literally have two minutes. Forgive me, but if my hon. Friend catches me afterwards, I will happily speak to him.
We are already committed to working with officials across the devolved Administrations, noting the devolved nature of health and care policy, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy is right and makes a very powerful case for data interoperability and clear data standards. I am happy to speak with him further on this issue if he feels that that would be helpful.
I ask the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) to forgive me for yesterday. I heard what he said about self-care and I will continue to look carefully at that. I did not ignore him.
I fear that, in the time that we have, there is little more that I can say.
Peter Aldous
The No. 1 issue in my inbox is access to NHS dentistry. New clause 18 provides a framework for addressing that. May I urge the Minister and the Government to consider accepting it?
Edward Argar
While we cannot accept that new clause as drafted today, I or the Minister for Dentistry will meet my hon. Friend, if that is helpful, to discuss in more detail the concerns sitting behind his intervention.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 62 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
For years, colleagues in health and social care have worked hard and as one to deliver for the benefit of their patients, but their ambition has not always been matched by the structures they have had to work with. This Bill provides the framework in legislation to help them to achieve just that.
We are not only recovering from the pandemic but learning from it, and the principles that underpin the Bill—embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy, boosting accountability—have never been more important. I am hugely encouraged by the support that the Bill has received from so many quarters, from the NHS Confederation to the King’s Fund, the Health Committee and even those on the Opposition Front Bench.
Sajid Javid
Talking of the Opposition, I give way to the hon. Lady.
Margaret Greenwood
Will the Secretary of State comment on the discharge-to-assess proposals? I am concerned, because his Department told me that a report about how the process goes was meant to be published in autumn. His Department told me back in May that 4 million people have been discharged under discharge to assess—that is, having their care needs assessed after they have left hospital rather than before—but the same Department did not know what the clinical outcomes were and it did not know how many people had been readmitted to hospital within 30 days. I would have thought that it was essential that MPs were provided with that information and with a full outline of the clinical outcomes of that policy. Will he comment on that and tell us what he can do about it, so that we really understand what is happening?
Sajid Javid
I listened carefully to the hon. Lady and I will look into the specifics of what she said, but it is clear—I hope she agrees—that if people are clinically ready to be discharged, it is better that they are discharged rather than staying in hospital a moment longer.
I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has helped us to shape this important legislation, including hon. Members across the House and colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, whose engagement will help us ensure that the Bill delivers for the four nations of the United Kingdom. I also thank members of the Public Bill Committee for their constructive scrutiny. The Bill is a lot better for it.
Let me draw the House’s attention to some of the changes that we have considered since Second Reading.
Jim Shannon
The Secretary of State referred to how the Bill delivers for the four regions of the United Kingdom. I just put it on the record that 60% of people in Northern Ireland are opposed to abortion on demand, so when it comes to representing the views of those in Northern Ireland—elected representatives and the local people—I am afraid that Westminster and the House do not relate to the people of Northern Ireland on abortion.
Sajid Javid
I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that there are strong feelings on the issue of abortion across the House, on all sides of that issue. If legislation does ever come to the House, it is important that it is always a matter of conscience, and that is how MPs are expected to receive such legislation.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when carrying through this rather extensive national health service reorganisation, value for money and keeping the costs of reorganisation down will be at the forefront of his mind?
Sajid Javid
Yes, absolutely, I can confirm that. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the importance of that. The NHS will be spending the best part of £150 billion a year, and it is vital that the best value is achieved with every penny that is spent.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team for taking into account my concerns about parity of esteem between mental health and physical health? Although I was unsuccessful in amending the Bill at this stage, I thank him for being willing to look at that, or to have colleagues look at it in the other place. I really do appreciate that level of engagement.
Sajid Javid
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the commitment that we will look at that. I think everyone in the House agrees that the principle is vital, and I am sure it is supported across the House.
Let me briefly highlight the changes that we have made. First, we have heard the desire of the House to rate and strengthen the safety and performance of the integrated care systems. Working with members of the Health Committee, we have introduced an amendment that gives the Care Quality Commission a role in reviewing ICSs.
Secondly, we have heard concerns about the independence of integrated care boards. While it has never been our intention that anyone with significant involvement or interests in private healthcare should be on an ICB, following a productive meeting with the hon. Members for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) we tabled an amendment that ensures we write that principle into the constitution of ICBs.
Thirdly, we heard concerns from hon. Members about the potential impact of our proposed restrictions on advertising less healthy food and drink. We must, of course, do that in a pragmatic way, so we have introduced amendments to ensure we do not unintentionally impact UK businesses when they advertise to overseas audiences. Further, we will consult with stakeholders on any further changes to the nutrient profiling model.
Fourthly, and very importantly, the Bill now reflects our commitment to end the crisis in social care and the lottery of how we all pay for it. It is not right and not fair that the heaviest burdens often fall on those who are least able to bear it, so we are introducing a cap on the costs of care so that no one will have to pay more than £86,000 over their lifetime. That cap that will be there for everyone, regardless of any conditions they have, how old they are, how much they earn, or where they live. We will introduce a far more generous testing system, so that everyone will be better off under the new system.
We move a Health and Care Bill that is stronger than before, with those three underpinning principles reinforced: embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy and boosting accountability. On integration, it is not about simply telling the NHS, local authorities and others to work together; it is about helping them to do it by doing things like merging NHS England and NHS Improvement into a single statutory body and establishing integrated care boards to deliver as one.
Dr Poulter
I declare an interest as a practising NHS doctor. On integration, my slight disappointment with the Bill is that while it pulls people together in joined-up commissioning boards, there is no commitment to put the money into the same place. If we want to drive joined-up commissioning, we need to put the money into the same place. Will the Secretary of State consider that and how true integration can be achieved as the Bill goes to the House of Lords?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and he speaks with deep experience. What I can tell him is that we will shortly be publishing an integration White Paper, which, given what he has just said, I am sure he will welcome.
Dr Murrison
I declare an interest similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). Does the Secretary of State agree that there is an opportunity with integrated care boards and panels to ensure the end of the awful spectacle of people at end of life and frail elderly people coming towards the end of their days being expected to live out those days in an acute hospital ward, when they should be looked after in more homely settings in the community? That has gone on for too long and consecutive pieces of legislation have failed to address it. We have an opportunity here, probably with the help of the other place, to sculpt the measure we are considering today to ensure that stops. It must stop now, so that our frail elderly can have a future that does not involve an end as grisly and as sad as so many are forced to endure.
Sajid Javid
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who also speaks with deep experience. I very much agree with what he has just shared with the House.
On bureaucracy, we are removing the rules and regulations that make sensible decision making harder. On accountability, our healthcare must be accountable to democratically elected Members of this House. We spend well over £140 billion pounds of taxpayers’ money on our healthcare system, so it is right that there is more accountability to this place.
In closing, the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic have only deepened our affection for everyone working in health and care. They have been the very best of us. It is on us in this place, and on everyone who can make a difference, to give them the best possible foundation to work together to meet the challenges of the future. The Bill does that and a lot, lot more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I should say that I will probably introduce a three-minute time limit after the shadow Secretary of State and that I am unlikely to call anybody who intervened on the Secretary of State during his opening speech.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by thanking all those who served on the Bill team and the Clerks, the Library and all the staff of the House who supported them. I also thank the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) who chaired the Committee deftly. I put on the record Labour’s thanks to the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—my constituency neighbour in Leicestershire—who both in Committee and over the past two days in the House has been courteous and patient in responding to the various amendments and in how he conducted himself across the Dispatch Box. We are grateful for that.
Equally, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for working so hard on this Bill and making the case for our amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston had his birthday yesterday—there is no greater place to celebrate one’s birthday than at the Dispatch Box—and I am told that he may well be putting in an appearance at the Strangers’ Bar after tonight’s vote. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House may want to join him in his celebrations.
Of course, Labour welcomed parts of this Bill. It did indeed scrape some of the worst remaining vestiges of the Lansley reorganisation off the boots of the NHS. The compulsory competitive tendering of contracts, which we warned against nearly 10 years ago, are finally put in the dustbin. Of course, it was this Secretary of State, as an enthusiastic and loyal Back Bencher, who spoke in those debates supporting that reorganisation, but we welcome the ending of section 75.
We also welcome some of the provisions around public health, particularly those on childhood obesity and advertising, but we wish the Bill had gone further on smoking cessation and alcohol. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know it is not the convention to praise Members on Third Reading as one does on Second Reading, but I praise the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford)—the constituency in which I grew up and went to school—who spoke with great eloquence, emotion and very personally about the impact of alcohol addiction on his family. It has also had an impact on my own family, as some hon. Members know. Although the Secretary of State did not accept either the hon. Gentleman’s amendments or ours, perhaps he will be prepared to meet us on a cross-party basis to discuss how we can take that agenda forward.
In saying all that, however, we are not minded to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight. We remain unconvinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister for Health in the past 48 hours. We still believe that this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said in his intervention on the Secretary of State, this is an extensive reorganisation of the national health service at a time when we are still in a pandemic and when NHS staff are exhausted and facing burnout. We should be prioritising the monumental waiting lists, the huge referrals for mental health treatment, the crisis in A&E, and the huge pressures on ambulance services and general practice. This Bill is not only a distraction, but it contains provisions that Labour thinks are deeply damaging.
Yesterday, the House focused on the care cap amendment. It represents a change to existing policy and differs from the position outlined in the “Build Back Better” document, under which the House was asked to endorse a national insurance rise. The change means that those with wealthier estates and more expensive houses will see a greater proportion of their assets protected. Somebody with a £1 million house will have 90% of that asset protected, but somebody with an £80,000 house in Barrow, Mansfield or Hartlepool will lose nearly everything. That cannot be fair.
The Secretary of State, who was working the phones yesterday, may have won the battle, but I dare say that there are further skirmishes ahead. I suspect that Members in the other place—certainly those on the Labour Benches —will return to the matter, and I hope that they send the Bill back to us so that we can look at it again.
There are other provisions in the Bill with which we are uncomfortable. We are not convinced about the prohibitions on the private sector’s role in sitting on integrated care boards; we do not think that the Government’s amendment is strong enough. We will return to that point at a future opportunity.
Although the Bill gets rid of the Lansley competitive tendering requirements, it still allows the Secretary of State to hand contracts out to the private sector without proper scrutiny. We have seen a £10 billion contract going to the private sector to use 8,000 beds. That money would have been better spent on elective treatment in the national health service.
In conclusion, the Opposition cannot support the Bill, so we will divide the House tonight. On the care issue, I know that the Secretary of State thinks that he got his policy through the House yesterday and that it is all over, but I am afraid that it most certainly is not.
Matt Hancock
I welcome the passage of the Bill and congratulate all those who have been involved in bringing it to this place and getting it to Third Reading: the Secretary of State; the Minister, who has worked on it for an awfully long time; and the official Bill team, who were the best team I ever worked with in government. I am not saying that just because they are sitting in the Box.
The Bill gives the NHS what it needs. Critically, it learns the lessons of the pandemic and embeds them in legislation by removing bureaucracy and silos. I can see that the Secretary of State is already acting on that to merge parts of the NHS so that they can work better together.
I want to make a specific point in response to a comment from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), about accountability. Although the Bill rightly devolves decision making and discretion more locally to the new integrated care boards and panels, it also gives Ministers the right to make sure that the NHS is accountable to them; it removes the so-called independence. That is right, and it is surprising not to see Labour Members supporting it, because it was in the Labour party’s manifesto as well as the Conservative party’s.
When £150 billion of taxpayers’ money is at stake, imposing apparent independence is not just impractical, but wrong. The NHS should be accountable to Ministers so that they can be accountable to the House, which is accountable to taxpayers through the ballot box. That is right constitutionally, morally and practically, which is why it was in both major parties’ manifestos. It is how the NHS operates anyway in practice, but the Bill will remove some of the unnecessary friction in the senior relationships that resulted from the attempt at independence.
Of course clinical voices should always be listened to, but as we saw during the pandemic, we can listen to clinical voices and then make a decision that is held to account on a democratic basis. The Bill will therefore strengthen not just the running of the NHS, but how we constitutionally govern the huge amount of taxpayers’ money that is spent on it. For that reason alone, it is worth supporting the Bill.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to you for giving me time to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to speak on new clause 18 on Report, but that was not possible.
Access to NHS dentistry is a problem that has been brewing for a long time and has been exacerbated by covid. There are now parts of the country, particularly in rural and coastal areas, that have dental deserts. It is invariably children from poorer backgrounds and vulnerable adults who suffer the most. The crisis is acute in Suffolk and Norfolk, but is not confined to East Anglia. Sir Robert Francis, who chairs Healthwatch England, commented:
“Every part of the country is facing a dental care crisis, with NHS dentistry at risk of vanishing into the void.”
There are five issues that need to be tackled to address the problem. The Bill can provide the framework to ensure that that happens without delay or prevarication. First, funding must be increased. Secondly, it is vital for the new NHS dental contract, which has been being developed for more than a decade, to be rolled out next April. There are rumours that it will be kicked into the long grass, and I should be grateful for confirmation that that will not happen. Thirdly, we need to step up the recruitment and retention of dental professionals. Fourthly, it is important to highlight the role that water fluoridation can play in improving the oral health of future generations, and in that context clauses 132 and 133 are to be welcomed. Finally, there is a need for greater accountability, and for dentistry to have a voice on integrated care boards and partnerships.
People are currently pulling out their own teeth, while children are having whole-mouth replacements and early signs of cancer are going undetected. We need to act now to put in place an NHS dentistry system that is fit for the 21st century, instead of reversing into the 19th. My hon. Friend the Minister has advised that the Government will not accept new clause 18, and I should therefore be grateful if, without delay, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could ensure that his Department comes up with a clear plan for addressing a crisis that is affecting people throughout the country.
Bob Seely
Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for that superb speech. We have a huge problem with NHS dentistry on the Isle of Wight, and also with independent pharmacies. I have written to the Health Minister about that several times, and there is an ongoing conversation, for which I thank him very much.
In the short time that I have, I want to speak about fairness and equality. The Secretary of State spoke eloquently—as he always does—about equality between the four nations. I want to see equality between isolated and non-isolated communities as well, specifically in relation to unavoidably small hospitals. There are about a dozen in England and Wales, and for obvious reasons they tend to be in isolated areas. The most isolated of those hospitals is St Mary’s on the Isle of Wight, which has a 100% isolation factor because it is separated from everywhere else by sea. Such areas tend to have populations of less than 200,000.
Unavoidably small hospitals find it difficult to achieve the economies, and the economies of scale, that are possible elsewhere in the NHS, because they do not receive tariff payments. They have to provide baseline services at a certain cost, but they do it for many fewer people. It is therefore likely that fewer people will use the services of that particular surgeon or those particular nurses, and as a result they are under permanent pressure. On the Island, our additional costs are estimated, at 2019 prices, to be some £12 million a year. That covers acute services, ambulances—including helicopters, for us—and travel to other destinations, which may involve ferries.
The NHS long-term plan—pre covid, back in January 2019, almost a lifetime ago—set out a 10-year strategy, stating that it would develop a standard model for delivery for smaller hospitals. May I ask the Secretary of State and the Health Minister what has happened to that plan and to the community services formula, which we hoped would support unavoidably small hospitals?
I am, however, delighted that, thanks to the excellent work of Maggie Oldham, the superb chief executive of the Isle of Wight NHS Trust, St Mary’s Hospital has been taken out of special measures and is now good. I would welcome either of the Ministers if they came to see us on the Island, not only to congratulate Maggie but to understand the pressure that one of the 12 unavoidably small hospitals in the United Kingdom is under, so that they can work with me to provide a better funding model for it and the other 11.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to be able to make some comments on Third Reading. The Secretary of State and the Minister will know my position on these matters. I should like to commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for their dedication to these issues. Their passion in this House is matched by many in my constituency who, despite the fact that their view is constantly disregarded, still urge me in their hundreds—I received hundreds of emails yesterday and hundreds today—to do what I can to speak for life. That is what I do here today. I care about the life of the woman and I care about the life of the unborn child. I am starting from the position that both lives matter, and it is one on which I stand firm.
In this House, there is a large number of MPs who are opposed to abortion on demand and who have an opinion on that. They include those who represent Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK in this House. I want to reiterate my position on the last vote that took place in Northern Ireland. An opinion poll found that 60% of constituents were opposed to abortion on demand. I am sure that I am far from being alone in recognising the double standards that our medical guidelines currently endorse, fighting for a life at 22 weeks in one case and ending it at 22 weeks in another case.
There are those who advocate that choice comes above viability, but that view is not replicated even by the many who support abortion in principle. It is a pity that clause 31 and clauses 51 and 52 were not brought to the House today. We expressed our concern some time ago that this House making the decision for Northern Ireland over and above the views of its elected representatives, its constituents and a majority of people across Northern Ireland would have an impact on the abortion rules in this House. We would have had an example of that today if new clause 50 had been approved, which it was not. It would have removed vital safeguards for women and girls seeking abortions up to 28 weeks of pregnancy, such as the requirement for two doctors, or even any medical professional, to be involved. The law change that was agreed in this House for Northern Ireland could have the shocking impact of placing at risk women and girls in abusive situations. It could legalise abortions that women and girls would carry out on themselves up to 28 weeks of pregnancy, for any reason.
Jim Shannon
I have almost finished my speech.
The Health and Care Bill is an opportunity to improve health and wellbeing, and it should not be usurped to remove essential safeguards such as contact with a medical professional, counselling and referral to appropriate care pathways. This House must be mindful, whatever decisions it takes here, that those decisions will have an impact on Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland are very concerned, and there is great disappointment at where we are.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 24th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2021 - (23 Nov 2021)
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 7th December 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2021 - (23 Nov 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, over the pandemic the NHS has worked wonders. Throughout the greatest challenge that our health and care system has ever faced, the extraordinary dedication, care and skill of the people who work in our communities and hospitals have been unwavering, and I am sure that the whole House would want to put on record our thanks and admiration for staff across the health and care system.
The Government believe that part of that thanks must be in the form of giving the NHS the Bill that it wants, the Bill that it has asked for and the Bill that it needs to take better care of all of us. Some may say that this is the wrong time for this legislation. The Government and, more importantly, the NHS disagree. The Bill builds on the progress that the NHS made during the pandemic. Under crisis conditions, the NHS evolved, finding new reserves of incredible creativity, innovation and collaboration. It rolled out an extraordinarily successful vaccine programme, it drew on our collective strengths to deliver a programme reaching every corner of the United Kingdom and it has continued to deliver.
But the NHS has told us that the current legislation contains barriers to innovation that the Government feel duty-bound to remove. The NHS has asked for more flexibility to enable local leaders to try out new things—not as a free for all but in ways that best suit local needs and ensure that the system can evolve. The NHS has asked us to protect and nurture the innovation and hard-won lessons of the pandemic, as we begin to build back better.
Much of the Bill is not new: it builds on years of work on the ground to integrate care, on the work outlined in the NHS Long Term Plan and on years of experience, effort and learning, and of the system pushing the legislation to its limits to do what is best. It also builds on the Integration and Innovation White Paper that we published in February 2021, and on the many consultations that we have held on different aspects of the Bill. The NHS asked for legislation to make it fit for the future, and we are delivering. The Government believe that this is the right Bill at the right time, with wide support for the principles of embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy and boosting accountability.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is the workforce. The Bill proposes a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the workforce “once every five years”. The Government are asking the NHS to develop a 15-year strategic framework for workforce planning, and we are looking to merge NHS England and Health Education England to deliver this. We are on track to deliver on our promise of 50,000 more nurses by March 2024.
The Government believe that this Bill will also help to deliver adult social care reform. In September, we announced plans to invest an additional £5.4 billion to begin a comprehensive programme of reform. Last week, we published our reform White Paper, People at the Heart of Care. This sets out our vision for adult social care and our priorities for investment, with measures including a new £300 million investment in housing and a £500 million investment in the workforce, to bring tangible benefits to people’s lives.
The Government recognise that their amendment to the adult social care charging system was considered controversial. However, it is necessary, fair and responsible. Everybody, no matter where they live in the country, no matter their level of starting wealth, will have the contribution they have to make to the cost of their care capped at £86,000. Those with lower levels of wealth will be far less likely to have to spend this amount, thanks to a far more generous means-testing regime that we will introduce. To be clear, the Government believe that nobody will be worse off in any circumstances than they are in the current system, and many people will be better off.
Furthermore, without this change, two people with the same level of wealth, contributing the same amount towards the cost of their care, could reach the cap at very different times. This is not considered fair. A fairer system is to have the same cap for everybody, and then provide additional means-tested support so that people with less are unlikely ever to spend that amount.
At its heart, this Bill is about integration. It builds on the lessons of the pandemic, when the NHS and local authorities came together as one system and not as individual organisations. New integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships will build on the progress made so far to plan, to join up services and to deliver integrated care. We are grateful for the work done to develop these clauses by both the NHS and the Local Government Association.
We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage in the Commons to concerns that we are enabling privatisation. Nothing could be further from the truth. To put this beyond doubt, we amended the Bill in the other place to make it clear that that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS, either as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector or otherwise.
Many noble Lords will be aware of the integration White Paper announced in September and currently in development. I can assure the House that this will build on the integration measures in the Bill, to go further and faster and to deliver person-centred care. We expect to publish it in early 2022.
As I have mentioned, a key aspect of this Bill is removing bureaucracy where it gets in the way. While bureaucracy often ensures that there are processes and procedures in place, we all know how excessive bureaucracy can make sensible decision-making harder. We believe that health and care staff are able to deliver better when they are trusted and given space to innovate, with barriers removed. Every NHS reform has claimed to reduce bureaucracy, with varied degrees of success, but such reforms have often been top-down. These reforms come not from the top down but from the bottom up, giving the NHS what it has asked for. This includes introducing a new, more flexible provider selection regime that balances transparency, reducing bureaucracy and fair and open decision-making.
It is right that the day-to-day decisions about how the NHS is run, both locally and nationally, are free from political interference. However, it is also right that there is democratic oversight and strong accountability in a national health system that receives £140 billion of taxpayers’ money every year. The public deserve to know how their local health system is being run. Integrated care boards will hold meetings publicly and transparently, and the Care Quality Commission will have a role in reviewing integrated care systems.
The Bill also ensures greater accountability from healthcare services to government, to Parliament and, ultimately, to the public. Through new powers of direction, the Government will be able to hold NHS England to account for its performance and take action to ensure that the public receive high-quality services and value for taxpayer money. Equally, we must ensure that there are safeguards and transparency mechanisms in place. That is why the Bill is clear that the new power of direction cannot be used to intervene in individual clinical decisions or appointments. The public also expect Ministers to ensure that the system conducts reconfiguration processes effectively and in the interests of the NHS and, where necessary, to intervene. In such instances, the Bill provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to intervene, subject to the advice of the independent reconfiguration panel.
As we all know, the health challenges that we face are not static, so the NHS must continue to be dynamic. As the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, once said:
“To believe in the NHS is to believe in its reform”.—[Official Report, 11/10/11; col. 1492.]
The Government believe that this Bill allows the NHS to meet the challenges of today and adapt to those of tomorrow. With this Bill, we can look beyond treating disease and focus on prevention with measures to promote good health, such as tackling obesity and stopping the advertising of less healthy products to children. This Bill includes a range of important additional measures, including the establishment of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, or HSSIB—a world-leading innovation in patient safety—and legislation to ban virginity testing to fulfil the Government’s commitment to the most vulnerable.
The Government believe that the founding principles of the NHS—taxpayer-funded healthcare available to all, cradle to grave and free at the point of delivery—remain as relevant now as they were in 1948. To protect these values, we must back those who make them a reality every day of their lives by building and constantly renewing a culture of co-operation and collaboration. I commend this Bill to the House.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to speak in this Second Reading debate on a Bill that has generated much anticipation and interest; the Minister’s comments today have also created much anticipation and interest. I am grateful to the many parliamentary colleagues, organisations, charities and representative bodies that have given their time to give their invaluable views and expertise to many of us in your Lordships’ House. I also thank the Minister and his team for making themselves available, and for the extensive work that they have already undertaken and will continue to undertake. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham; I wonder how he decided to choose this particular Second Reading in which to make it.
However, I am sorry to say that this is the wrong Bill at the wrong time, as it fails to deal with the real and immediate issues in the health and care system: scandalous social care provision; no workforce planning; no strategy for integration between health and social care; weak and underfunded public health services; and inadequate levels of funding. Regrettably, the Bill does nothing to resolve the democratic deficit around accountability in the NHS, and fails to put patients, their carers and the workforce at the heart of building back a better NHS. It is not about improving well-being or addressing the social determinants of poor health. Nothing in this Bill will make much difference to the long waits for people in pain and distress, or those who experience delays in waiting for an ambulance. As for it being the wrong time, we know that the pandemic is far from over. We still await proposals for social care integration, and the most vital issue—responding to the workforce crisis in the NHS and social care—is not even at the planning stage.
Let us remind ourselves that this Bill began as a legislative response to desperate pleas from the NHS to reverse some of the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which made it impossible to develop the NHS Long Term Plan. There were demands to end compulsory competitive tendering for health care services and allow much greater co-operation and joint working between various bodies. Also, it was clear that the informal organisational arrangements that the NHS had developed in the sustainability and transformation partnerships needed to be put on to a statutory basis. These have become the proposed 42 integrated care partnerships.
So, a Bill that was expected in 2017 is now with us in 2021 with the addition of extensive new powers for the Secretary of State, which give rise to deep concern. These extend to direct involvement in service reconfigurations, which could be as purely operational as moving a clinic a few yards down the road. They refer to the transfer and delegation of various functions in relation to arm’s-length bodies, the regulation of healthcare and associated professions, and reporting on workforce needs. After Committee in the other place, out of the blue, the Government added a highly contentious new clause concerning the social care costs cap, which will doubtlessly stimulate many hours of debate in your Lordships’ House.
We acknowledge the proposals around information standards and information sharing; setting up, at long last, the Health Services Safety Investigations Body; the introduction of Care Quality Commission powers to investigate adult social care; the reference to medical examiners; food advertising to combat obesity; fluoridation; and the banning of virginity testing.
From these Benches, we broadly support those parts of the Bill that remove the worst of the 2012 Act, but will look to add key safeguards to ensure proper governance and accountability and prevent new arrangements being open to abuse around contracting, particularly with the private sector. However, as I mentioned earlier, we do not support most of the proposed new powers for the Secretary of State in the absence of a proper case being made for them. Of course, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has reported on these issues; we will be looking very closely at its report.
It is a matter for regret, as I have said, that the Government did not bring forward legislation in 2017 to solve these problems with a far simpler Bill. Having missed the opportunity to act decisively at the right time, we now have to rush through a far more complicated Bill at a more complex time.
Part 1 mostly sets out yet another NHS reorganisation of commissioning on the back of many previous attempts to do likewise. Commissioning will still be conducted on many levels and be difficult to understand and manage. What the public will make of all this is unknown—but then, perhaps nobody actually asked them.
We know that, in Committee in the other place, the Government made a virtue of the flexibility of the Bill. This extends to changes to procurement and pricing, although no details are available. There is a similar lack of detail about what will happen at place, or indeed how “place” is to be defined, or how the two headed integrated care systems will function and how the money will flow.
The Part 1 new powers of the Secretary of State that are spread through the Bill were not what the NHS asked for. Ironically, one relative success from 2012 was the separation of NHS operational accountability from Ministers; the reasons for reversing this are hard to fathom. As any former Minister, including myself, will understand, it is mystifying as to why Ministers should seek such powers.
We will seek to include amendments that will strengthen the governance of integrated care systems by requiring stronger public, patient, carer and staff involvement as a right. We will seek to ensure that the best people are elected or appointed into key roles with due regard to diversity, fairness and transparency. We will seek to prevent the potentially undue influence of private sector organisations in commissioning, and ensure that contracts are awarded with a proper and transparent process that is as good as the Public Contracts Regulations that will be disapplied. Moreover, the Part 1 clause about discharging patients before they have had their social care needs assessed needs fundamental safeguards to ensure that we do not hear once again of an elderly person being returned in the early hours to a cold and empty home. This has to stop.
Let me turn to what is perhaps the most challenging clause, the one relating to workplace planning. If there is one thing about which there is universal agreement, it is the inadequacy of this clause. Having the right workforce across the health and social care sector is the issue of the day, and the response thus far is wanting. We need to see a more resolute approach that properly plans ahead across the NHS, social care and public health. This is not just about doctors and nurses but about the entire team, including cleaners, care assistants, lab technicians and catering staff. Last but not least, there is the last-minute new clause on the rules for calculating the cap on care costs, which will be robustly scrutinised and opposed by these Benches and by many others.
Of particular interest to me as a former Health Minister are a range of other welcome provisions dealing with virginity testing, fluoridation and hospital food, to name but three of the public health measures on which I used to work. However, it is disappointing to see a dearth of proposals on dealing with the increasing and unacceptable level of health inequalities that have been exacerbated by the pandemic and well highlighted by Professor Marmot over many years.
As was experienced in the other place, we know that there will be many more proposals for new clauses to cover other matters. This is surely a Christmas tree Bill, and decorations will surely abound. We will be glad to support the three new clauses proposed in the other place dealing with duties on reducing inequality, attention to waiting times and restricting the use of the term “nurse”.
Before I conclude, I wish to come back to the important matter of patient safety and the health services safety investigations body. We strongly supported the original Bill and were very disappointed when it suddenly fell off the Government’s radar. Despite efforts from across the House, Ministers were unable to explain where it had gone and why it was not being vigorously pursued in the light of the urgent imperative to embed the “lessons learned” culture into the NHS.
The aim of this body is of course to improve the quality of locally conducted investigations and to reduce the incidence of future harm to patients. The benefits cannot be quantified, but the expectation and the hope are that they will far outweigh the costs incurred by the investigations, avoid costs associated with correcting or compensating for harmful incidents, and encourage health improvement. I hope this will be a major contribution to patient safety.
In conclusion, I regret to say that, however this Bill is presented, it is in effect yet another NHS reorganisation. In the last 30 years, we have seen around 20 reorganisations of the NHS, and the British Medical Journal has observed that
“Past reorganisations have delivered little benefit.”
So the questions for the Minister are many. Why will this Bill be any different? How will the 85-year-old with multiple needs get better care based on them perhaps being treated as a whole person as a result of this restructuring? How will waiting times for elective surgery for cancer and mental health support be improved by this reorganisation? How will health inequalities, which have widened, and life expectancy advances, which have stalled, be corrected by this Bill? A real test for this Bill is: will it makes things better and, if so, for whom?
This Bill can do some good, but its timing is unfortunate at best and an opportunity missed at worst. The question remains as to whether this is the right Bill or the right time. However, if the Bill is to be implemented from 1 April, it has to be the best that we can collectively craft. We look forward to making a positive contribution to making it so.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to his place and look forward to hearing his maiden speech. I also offer my thanks to everyone who has briefed us. We, too, regret that the advisory speaking time is five minutes on a long and complex Bill, with many expert speakers whom I am sure the House will want to hear. We note that this time is advisory.
In principle, we have long argued for true integration of health and social care, and reforms are long overdue. The coalition Government created the better care fund, which has set a standard for integrated care in a number of places such as Torbay, but our social care system has needed reform for decades. The increasing workforce crisis and cuts to publicly funded patients, with private patients having to subsidise them, is scandalous. Covid, including the omicron variant as well as the severe winter crisis already with us, makes it much harder for substantial reforms to be in place for the end of March. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about it being the wrong Bill at the wrong time.
The long-awaited adult social care reform White Paper, People at the Heart of Care, was essential for delivering true integration. Despite the Prime Minister’s promise on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street two and a half years ago, I am afraid that the White Paper is deeply disappointing, not least on how integration will work in practice. Perhaps it is not surprising that Ministers have already announced another social care integration White Paper for next year. We still need to see it before the passage of this Bill. I fear that we will not. We believe that these changes will not work without the reform of workforce planning, and we will seek to strengthen the long-term planning arrangements, especially for social care, where progressive career pathways and proper skilled rates of pay are long overdue.
We too regret the powers being given to the Secretary of State. The reforms under the coalition Government by the then Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to remove them from operational decisions was the right one. Despite some of Ministers’ words in briefings, we need to be convinced that this is the right move. Ministers tampering with reconfigurations, capital grants or even contracts have already led the Johnson Government into serious difficulties. Worse, giving powers to the Secretary of State to transfer or delegate powers or functions without a clear rubric about how sparsely this must be used, and in what circumstances, is also dangerous. Through some of these provisions, Parliament is once again excluded from scrutinising Ministers’ actions.
We are concerned about the membership of ICBs. With the increased commissioning duties on local authorities, it is important that they have a voice at the table. More than one local authority in an ICB area gives us a problem. The same is true for NGOs, charities and local enterprises that are involved in the delivery of local social care. Much of the reforms, for both ICPs and the levy, are based on older people’s social care. We think it is wrong that disabled younger adults and children who need social care have been squeezed into inappropriate arrangements once again. Unpaid carers are still evidently meant to pick up much of the burden of care, especially with the new emphasis on getting people home from hospital, sometimes before assessment. It is time that the Government truly recognised the commitment and the cost of these unpaid carers and rewarded them.
Part 2 sets out the new information and data requirements for health and social care, especially the latter. We seek assurances that patient and client data will not only be protected and anonymised but cannot be sold on to commercial parties. We are concerned about the power of the Secretary of State to decide what is and is not commercially confidential. We believe that the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is long overdue, but we will seek confirmation that it is to be truly independent from Ministers. In Part 5, we welcome the proposed ban on virginity testing but also seek a ban on hymenoplasty.
International healthcare arrangements in Part 6 must protect the NHS from this Government’s former aims to give countries the right to bid for NHS contracts as part of economic treaties in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill of 2019. We will seek to ensure that nothing like this creeps in again.
A few weeks ago, the Government rushed the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021 through Parliament in just a few days. It was clear to us then that the creation of a new tax mechanism deserved careful scrutiny, but this was denied to Parliament, not least because of the lack of detail in how it would work. The Minister said that the new cap arrangements are fair; they are not. They let down exactly the group of people that this Government claim they want to help: those who live outside the greater south-east, with property worth over £100,000.
There is irony in the Government saying in their document:
“It is important that the new reforms are clear and reduce complexity”
before setting out a complex structure of disregards and benefits and the bombshell that neither local authority contributions nor personal care, nor what are sometimes known as hotel costs will count towards the cap. We will oppose this.
My colleagues will cover the clauses on food and drink and the fluoridation of water supplies. We also regret the limited public health reforms to tackle inequalities.
We have argued for years that we need a comprehensive integrated health and social care system, alongside a modernised and effective NHS, managed by its leaders without ministerial interference. Our broken care system, where staff and providers have battled valiantly against all the odds, desperately needs real reform.
This Bill has some of the right ideas, but it is already clear that there are many worrying elements which will not deliver the reform or funding needed. Health and social care providers, all the wonderful staff across both sectors and the public who use and rely on our NHS and social care systems, need that reform. From these Benches, we will aim to persuade the Government to improve this Bill.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he introduced this Bill and draw attention to my own register of interests, in particular the fact that I am chairman of the King’s Fund, King’s Health Partners and the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research.
I welcome much of what is proposed in this Bill, because it has a specific purpose— to drive integration. It has long been desired across the National Health Service that greater emphasis be placed on integrated care, including integration between primary and secondary care, between physical and mental healthcare, and between health and social care.
Clause 5 also sets some guiding principles for all NHS organisations, with the triple aim of ensuring better health and well-being, improved quality of services delivered and the most effective and efficient use of resources, applied by the state for the provision of health services. However, it fails in setting a guiding light and principle for the NHS to address the important issue of inequalities, which we have seen exacerbated during the Covid pandemic. Might Her Majesty’s Government consider amendments that address this issue in Committee and ensure that there is a fourth guiding principle for all NHS organisations with a duty to address health inequalities and inequalities in outcomes?
We have heard about other important provisions in this Bill, many of which will be addressed by noble Lords today. Although there is consensus that much has to be achieved, a number of the provisions and the failure to address other issues are somewhat controversial. I hope Her Majesty’s Government will give sufficient time in Committee to ensure that these issues can be properly addressed and that there can be absolute confidence, finally, once this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House.
I will emphasise just three additional areas in the time remaining to me. The first is research. We all recognise that a research environment and culture is critical to the sustainable delivery of health and care in our country—research not only in terms of development of new therapies or devices but into new models of care and how best we can deploy the workforce to achieve effective and efficient delivery of healthcare. Clause 20 makes provision for integrated care boards to have a duty to promote research, but that does not appear to go far enough to ensure that the commissioning environment secures a proper ecosystem for research, driving not only the provision of facilities but a culture in the development of a workforce able to engage in research, which is the lifeblood of the future of the NHS.
There is also considerable concern about Clauses 25 and 142 regarding the change in the regulatory environment. It seems counterintuitive to provide a new system-wide regulatory obligation for the CQC, as mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks, yet retain the very specific provision for the CQC to regulate individual institutions. Regulation drives culture and behaviour in the NHS, and those two objectives might be in tension with each other, driving unintended consequences and undermining the capacity to achieve true integration.
Finally, there is the question of the workforce. This is critical. Your Lordships’ committee on the long-term sustainability of health and care, chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel, identified this as the key issue critical to the sustainability of the NHS and the care system in our country. The provisions proposed in the Bill are welcome, but they do not go far enough. Your Lordships’ committee suggested the creation of an office for the sustainability of health and care, which would have responsibility to look at demand over an extended period—some 20 years—and, from that, understand what workforce decisions and planning measures should be taken to ensure a sustainable workforce, in terms of not only numbers but its capacity to deliver over time. Those measures are addressed in Clause 35. I hope we will be to explore some of these issues in Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, this is a health and care Bill. I will address certain specific aspects of that care that deserve further attention.
First, on integrated care, like the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, I welcome the clear desire for integration, collaboration and local flexibility, and the placing of integrated care systems on a statutory footing. But can the Minister assure us that, in ICBs and ICPs working together to ensure co-ordination in the design and delivery of integrated care, there will be an adequate focus on prevention rather than just cure, especially in mental health needs, not least among young people with learning disabilities?
Secondly, there is pastoral, spiritual and religious care, which, as Covid has reminded us and NICE guidelines recognise, are essential aspects of care, especially at the end of life. In Clause 16, mention is made of commissioning “other services and facilities” in addition to the medical, dental, ophthalmic, obstetric, nursing and ambulance services previously mentioned. It is probably not practicable to list all 14 allied health professions in the Bill, but perhaps it could be made clear that these cover important aspects of care that ICBs should be expected, not just encouraged, to commission. That would certainly provide some reassurance for, for example, healthcare chaplains, who, among so many others, have done such valuable work during the pandemic.
Thirdly, there is palliative care. We need no reminder of the fact that we are an ageing population. A significant proportion of those with palliative care needs already do not receive the care they need. By 2040, the number of people who have such needs will have increased by up to 42%. One of the stated aims of this Bill is to reduce inequalities in the provision of care across the country. Therefore, I find it strange that there is no direct reference to palliative care services or the need for integrated care wards to commission such services in their areas.
Fourthly, there is social care. As the Minister has already reminded us, one of the biggest challenges facing social care, as with the NHS, is workforce planning and supply. We are all aware of the alarming statistics regarding vacancies, as well as morale. I am grateful that the Bill aims to improve this situation but, as almost all the briefings that we have received have emphasised, we need greater accountability, transparency and reporting on this issue. So I was disappointed to learn that a proposed amendment to Clause 34 in the other place was not accepted by Her Majesty’s Government. I am equally disappointed that no mention is made in the Bill of the pay of carers, which is obviously an indication of the extent to which they are valued in our society.
Finally, my right reverend friend the Bishop of St Albans much regrets that he is unfortunately unable to speak in this debate. He has therefore asked me to pass on his congratulations to the Government on bringing forward this important legislation, and to ask the Minister whether the aspiration to reduce inequalities between patients in respect of their ability to access healthcare includes inequalities between rural and urban areas.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, over the last two years, we have all had cause to be immensely grateful to the National Health Service. NHS staff have responded heroically to the demands of the pandemic, and the service has shown a capacity to innovate, adapt and collaborate. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, has been at the heart of that, and so we much look forward to his maiden speech today. But we are not out of these woods. There is an immensity of effort yet required, and the Government are right to allocate unprecedented resources to the National Health Service to support the recovery programme.
This Bill enshrines in law an approach that is markedly different from that which has characterised virtually all health legislation in England since the 1980s. That earlier legislation progressively built an NHS based on key principles: autonomous NHS providers held to account by commissioners, who would pay them for the services they actually delivered; patients’ rights to choose a provider; money following the patient; clinical leadership; and, since 2013, an NHS that is operationally independent of politicians but with a series of checks and balances, including a mandated focus on improving clinical outcomes. In some ways, this Bill turns back the clock. Providers’ freedoms are to be limited; the purchaser/provider split is blurred; the NHS is being centralised; payment systems are being delinked from activity; and political direction is being reimposed. We should use debates on this Bill to ask whether this is really the right direction, particularly given the need now for a responsive, productive National Health Service.
One could argue that this Bill reflects a journey that, in truth, started soon after the 2012 Act was passed—and was never truly implemented. We see the Bill establishing integrated care systems, for example, but they have really been around, in one form or another, for six years already, albeit not in statute. Noble Lords considering this legislation should reflect that, much as we labour on the detail of legislation, as the House did a decade ago on my Bill, we should be aware that the NHS may choose simply to ignore it.
The Bill in fact goes beyond the NHS’s own long-term plan. The powers of direction and intervention put in the Bill by the former Secretary of State in Clauses 39 and 40 are not welcome—including to the National Health Service—are a potential political own goal and should be taken out.
Although I see the presentational appeal of repealing Section 75 of the 2012 Act, relating to procurement, virtually the same provisions are contained in Clause 70 of this Bill—highlighting the folly of trying to fix problems in secondary legislation through primary legislation. The slogan is “Collaboration not competition” —ironically, precisely the words that JP Morgan and Rockefeller used when creating vast monopolies.
My legislation was criticised for making the NHS too complex. This Bill takes complexity to a whole new level. We have ICS boards and ICS partnership boards—the latter sitting on top of health and well-being boards. Each ICS is large, so the workaround is to have places within them which map to local authority boundaries. That is just on the commissioner side. On the provider side, we have new provider collaboratives which, in fairness, is where the power in the NHS will lie. The Bill makes no provision for them in terms of transparency, openness or accountability.
The partnership with local government needs to be strengthened. Integration of NHS and social care demands joint planning, so why are the integrated care partnerships and health and well-being boards not made to be the same organisation? We must look also at Clause 54; I do not think hospital foundation trusts should lose their independence.
NHS staff will rightly say that none of this is any good without a clinical workforce, but Health Education England produced the first NHS workforce plan in 2017, and my noble friend referred to the People Plan in 2019. Why, at that time, was Health Education England’s budget cut when the NHS budget was not?
Finally, the Government put Clause 140 in at the last minute, which will mean that if someone has limited assets and must meet heavy care costs, they may end up losing virtually all of their lifetime assets before the cap is applied, but the well-off person would lose only a fraction of their assets. That is not the design of the scheme Andrew Dilnot’s commission recommended to me. I believe many Members in another place want to reconsider this. We should enable them to do so by leaving Clause 140 out of the Bill when we send it back.
As ever, it is our job to revise constructively. I hope that, in doing so, we shall sustain both the independence and accountability of the NHS.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I will speak next. I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council. I intend to concentrate on those elements in the Bill that impact on local government.
In West Yorkshire and, I suspect, other parts of England, planning is well advanced for establishing integrated care boards. There is a flavour here of a reorganisation that is already a done deal, yet there are important issues that remain unanswered by the proposals in the Bill. The first of these is that the Government proposed three reform programmes: this Bill; the adult social care White Paper, which was published last week; and the missing one—the care integration White Paper, which has been delayed yet again and will be vital as a part of all these reforms. I do not see how you can do this Bill without the White Paper that is missing. Another missing piece of reform is any detail at all about the delivery of health and care at the level defined as “place”. A further, major missing element is an adequate increase in funding for local government delivery of adult social care. You cannot have one without the other: reform without the funding will simply not work.
The final missing piece is democracy and accountability to local people. An opportunity to bring explicitly elected local voices into the governance of health and care at a local level has been ignored. Robust governance models that reflect the people and places served and allow for transparency and accountability provide the best outcomes in the end. However, the model proposed provides for even greater central powers and even less for the people for whom the service is provided.
I now turn to the issue of who pays what towards the cost of their care. There are a number of anomalies in the current proposals beyond the issue of the cap; this is not about the cap. If you are in residential care, you will need to pay a contribution towards the hotel costs; that has been fixed at £200 per week. This means that, if you are living in an older care home in a part of the country with low property values, your fees might be, say, £800, of which £200 might cover the accommodation costs, as these are lower. However, in a new, modern care home, in an area of high property values, your fees per week might be £1,000, of which £400 are accommodation costs. Bear with me—the maths is coming. Under the new rules, both people would pay £200 towards the hotel costs. This is important because the individual in the modern care home would then count £800 towards the cap on their contributions, whereas the second person, in the older care home, would count only £600 towards the cap, even though the value of the care that they receive is the same. In other words, the current proposals favour people in parts of the country with higher property values. I wonder how this approach reflects the so-called levelling-up agenda.
Finally, I refer to the clause related to adding fluoride to the water supply. This is obviously in order to combat tooth decay, which is caused by an excess of sugary foods. However, prevention is better than cure, and substantially reducing sugar intake is surely a better way forward—besides which, adding fluoride to the water supply is not as straightforward as it may first appear because water can be, and is, piped from one water company to another and from one part of the country to another.
I now look forward, with immense expectation, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the warm and generous welcome. I joined the NHS on its 40th anniversary, in 1988; it is therefore a huge privilege to participate in this important debate more than three decades later.
I know that time is tight so I will cut to the chase and make three brief points. First, the Bill does indeed go with the grain of what patients can see is needed and what people across the NHS have been trying to bring about for some time now. It is not a cure-all—no Act of Parliament ever could be—but it removes legal, bureaucratic barriers to more joined-up care. The fact is that, as we dig our way out of the consequences of the worst pandemic in a century, as your Lordships have just heard in Oral Questions, GPs, hospitals and community services will need to work together in radical and new ways. This Bill will facilitate that. It is also the case that, in an era when, despite fantastic advances in medicine and science, we are seeing growing inequalities and a far higher proportion of patients with long-term conditions, just about every health system in the industrialised world is trying to move towards more integrated and preventive care.
In that respect, I should perhaps depart slightly from the noble Baroness’s comments on fluoridation, if I am permitted to do so in a maiden speech. I welcome this move towards dental decay prevention. I should declare an interest on the part of my teeth, in that I happen to have had the good fortune to have been born in Birmingham just a few years after that great city introduced fluoridation. If the whole country now follows its lead, we have the potential to halve the dental decay of children in the poorest communities.
To get back to the point, my second observation is that a number of the concerns raised about the Bill are perhaps a little wide of the mark. It is hard to sustain the argument—it has not been made this afternoon, at least so far—that the Bill in some way advances the privatisation of the National Health Service when in fact it scraps the EU compulsory competitive tendering regime imposed on it. However, there is a case for the Government to consider potentially strengthening some of the safeguards in Clause 70, which would ensure that, where contracts are being let for the private sector, that is done in an open, transparent and fair way.
The Bill does not fragment the NHS. It brings together local funding for GP services, hospitals and community services. It removes the role of the Competition and Markets Authority, enabling hospitals to work together, as the pandemic has shown to be so necessary. It brings together the triple-headed Cerberus of Monitor, the Trust Development Authority and the Commissioning Board to create a unified and accountable NHS England.
The Bill puts on a statutory, transparent and accountable basis the informal local partnerships that have arisen between the NHS and local councils out of necessity. It rightly allows them local flexibility because, in a country as large and diverse as ours, one size does not fit all. To suggest that the mere existence of these local bodies somehow constitutes the fragmentation or destruction of a National Health Service makes sense only if you think that every decision in the NHS can be taken nationally. That has never been the case and would never work. As one commentator on the NHS said, in the event of a nuclear war, only two things will survive: cockroaches and the regional tier of the National Health Service.
My third and final point is that, notwithstanding its many merits, just like the NHS, the Bill is not yet perfect. There is an opportunity to strengthen the provisions in respect of social care and mental health. As a number of noble Lords have set out, just about everybody can agree that, in principle, the major challenge facing health and social care is the strength and resilience of the workforce. It is therefore ironic that, for many years now, we have been promised a detailed, funded and properly thought-through workforce plan for education and training, stretching out over five, 10 or 15 years, yet, on each occasion when that detailed plan is about to be produced, it is muzzled. Jeremy Hunt’s Commons amendment sought to remove the muzzle; I hope that your Lordships will consider something similar in this House.
Finally, in respect of the Secretary of State’s powers, care is needed to ensure that this does not end up inadvertently centralising a number of decisions on service configurations that are best made locally. I remember, early on in my NHS career, attending a public meeting at which the proposed closure of a small maternity unit in town was being discussed. It was a very well-attended public meeting; large numbers of people showed up. The director of public health tried to set out the case that there just were not enough births in this midwife-led unit. A voice came from the back of the hall: “How many do we need, then?” There was a bit of head-scratching and a puzzled look, then he spluttered an answer. The voice at the back of the hall came back: “In that case, give us 18 months”. I can tell your Lordships that, in 18 months, that town did produce the requisite number of babies and the maternity unit is still open. That is not a decision that should have been taken in Whitehall. Yet, lurking near the back of the Bill, in Schedule 6 on page 197, are provisions that essentially do that. Nye Bevan may have said that he would like the sound of the dropped bedpan to reverberate around Whitehall, but not even he suggested that each hospital should write to him personally for permission to move the cupboard in which the bedpans are stored.
To conclude, despite all I have just said, there is considerable merit in the Bill. I believe that it is pragmatic, modest and evolutionary. It builds on many of the changes that people across the health service have looked to put in place over the past decade. Nye Bevan, the patron saint of the NHS, said that
“legislation in this country … starts off by voluntary effort … by empirical experiment … by improvisation. It then establishes itself by merit, and ultimately at some stage or other the State steps in and makes what was started by voluntary action … a universal service.”
That is the legislative task before us.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure, on behalf of the whole House, to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and to congratulate him on his thoughtful, inspirational and brilliant speech. There ends the good news.
The noble Lord did not say much about himself, so I am going to fill in the gaps. He has been a household name for many years. Coming from a council estate and a comprehensive school, he went on to win a scholarship to Oxford to read PPE, received an MBA from Strathclyde University, and attended Columbia University on a Harkness Fellowship, followed by management training in health. He worked as a porter in a hospital and as a mortuary clerk—those clients could not complain about him. He served on several management boards in England, was CEO and president of UnitedHealth Group in the United States and, finally, was CEO of NHS England—and he is still quite young.
The noble Lord is regarded as the second most important person in the history of the NHS—the first being Nye Bevan—and the fourth most important person in the United Kingdom. My first contact with him, which he might remember, was when he was very young, hardly 30, and was a health policy adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair and subsequently to Secretaries of State for Health Frank Dobson and Alan Milburn. His efforts resulted in the NHS getting the biggest rise in funding in its history. He played a major part in the reforms that followed. One light-hearted anecdote of the time is—and he may well remember—that he persuaded Frank Dobson to make Viagra available on the NHS. More importantly, he has been a central and respected figure in health policy for most of his career. Simon Stevens makes the weather in all his dealings. He knows health, he knows policy and he knows politics, which he is deft at exploring, always in the best interests of the people.
There is another side to the noble Lord apart from health. At Oxford, as president of the Union, he was drawn into controversy following an invitation to a visiting speaker. He also took part in a debate defending the proposition that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I do not know whether Boris Johnson opposed him, but he credits the noble Lord with his own election as president of the Oxford Union. They both toured the United States in a debating society and it is said that Boris won the hearts of the audience and Simon won their heads. Once when asked if Boris Johnson could have led the NHS instead of him, the noble Lord evaded answering and sought refuge in a book entitled Napoleon’s Hemorrhoids.
For fun, the noble Lord indulges in competitive offshore sailing and cooking. I am told that he likes cooking without recipes: I wonder if there might be an analogy to health policies. Today, however, I thank him on behalf of us all for a brilliant, thoughtful and thought-provoking speech.
I now turn to my meagre contribution, which will be short because the time is limited. The Bill contains more than 150 clauses and 16 schedules; it proposes changes to several existing Acts. The policy objectives are equally broad: there are approximately 138 delegated powers and at least seven Henry VIII powers.
While I welcome the emphasis on increasing collaboration between and with different parts of the health and care system, the possible benefits are not clear; nor is it clear, with myriads of smaller organisations and sub-committees, who is in overall charge, or who will be responsible for improving standards of care.
The Bill has no clear plan for how workforce shortages, tackling inequalities in healthcare and the variation in care that exists will be addressed. Workforce shortages are the greatest threat to NHS and social care, as the House of Lords report alluded to. Covid-19 has exacerbated the pressures that staff have been under. They are exhausted. I know that from three of my family members. Without an adequate workforce, none of the reforms will come to full fruition.
Proposals in the Bill fall way short of what is needed and Health Education England’s framework 15 will not solve the problem. The Bill includes very limited measures in Clause 35. It fails to address whether the system is training, educating and retaining enough people in the workforce to meet the needs of the service in future. There needs to be a fundamental change to workforce strategy and planning on a much firmer footing than the Bill can provide. I will strongly support amendments to Clause 35, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, referred.
Covid-19 has exposed and exacerbated existing health inequalities. Progress on reducing inequalities is slow. The Bill has no new ideas; it merely transposes the current duties of CCGs to ICBs. One area where there is scope for improvement relates to strengthening reporting on health inequalities. NHS England should publish national guidance on performance data and indicators, which should be collected and reported on by NHS bodies.
The new triple aim is another area where the scope of the Bill can be amended to go further. It should explicitly reference the need for all NHS organisations to report on the impact that their decisions will have on reducing inequalities. The first part of the triple aim of the health and well-being of the population does not suffice. I will support amendments to address that.
There are also issues about the wide-ranging new powers of the Secretary of State, not least on reconfiguration, which I have no doubt other noble Lords will address, but also his involvement in professional regulation and regulators. I will have comments to make about safety, as I chaired the National Patient Safety Agency for five years and know much about what learning is all about. What is important is how the learning is implemented, but the Bill is very short about how that will be done. I look forward to Committee.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the two previous speakers. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on an assured, entertaining at times, but also extremely interesting speech. It is good to have him in the House, particularly as we come to consider the Health and Care Bill. I know that he will make an enormous contribution through his membership.
I declare my interest as a trustee of the Loughborough Wellbeing Centre charity, which offers mental health support to those facing mental health challenges. As we have heard, this is clearly a Bill that those outside this House and Westminster, but also inside, feel strongly about, given the quantity of briefing that we have received so far. I am sure that that will only continue.
In the time available, I want to cover two points that I shall return to later. First, I alert the Minister that I and others will be picking up on two amendments tabled but not voted on in the House of Commons that recognise that the NHS is an institution that covers the whole of our United Kingdom. As we know, there are huge disparities in service quality and delivery between different parts of the United Kingdom. That is unfair on patients and, I suspect, extremely wearying for staff and those caring for those seeking treatment.
The first amendment raised in the Commons would place a duty on NHS England to consider the likely impact of its decisions on the residents of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and to consider the impact of services provided in England on patient care in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The second proposal
“would enable the Secretary of State to specify binding data interoperability standards”
across the whole of the United Kingdom. It would
“require the collection and publication of comparable information about healthcare performance and outcomes across the United Kingdom and would require Ministers in the devolved institutions to provide information on a comparable basis.”
Surely, the lesson of the last 18 months of facing the Covid pandemic is that more data and more transparency are better at putting more power in the hands of patients and those seeking care.
My other point relates to mental health provision. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mention this and I know that it will come up elsewhere in the debate today. I am very grateful to those who have worked in this field for a very long time for pointing out that this Bill is not ambitious enough on preventing mental health issues or on the need to provide earlier support to those experiencing mental health distress. I am also deeply concerned, given the declaration that I have already given, that there seems to be no role for the voluntary and community sector in the new structure of integrated care partnerships—yet we know that the voluntary and community sectors do a huge amount to support people with health needs, particularly in mental health but with other conditions as well. They take the burden off our National Health Service and often provide that support for a much more efficient cost or price than the statutory services ever could.
We have already heard about the NHS triple aim. I would argue that the Bill should mention parity of esteem and mental health specifically in that triple aim. My understanding is that Ministers agree with this, so I hope that they might agree to say so clearly in the Bill. It sounds to me as though the triple aim may become slightly more than triple, given all the requests that my noble friend the Minister will get to expand it. So I wish my noble friend well as he takes the Bill through the House. I look forward to future proceedings and to covering the issues that I have mentioned today.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my previous career as a physician in various guises. Much more importantly, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and congratulate him on his maiden speech.
All Governments think they know what is best for the country and its population, and nowhere is that more obvious than in this Bill. It is full of valuable ideas and aspirations, which are undoubtedly welcome, but those aspirations are entirely dependent on two critical preconditions: first, stopping the damaging loss of clinical staff and, secondly, the rapid repair of the serious deficiencies in social care. That we have too few nurses and doctors in hospital and in general practice is obvious to anyone, and no one denies that we need a workforce plan for the future. Even though we know that similar plans have tended to be somewhat inaccurate in the past, we should make it a duty to have regular assessments of need every two years, as was called for in the other place.
But now the immediate problem is not so much recruitment but an unprecedented rate of loss of staff. There is a big hole in the bucket as staff have become overworked, frustrated and, far too often, at their wits’ end. Last year, we stood in the street and clapped our NHS staff in, but now, frankly, too many feel clapped out, so it is hardly surprising that nurses and doctors are tempted to leave the service. The average age of physicians retiring is now 58, according to the Royal College of Physicians, when it was 62 just two years ago. What a waste—and it is not helped by the ridiculous pension restrictions that mean the longer consultants continue to work, the more their pension is reduced. At the same time, nurses and support workers are too often in despair and GPs find themselves unable to cope with their growing workload.
Will the Minister now focus more on filling the hole than trying only to fill the bucket from the top? Will he consider new ways in which we can encourage retention: reducing non-clinical bureaucratic duties; introducing more attractive options during a clinical career; offering opportunities for nurses and doctors to come back into the service after retirement, perhaps into part-time sessional work; and sorting out the crazy rule on pensions that is such a disincentive to doctors? There is much that can be done now, through much more emphasis on retaining the workforce we have and on the return of those who have left.
I turn now to social care, which is in such a sorry state. Our patients in the NHS suffer too. According to the Royal College of Physicians, about 25% of medical beds are occupied by patients who would be much better off at home but who cannot get there. That is a quarter of beds used up when we desperately need more beds.
Of course, the White Paper on social care is a welcome step forward and, again, it is full of aspirations for the care workers on whom the service is entirely dependent. They do a tremendous job, and they deserve all the respect that we can give them, just as they respect those for whom they care. But it is clear that we do not give them that respect. It is not much wonder that they feel unappreciated, so that sickness and turnover rates are high, or that 42,000 care workers left the service in the last six months, according to the Nuffield Trust. We barely pay them enough, just around the living wage, but important though pay is, there is more to it than that. There is some training, run by their own organisation, but of course it is not mandatory. Just imagine being employed in such an important job for which there is no professional qualification, no official registration and no clear career pathway. In other words, it may seem to some a dead-end job.
I ask the Minister, as we have done many times in the past, whether he will offer our dedicated care workers the respect they deserve by making sure that they are paid at a rate commensurate with their responsibilities, that they can be registered, as every other health worker is, after a mandatory training programme, and that they have access to a career pathway in which they can see promotion as a reward for all their hard work. They deserve nothing less.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I should remind the House that I am vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his maiden speech and on the depth of his analysis, which I hope we will draw on as the Bill progresses.
I want to say at the outset that I support the ambition of this Bill but also that I think it will work only if it is improved at further stages. I welcome the wish to make systems more effective in the delivery of services to patients and clients and more efficient in the use of public resources.
As a council leader some years ago, I knew from officers, from providers, from colleagues who worked in the NHS or in social care, from my own councillor surgeries and from door knocking at election time that there was a huge problem with the integration of health and social care support at the point it reached—or should have reached—individuals. We had growing demand for both residential care and domiciliary services, insufficient supported housing, constant bed blocking, lengthy delays in the installation of aids and adaptions, and worsening public health, not least through levels of smoking, rising alcohol consumption and obesity. All that meant that investing more in public health and in the integration of service provision to reduce the costs of administration became essential. For a while, public health did receive further investment and joint working was certainly encouraged, but I thought then that we would progress integration much faster than we have. Well, we now have another attempt, and the test of the success of this Bill is whether it will help with reducing bed blocking, improving public health, restoring the 25% cuts in spending of the past six years and increasing the number of staff working in social care.
The Bill may aim to level up health outcomes, but structures alone are not a solution in themselves but a means to an end. Poverty, low pay and poor housing all need to be addressed as well, because they contribute to poor health. Prevention of poor health in turn reduces demand for hospital beds.
The Care Quality Commission has said that successful care is when providers work well together in a place. That is right, but it is not just about working well together through the alignment of budgets. It must be about the pooling of those budgets to achieve real integration.
The Government must take care not to end up with just another reorganisation. The test is whether the Bill and related legislation will reduce administrative costs, increase capacity and improve service delivery. Will it help to reduce alcohol harm? Will it reduce obesity? Will it reduce the health inequalities of the homeless or of those suffering addictions? Place-based planning and budgeting with common administrative systems should be at the heart of this.
The Bill will need to be amended to ensure that we really do have integrated health and care systems founded on place-based partnerships with pooled budgets. I fear that if we do not do this, adult social care will be starved of essential funding, in turn forcing up council tax too much. We have too many regressive taxes in this country. Council tax is one of them, and it should not be used to make up deficiencies in mainline services.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I add my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I am delighted that he is joining us in this House.
May I start by saying that the Government correctly acknowledge that their White Paper proposals to be enacted by this Bill will not solve all the problems affecting adult social care in the UK? They refer to their reforms as a “journey”, but we have been on this journey for decades now, and the people of this country cannot wait any longer for meaningful and equitable reforms to be enacted. People across the country are suffering now from inadequate social care, and as our population ages these problems will multiply unless we seize this opportunity at last to enact a system that is sustainable and fair.
We all know that demand for social care is not being met, causing hardship for families. Local authority budgets continue to be under great strain, private providers are withdrawing service provision, experts warn that the system is unsustainable, and the system is terribly inequitable. People with dementia, for example, must pay for their care, whereas people with cancer can rely on the NHS. That is grossly unfair.
However, under the Government’s proposals, we will to see one inequitable regime replaced by another. The Government’s proposed cap of £86,000 on the social care costs that individuals will have to pay is significantly less generous than that recommended by the Dilnot proposals. As a wise friend observed to me, the Government’s proposal appears to be more a means of protecting the assets of the wealthy than resolving our social care funding problems. Under these proposals, most people in this country, who do not have huge personal assets, will still lose most, if not all, of their savings, and they will now be paying the Government’s new levy as well.
As a result, many people with modest assets—perhaps only the value of their home, if they own one—may be worse off than before. In addition, most of the funds raised by the Government’s new levy will initially be used to support the NHS, not social care. One wonders how it will ever be politically feasible for this distribution of levy resources to be realigned to pay for social care alone, which remains the Cinderella service under the Government’s plans.
I recognise and welcome the Government’s proposals to support the integration of housing into local health and care strategies, with a focus on increasing the range of new supported housing options available. I welcome the Government’s stronger overall support for independent living, including more funding to enable the greater adoption of technology to support independent living. I also welcome more funding to ensure that social care workers have the right training, but I have to question whether the sums proposed are adequate to meet even current needs in these areas.
The Government have to improve on their proposals, particularly in overall funding for the social care system and social care workers. The Government should reduce the cap on social care costs paid by individuals to provide much more generous support to people who have only modest assets. They should not require young people to pay the levy, given the high housing costs and the burden of student loans that so many of them face. There are better ways to raise the funds needed to provide decent care, including replacing higher rate tax relief on pension contributions with a lower flat rate relief. The levy should also be used simply to pay for social care and not the NHS, which already absorbs the bulk of government revenue.
There is not time for me to set out the myriad inadequacies of the Government’s White Paper and this legislation, but in addition to a fairer system for funding social care, we know that the glaring need is for social care workers to be much better paid and to have a clear career path. Until these valuable workers are more fairly rewarded, I am afraid we will continue to see an exodus of staff to easier and better paid work. The best carers provide a wonderful service, but they do so despite our social care system, not because of it, and this remains a great injustice. They, and the people they care for, deserve so much better.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to everybody else’s on the brilliant maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, described many of his achievements, but he failed to mention that he was a member of the Holloway ward Labour Party many years ago, of which I had the honour to be chairman. I am sure he gained lots of knowledge at that time.
There are some great constants in British political life. One is that we always say that our NHS staff are marvellous, and they are, but we do not meet their wage demands; they have to be underpaid to be marvellous. The NHS is always in crisis, and we all love it. This is the great contradiction of British political life: everybody praises the NHS, Governments never pay NHS staff adequate wages, but we all love it.
I worry that this Government’s ambition, as set by the Chancellor, whom I respect very much, is to be a tax-cutting Government. A tax-cutting Government will never adequately fund the NHS. I also worry that when there is a funding crisis, all Governments reorganise the service, because somebody says, “There’s a lot of waste in the NHS, and we must cut the loss and get more managers”, or, “We want more integration”, and so on. So I somewhat welcome this Bill, but I do not think it will solve anything very much.
The biggest failure of the NHS, if I may say so, has been that health inequalities have not been corrected as much as we hoped when it was established. When the pandemic happened, you did not need a computer to predict who was going to be last in the queue. The postcode lottery always works. Women, the elderly and racial minorities will always be the last in the queue and will suffer. This should not happen in a universal healthcare system. Unless we make that the primary concern of any reform of the health service, we will still be waiting for the next reorganisation, and the next.
This is, I am sure, a very good Bill. Lots of professionals and others who have engaged themselves with the National Health Service will find good things to say or good things to change in it. However, I would like to have seen a 15-year funding plan for the NHS, guaranteed by the Government, which would say: “We cannot do it now but within five or 10 years we assure you that, given the increasing needs of the population for health services due to age and other problems, we will meet those needs adequately and remove inequalities and problems at least by date X.” That is not happening, and I do not think it will happen any time soon.
Let me say one more thing. I am an economist and have to say something about economics. One thing I said many years ago when I was on the shadow Front Bench as spokesperson for health is that, while the NHS is free at the point of service, we have to make people aware that it is not costless. We have to make patients aware that everything they do costs money somewhere in the system. At that time, I wanted to propose a smart card. Each time anybody uses the National Health Service, it tells them how much it costs, not how much money they have to pay. They just tap it and it shows the cost so that people are aware that not going to an appointment costs money and calling an ambulance costs money. If people become aware of how much it costs, we may get a little help from the patients as well as from the service.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, this is a watershed Bill at a watershed time for the National Health Service. I shall touch on a few issues but many more will come up in Committee. Before I do anything else, I offer my congratulations to Her Majesty’s Government on two dimensions. First, for the first time in my experience, Her Majesty’s Government, the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry have got together, worked endlessly and furiously—spending money, yes—and succeeded in producing vaccines that no other country has done at the same pace. That is a huge achievement. Secondly, I thank the NHS front-line staff and our new noble friend, who led them so well.
Of course there are problems. I declare an interest. My wife was phoned while at a party conference and asked to take over a practice because the doctor had disappeared. There were only about 600 or 800 patients. We scrubbed down the old butcher’s shop in Biggleswade and started up, and she built up as a full-time doctor the largest practice in east Bedfordshire. My son served in the Armed Forces as an Army doctor, so I know a little bit about that world.
The greatest thing for me as a marketing man is that, if you are going to solve the problem, you have to look at what is going wrong. I shall highlight a few areas. Frankly, the GP system today is not working. It is poor. The problem arose in 2014 when—I do not say anything party political here—GPs were absolved from looking after patients 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They were given the opportunity to opt out. Some 90% did so. We went on to this new system and so it has developed. It is not a good system. The worst bit of it is that, when we hit a real crisis, as we have done, we see where it has all gone wrong.
I know it is wonderful to have all these magical technical things but triage is not working. You cannot get through to a doctor. How many people have told me that as a politician? You get through to a receptionist only after you have started at number 15 or 16 in the queue. There are no home visits. My dear wife got really bad Covid. Yes, 111 came out three times, but not once did we see our GP, although we had a couple of phone calls. She is recovered and well. Did we get a home visit afterwards? No. Does anyone who is elderly get a home visit? No, hardly anyone does. Even worse, yesterday’s newspaper said that 300,000 of our citizens are housebound. Every one of those is on a GP’s list, so I hope that every GP who covers those 300,000 people will be out next week ensuring that every one of them gets a jab.
Secondly, I have gone on about medical schools. I asked a Question about them in this Chamber on 26 October 2016. The point was made that medical school places were going to go up by 25%, with an additional 1,500 of them. Yes, that happened, but it was not enough. The crunch, as I said in my supplementary question to my noble friend Lord Prior of Brampton, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, was this:
“Today, 56% of the intake of medical students is female.”
That was five years ago; it is worse than that now. I have nothing against that—I am quite happy with 50/50—but, as I said then,
“70% of female GPs today work part-time, and a recent survey by the King’s Fund says that 90% of all medical students in training want to work part-time.”—[Official Report, 26/10/16; col. 197.]
Given the cost of £200,000-plus to train a GP, I proposed at that point that we have a situation, as in Singapore, where you have to sign on for four or five years to work in the NHS, which has paid for your career. I was told that that was perfectly “reasonable” and that the Government would consult on four years. Nothing has happened. If Singapore can work this, why on earth can we not? Our young people, male and female, after they have been given a superb education, should give back to society for four or five years. My son in the Armed Forces had to do that, so the precedent has been set.
One area that will need to be looked at is obesity. The Government are working with the industry, which has worked with the Government before. We need to have a situation where we look closely with industry, and not at the proposals that are currently in the Bill.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my health interests in the register. I am pleased to speak in this debate and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his excellent maiden speech.
The Government set out their laudable intentions to integrate health and social care some years ago. In 2018, they changed the name of the Department of Health to the Department of Health and Social Care. I believe that that was a step in the right direction but progress since then has been woefully slow. Recent initiatives have tended to reinforce the separation of the two services rather than their integration, and have not led to the development of seamless pathways of care centred on the needs of the individual. With this Bill strangely pre-empting a further integration White Paper, the Government seem more concerned with the architecture of the NHS, recentralising powers and decision-making to the Secretary of State than with having a genuine ambition to devolve powers to local communities to deliver efficient and effective integrated services.
Belatedly and controversially, a new clause was introduced in the Commons to set up a new funding stream for social care, but it was not clearly ring-fenced for the purpose, with most of the money initially going to support the NHS further. While that money is much needed by the NHS to tackle appalling backlogs of care, it ensures that the current crisis in social care is not addressed—particularly, as we have heard, the dire workforce situation and the failure to address funding for local authorities, where the demand on them for social care provision also remains critical.
Despite these reservations, I am sure we all want to see a system develop that genuinely addresses proper health and care integration. So much work will be done during Committee and beyond to try to improve and shape that ambition, including full scrutiny of the social care funding clauses. As a starting point today, I want briefly to raise two issues.
The first is clarity about service planning at local place level. Local services such as primary, community and many secondary care services require planning, oversight and management at local level. This Bill allows ICSs to delegate resources and responsibility to place-level entities, but there is no statutory framework for the form of local commissioning bodies or their governance and relative accountability relationships. With the abolition of clinical commissioning groups, it is unclear to me how this important function will be fulfilled in the future. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify that point later this evening.
The second issue is the structure and governance of ICSs. A dual structure is planned for ICSs, with the integrated care board and a partnership board. There is obviously a risk that ICBs will be dominated by acute trusts, with other services being relegated to the partnership board. In my view, it is essential that if, for example, parity of esteem between mental and physical health is to mean more than words, mental health trusts are recognised in statute to sit on the ICB. Similarly, it is essential that allied health professionals such as speech and language therapists and the voluntary sector are at the ICB table to ensure their voices are heard loudly and locally. Finally, how will the public voice be heard, to ensure that the best interests of the health of local populations are duly considered? I would welcome the Minister’s views on this when he winds up.
I hope the Government will listen carefully to the concerns and issues raised in our debates on the Bill in order to ensure that this is not another missed opportunity to make a proper step forward, not only in the integration of health and social care but towards early intervention and prevention programmes which tackle the root causes and determinants of ill health and health inequality, as was brilliantly articulated recently by Professor Sir Michael Marmot and his team in my home area of Greater Manchester. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu famously said:
“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.”
That should be the guiding principle during our deliberations on this Bill.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, last Friday, we had an excellent Second Reading debate on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on cigarette stick health warnings. As the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said then, we have made progress over the past two decades, with a range of measures to help smokers quit and to prevent future generations using tobacco. But there is much more to be done. Smoking is responsible for the half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in our society. There are still over six million smokers in the UK, and at current rates of decline we will miss the Smokefree 2030 deadline by five years nationally and by 17 years in the most deprived communities. So, further measures are necessary if we are to reduce health inequalities and increase healthy life expectancy, both of which are government manifesto commitments.
The detail of what is required is set out in the latest report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, of which I am a member. I am pleased that the Government have committed to considering its recommendations for the forthcoming tobacco control plan. However, as the Minister told us on Friday that publication of the plan has been delayed from July 2021 to some time in 2022, amendments to this Bill are needed to accelerate progress in reducing smoking prevalence and to deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I and others will table amendments to this Bill to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, to fund lifesaving measures to help smokers quit and prevent youth uptake, to close loopholes in existing regulations and to ratchet up regulation of tobacco through measures such as the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to put health warnings on cigarettes themselves.
In all debates about health and social care, we spend a great deal of time discussing the costs of the increasing demands upon the system, but probably too little agreeing measures to curb the rising level of those demands. Better education and greater information about health issues is vital, but funding for public health issues has not been protected in recent years in the same way as the costs for treating the consequences of illnesses. Personally, I wish there had been much better education about diet and greater understanding of the importance of physical education in my youth. I should have learned more about issues connected with diabetes before I was diagnosed with the condition.
Across the UK, the number of people diagnosed with diabetes has doubled in the last 15 years and it is estimated that the costs associated with it account for 10% of NHS expenditure. We need to support the provisions in the Bill on restricting the advertising of less healthy food and drink and recognise the importance of these measures in reducing the significant harms that can come from diabetes. People struggling with obesity and diabetic control, children especially, are not helped by the advertising of foods that are high in fat, sugar or salt. We need to strengthen nutrition labelling requirements.
For people with diabetes who need insulin, which includes all type 1 diabetics, we need to address the short-termism that denies many of them access to continuous glucose monitoring systems and technology such as insulin pumps that can help them to maintain good diabetic control. Complications from poor diabetic control can include heart attacks, strokes and amputations, as well as kidney damage, loss of eyesight and mental health problems.
In 2017, the report produced by the Medical Technology Group showed that
“80% of the cost of Type 1 diabetes is spent on treating complications—many of which are avoidable.”
We all know that the NHS is under many great pressures, but we can reduce those pressures by reducing the number of people in hospital and by looking to increase investment in technologies that help people with diabetes to improve their control.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming, with others, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and congratulate him on his maiden speech. To use an analogy that I think he will understand, in my experience maiden speeches are like kidney stones: they are much better when you pass by them.
I too welcome the emphasis that the Bill belatedly places on collaboration, integration and partnerships, which is something that many of us have been seeking for a very long time and that I was personally associated with when leading the Total Place initiative more than a decade ago. We have been seeking this because none of the major issues that afflicts us can be resolved by a single public service—even one as large as the NHS. As your Lordships’ own Public Services Committee has stressed in its recent reports, better collaboration is critical to successfully addressing challenges such as obesity, diabetes and child safety. It is not just collaboration within the health service and between health and social care; it goes beyond that.
Let us be clear: we cannot legislate for collaboration, we cannot structure it into an organisation, we cannot impose it from the top down—as we have so often tried to do—and it does not happen with the flick of a switch. Ultimately, it depends upon the culture of the organisation. I have to say that, while so much about the NHS is positive, it has never in my experience been an exemplar of collaborative working, so turning the collaborative thrust of the Bill into reality will take a real effort. I hope that, as it progresses through the House, noble Lords will be able to make some amendments that make that more likely.
In other respects, I am afraid that I am less positive about the Bill as it stands simply because, as others have said, it seems to me to ignore so many of the health-related problems that we need to address urgently —whatever “urgently” now means. It does not, for example, tackle health inequalities, which have almost certainly worsened during the pandemic. The extent of these inequalities is a stain on our society—I am not exaggerating for effect—and others have mentioned Professor Michael Marmot, who has long sought to evidence this. Could we not at least incorporate this into the new triple aim, as the King’s Fund and others here today have suggested? We have heard a lot about levelling up, but, to be honest, it means nothing to me unless the health inequalities that we are experiencing are addressed.
While the Bill was described as a health and social care Bill, there is little of real substance about social care, and the proposed changes to the social care cap are regressive, as I think most people now accept. I shudder to think how my parents would have responded to these proposals. One of their proudest achievements was to own their own home, and they would have been devastated by the threat of losing that as a result of provisions like this. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that this should be taken out of the Bill.
There is also nothing in the Bill to suggest that the importance of prevention and early intervention has been recognised—the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, touched upon this. The truth is that we are spending ever greater public resources on crises and ever less on prevention, not least in the way that we seek to improve the life chances of vulnerable children, for which the NHS has a major responsibility.
The extensive new powers given to the Secretary of State to intervene in local service reconfigurations, as drafted at the moment, fly in the face of the stated intent to give local places and communities greater power over local priorities. Surely there needs to be at least some stronger requirement in the Bill for local communities to be involved before such interventions are made.
There is nothing in the Bill to suggest, to me at least, that there is a real strategy for tackling current chronic staff shortages—or, indeed, for ensuring that users have a real say in the way that services are designed. We hear a lot about patient-centred care—the only way that you can achieve it is if patients and users are involved in the design of the services in the first place.
Finally, could we not resolve one of the greatest practical barriers to collaboration: the failure to share data effectively? Whenever you mention data, people switch off. It is really important. Part 2 of the Bill begins to address data sharing between adult social care and health, but, for reasons that I simply do not understand, it does not address the same issue where children are concerned.
As your Lordships’ Public Services Committee identified in its recent report on vulnerable children, this is a serious practical problem. I know that it has been at the heart of many of the most tragic child abuse cases over the last 50 years. Perhaps the Minister can say in replying why we have not taken this opportunity to address that practical barrier and whether he would be sympathetic to amendments which did. It is something which the DHSC and the DfE need to do together, and I hope they will.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who talked about his parents. My parents never owned their own home, but they had exactly the same emotional reaction to the creation of the NHS and the security it would give them in later life. I extend a Green Party welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I am probably going to disagree with him today, I am afraid, and possibly many times in the future, but I welcome him anyway. I enjoyed the humour in his speech; there is never enough humour in this House, so that was fantastic.
I have no expertise in health and no role of any sort in the care system, but I do have a small expertise in government failings. It would be hard to be an expert in them, because there are so many, but I can spot when the Government are making a big mistake and this Bill is one of them. I will talk about three issues; I am going to gallop through them because I am well aware that we have been given a tiny amount of time. The first is fluoridation; the second, carrying on from that, is dentistry; and the third is drugs.
About a quarter of the population does not trust tap water and refuses to drink it. This has obvious consequences for the environment, as most of those people will be drinking water out of plastic bottles instead. Mass fluoridation is not going to help people to trust tap water. The Government are making a decision to mass-medicate populations by modifying their drinking water without any explicit informed consent. The pandemic has revealed an atmosphere in which scepticism of expert advice and anti-science sentiment runs high. Forced fluoridation risks entrenching anti-science views in a significant segment of the population, making future public health interventions that much harder. Other options have been found in other countries, for example fluoride pills or fluoridised milk.
It is obvious that the dental care crisis has been brewing in this country for a very long time. It seems harder and harder to get an appointment with a dentist or even to register with one. People are being turned away and told that the practices are full, so the Government need to get a grip on dental care and change the contracts that pay dentists. These currently operate on a quota system; those quotas are nowhere near sufficient to provide for the level of population in need. Dentistry should be provided on the basis of need, not an arbitrary quota set by the Government. On a related note, the Government need to get a handle on the severe health inequalities experienced by people facing social exclusion, such as people who are homeless, those with substance misuse issues and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
On the topic of drugs, the Government are failing completely on addiction treatment. By talking constantly about the war on drugs, they are trying to avoid the fact that that war is lost. We have to do drugs differently: we need a drugs policy which prevents criminals profiting from the supply of drugs. That is why the Greens support a legalised, regulated system of drug control, focused on minimising harm to individuals, society and the environment. The war on drugs has been a catastrophic failure. As ex-undercover police officer Neil Woods says in his book Drug Wars, we have lost that war. I suggest that your Lordships read it; he was an undercover officer working among drug gangs and experienced that at first hand.
It is time to take a health and care approach to the whole drug problem—and we obviously have a drug problem at the other end of this building. I am curious as to what the Government are going to do about that. If 10 out of 12 lavatories tested had cocaine in them, there are clearly quite a lot of MPs, or staff, using cocaine. I would have thought that one of the first stops on the Minister’s reconnoitring today would be to make sure that people stop using those drugs here in Parliament.
There is so much wrong with the Bill, like so many other pieces of legislation that we get in this House, that I will give the Minister two bits of advice. First, it should go back. He should take it away and say to whoever wrote it, “Make it better”, and bring it back to us in the sort of condition where we can amend it and do a bit of redrafting, not the wholesale redrafting that it needs. Secondly, he made some very uplifting comments about the NHS at the start of his speech. Why not give NHS staff the pay rise they deserve? That is what we would like to happen.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, in particular as a long-standing partner at the international commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I warmly welcome the Bill. In its broad architecture and intent, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, pointed out in his superb maiden speech, it goes very much with the grain of what healthcare professionals want, building on existing and emerging best practice—in particular non-statutory integrated care systems. Among the innovations in the Bill, I welcome in particular the proposed new Health Services Safety Investigations Body, extended to encourage learning across the whole sector rather than just in the NHS.
Some argue that it might have been better to delay these reforms until the Covid-19 pandemic was truly a thing of the past. Ultimately it is for the Minister to allay those concerns, not me, but if anything I think the Bill is overdue. The pandemic has put the system under unprecedented strain, and although the NHS and its independent sector colleagues co-operated brilliantly to continue to deliver healthcare, some cracks understandably did begin to show.
I have been in Parliament for 45 years now, and the holy grail for me has always been a so-called seamless robe of health and social care. There are always people in hospital who would be better off elsewhere, always shortfalls in at-home care staff, and always breakdowns in communication between healthcare and the social care system. It is an age-old problem, and one that came into sharp—indeed, horrifying—focus during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The biggest concern across both healthcare and social care is still staffing. The ability to meet demand through recruitment and, within social care especially, reducing the current unsustainable level of churn, remains the key to delivering the world-class health and social care of which we are capable. The availability and accessibility of alternative care settings—for example, at-home care—also require dramatic improvement. This will all require more people, more training and more money.
In another place there was an attempt to amend the Bill to make it provide for regular, authoritative workforce projections. Perhaps such an amendment might ultimately find its way into the Bill. I hope so.
Those who experience health inequalities have also been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Might it be beneficial for the Secretary of State to be able to place specific requirements on the new NHS commissioning bodies to have regard to particular aspects of inequalities?
Of course, the Bill is now buttressed by the proposals in the Government’s White Paper on social care, which I also welcome. I would be delighted to hear from the Minister whether anything from the White Paper might yet find its way into the Bill, here or in another place, because we must move more quickly.
No one, though, wants the NHS to live in a state of permanent revolution, so there must be no change for change’s sake. Now more than ever, change must be purposeful, rational and highly effective, capturing the positives in cross-sector co-operation that we all recognise.
Many of the principles in the Bill have long been adumbrated by the opposition parties themselves, in particular the vital principle of affirming that the Secretary of State must have overall responsibility for the NHS. I therefore very much hope that we can now all work together to achieve a degree of consensus across all parties and beyond. The NHS is far too important to be a party-political football.
I already like the Bill very much indeed, and I fervently hope that we all grow to like it more and more as it progresses through all its stages, in particular in this House.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. There is much to welcome in the Bill—but not Clause 140, which, by excluding local authority support from the calculation, means that poorer people will lose a larger proportion of their assets in paying for social care. Especially coming on top of the regressive national insurance levy, this is shockingly unfair. I also share the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the effectively untrammelled power that Clause 39 provides for the Secretary of State.
I strongly support the restriction on advertising of food and drink. It is right to curb abuses of commercial and media freedom by food and drink manufacturers that seek to wreck human health for their profits.
I very much welcome the centrepiece of the Bill: the replacement of the driving principle of competition with that of collaboration—not only between bodies within the NHS but between the NHS, local government and other community partners—and the statutory underpinning of place-based integrated care systems. While the Bill hardly begins to address the really big challenges for the NHS—integration of health and social care, workforce planning, prevention and health inequalities—ICSs point the way to making progress on all these.
I would like to describe one way in which some ICSs have already entered into fruitful partnership with non-clinical bodies. I declare an interest as chair of the National Centre for Creative Health, a charity that promotes creative engagement with the arts and culture in the interests of health and well-being. It was set up in response to a recommendation in the 2017 report Creative Health by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing. A number of noble Lords took part in that work. The NCCH is working with NHS England and four ICSs: Gloucestershire; West Yorkshire and Harrogate; Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin; and Suffolk and north-east Essex. Our focus is on how cultural and community assets can mitigate the negative health impacts of social disadvantage.
Creative Health set out a mass of evidence on the health benefits of creative activity. It also demonstrated significant benefits for the health and well-being of NHS staff. Since 2017, the body of evidence has increased, as reported in the work led by Dr Daisy Fancourt at UCL for the World Health Organization and for the MARCH Network, funded by UKRI. There have been numerous other testimonies concerning the benefits of the arts for mental health during the pandemic. ICS leaders who have recognised this have been enthusiastic to work with the NCCH and local arts bodies to realise the potential of engaging creativity to further their health agendas, whether in preventive strategies or in assisting patients to recover better. Significant innovative work has been taking place—for example, in Suffolk, where sufferers from long Covid are being supported to improve their breath control through singing.
Psychosocial factors that contribute to health inequalities include isolation, lack of social support and social networks, lack of self-esteem, perceived lack of control, and doubt about the meaning and purpose of life. Engagement in music, dance, drama, pottery, art classes or reading groups can mitigate all those factors.
There are two aspects of the Bill on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification and reassurance. Will integrated care boards have the freedom to include in their membership nominees of community bodies such as arts and cultural organisations, and will new procurement regulations permit ICSs to buy non-clinical services from arts and cultural bodies and individuals?
Professor Sir Michael Marmot endorsed the findings of Creative Health in these words:
“The mind is the gateway through which the social determinants impact upon health, and this report is about the life of the mind. It provides a substantial body of evidence showing how the arts, enriching the mind through creative and cultural activity, can mitigate the negative effects of social disadvantage.”
Of course, the Marmot agenda is far broader. The Marmot review estimated in 2010 that health inequalities cost £31 billion in lost production. The Treasury should recognise the investment case for fully resourcing ICSs. More than that is needed. Until the Government mobilise other departments alongside the Department of Health to address systemic environmental and social factors in local communities across the land, there will be no levelling up, poorer people will continue to suffer unnecessary ill health, and the NHS will continue to struggle.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, “It’s a Sin”: I invite noble Lords to think back to 40 years ago, when a deadly virus came out of nowhere. The NHS had just gone through the most radical change in years; it had developed a purchaser/provider split. We should now go back and look at everything that followed from that. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his remarks, in which he talked about this legislation being “evolutionary”. We have a question to ask of this Bill: to what extent do its proposals bring about change?
Looking back over those 40 years, the big changes happened when there were panics and big challenges to providers to stop them doing things that they had always done in the way that they had done them, and, crucially, when people in communities—sometimes geographical, but sometimes communities of interest—went and found the scientists and the medics and worked together with enlightened providers to bring about change. Given where we are, and given the experience of the last year, to what extent does this Bill do that?
It is a rather curious Bill; its arrival in this place was very strange. We have had very odd White Papers and a funding settlement on something that was supposed to be quite strategic, but we have not yet had the integration papers. So on the one hand the legislation is attempting to be very big and strategic, but, on the other, it seems to be all rushed and muddled. As far as I can see, it does not, for example, fully take into account some very big changes in demography.
We know that, at the moment, that we have 1 million people aged over 60 who do not have any children, and that their number will double by 2030, yet we have a health and care system that is presaged on the fact that a person will have children to oversee and manage their care. That is not in the Bill at all. It also does not take into account the enormous development and change in therapeutics and diagnostics that we are on the edge of. I want to talk very briefly about HIV. As of last week, with the major breakthrough in injectable medicine, we know that we are on the cusp of some very big changes, yet this is not reflected in the structures of the Bill.
One thing we have learned in the last year is that data and the communication of data are absolutely the driver of integration and change. I do not know whether any noble Lord has recently tried to follow a patient around a hospital—good luck with that. As for trying to follow a patient between hospital and social care—just no. What the NHS does really well is acute things in big hospitals, and it measures the outcomes. But what nobody does at all is get that same data for mental health, primary care and social care. Unless and until we begin to address the fundamental issue of information exchange, we are quite frankly rearranging some deckchairs, because we will never get it. Given the amount of effort and money that has gone into that over the last year because of the pandemic, we should be further along the way.
I want to very quickly highlight one area in which I will be assessing the Bill quite rigorously. Both providers of the service and women know that women’s access to reproductive health services and contraception has been utterly fragmented by the 2012 Act. It is now almost impossible for young women to get access to contraception in some parts of the country. We also know that, for every £1 invested in sexual and reproductive health, the NHS saves £49. Somewhere, in all our talk of place and of integration, we really have to get to grips with some of this basic information and put it into the hands of patients, who will challenge the providers to make the difference.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the direction of travel the Government are taking with this legislation. It is a direction of travel my colleagues and I set out on 36 years ago this year at the Bromley by Bow Centre in the East End of London. As our work today starts to go national and to scale, I thought it might be most helpful if I set out some reflections based on many years of practical experience in this space and offer encouragement to the Government to go much further.
While some have been writing reports and undertaking yet more research, my colleagues and I, through the Well North programme supported by Public Health England, have been building innovation platforms that test these ideas in practice. We have created practical projects in towns and cities across the country over the last six years, bringing together key people from the health service, local authorities, and the social enterprise and business worlds, creating a learning by doing culture and applying entrepreneurial principles to some of our most challenging health and social problems. The detail of our work can be seen on the web. Given the limitations today, I want to focus on the importance of place for one of these real projects, undertaken by people in a real place, but first I will give a few reflections based on real experience over 36 years.
First, the present machinery of the state and health service is not fit for purpose. It is not learning lessons from good practice and has little memory of what has gone before. This legislation needs to get underneath this broken machinery, understand in detail its failings and lack of delivery, and transform it. Secondly, a modern health and care service in an enterprise economy is all about people and relationships and the building of trust between people; it is not centrally about process. Thirdly, the health narrative is out of date. If 80% of the determinants of health are social rather than biomedical, we need to seriously focus on getting upstream in the prevention agenda. It is about a new relationship between the local hospital and the context in which it is set.
Let me take to you one of these innovation platforms in north-west Surrey. I declare my interests. Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust sits within the North West Surrey Health and Care Alliance and is an anchor institution. Its focus on integration has placed it in a unique position to describe what works and what does not from the perspective of a place and the 450,000 people it serves. For this alliance, place is prime. First and foremost, subsidiarity needs to be more than just a principle. There should be a clear requirement for systems to demonstrably empower and delegate resources to place-based partnerships. Their learning is that, without tackling the wider determinants of health, it is impossible to shift the dial on the level of demand for healthcare, and this is a major contributor to the unsustainability of the health and care system.
One of the principles that is perhaps worth enshrining in the Bill is subsidiarity—passing responsibility and ownership as far down the chain as possible. Allowing individual staff as much autonomy as possible is a key element in reducing workplace stress and improving retention, enabling local areas to work out their own solutions.
The only way to act successfully against determinants of poor health is through engagement and activation of locally based resources, including the voluntary and charitable sector, statutory bodies such as borough councils, and the business sector, among others. Through placing out-patient physiotherapy services in private and local authority-run gyms and leisure centres, they have enabled individuals to reconnect socially, which they would not have been able to do in a hospital environment. They have de-medicalised the therapy and created the opportunity to get active through joining the gym, enabling people to take control of wider aspects of their well-being, as well as providing additional footfall, which drives business success and supports economic advantage and job security—win-wins all round.
The right solutions need to be developed with these communities and from within them. To do this in a successful and sustained way requires local intelligence, strong relationships and the freedom to act, which can come about only through the activation of place-based partnerships. The alliance view is that too much system interference, control and direction, even if well-meaning, gets in the way and works to prevent the active involvement of the voluntary sector, which has been shown to deliver five times as much benefit per pound spent as statutory services. In this alliance, the aim is that they are an equal partner.
Improved working together across the interface of health and social care leads to other benefits, and ICSs should have a duty to pursue these. In north-west Surrey, the hospital’s recruitment hub, set up during the pandemic to support furloughed members of the community, successfully appointed people into the hospital workforce, many of whom have now taken up permanent employment. As well as being good for the alliance, this means that local people can continue to make a positive contribution—a major determinant of well-being—and support the local economy. The hospital is now working with local schools to build ladders of opportunity from learning into careers in health and care.
The alliance has been successful in securing one of the six new Cavell integrated primary care centres in the country, in Staines. This presents a unique opportunity to bring together hospital services, primary care, social and business entrepreneurs, housing and the arts in a community setting. This team have focused together on their place and have been working together as a partnership for around five years. They have started to see the enormous potential that exists in this integrated care model.
Will the Minister agree to meet the chairman and CEO of this hospital trust so that we can share with him and the Government the lessons learned to date and the opportunities that have presented themselves, as colleagues in the alliance have simply joined the dots? A simple “yes” would do.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as I recently stepped down as chair of NHS Improvement and as interim executive chair of what has become the UK Health Security Agency, including NHS Test and Trace. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his excellent maiden speech, and welcome him. Clearly, he will be a great addition to this House.
I am very supportive of the central thrust of the Bill, that of putting system-based working in health and care on a statutory footing. Modern medicine is a multi-disciplinary, cross-functional team effort. Most patients have multiple conditions and are cared for by multiple organisations. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has just said, the largest determinants of healthy lifespan are not our health services but education, housing and the economy. To deliver great healthcare, the different parts of the NHS must work together, and to have longer, healthier lives, we need our NHS to work collaboratively with local government, public health, social care, the third sector and the private sector. This Bill puts that permissive, collaborative, systems-based leadership on a legal footing and, as such, I am pleased to support it. However, there are issues that we should challenge and probe in the Bill. I will focus on two.
The first, as many others have said, is workforce. These last two years have been challenging for virtually everyone in the world, but it is people working in health and care who have had to dig deepest, work hardest and bear the brunt of the fight against Covid. I thank every person working in health and care for what they are doing for all of us, day in, day out, night in, night out. Sadly, the Bill lets these people down by not being honest about the single biggest challenge that our health and care system faces: workforce. We do not have enough clinically trained people in almost every discipline, from healthcare assistants to consultants. When I joined the NHS four years ago, it was clear that we needed to do much more to support our people. From the basics of no hot food for people working overnight, to limited mental health support for people doing highly stressful jobs, through to the lack of honest and fair performance management, talent planning and career pathways, many of the basics that you would expect to find in large people organisations are not consistently available.
One of the things that is most glaringly absent is open and transparent planning for workforce numbers. Three years ago, I was asked by the then Secretary of State to lead the development of the NHS people plan. The Interim NHS People Plan, published in June 2019, set out significant programmes to make the NHS a better place to work, to improve leadership culture, to recruit more nurses and to change the skills mix, but it did not contain any forecasts of workforce numbers. Why was this? It was not because the work was not done—it was—and not even because the Government disagreed with the numbers. There are no forecasts because we could not get approval to publish the document with any forecasts in it. My experience is clear. Unless expressly required to do so, government will not be honest about the mismatch between the supply and demand of healthcare workers.
It is depressing that we are debating the publication of plans, because it is not plans that the service needs but people, which means spending money on training. Over the last eight years, Health Education England’s budget has remained flat, while spending on NHS services has grown by over 40%. Unbelievably, today, a month after the Government’s spending review, Health Education England does not have an agreed budget even for next year, let alone longer-term funding. Clearly, we must also change how we work; otherwise, roll everything forward 20 years and virtually the entire UK adult workforce will be needed to work in health and social care. However, none of that change is likely unless we are honest about the real size of the problem. The Government refused to accept an amendment to Clause 35 in the other place, and I urge them to reconsider.
My second concern is in the drafting of the new powers of direction that this Bill gives to the Secretary of State. It is right that Ministers who account to Parliament daily on NHS issues should be able to direct the NHS to act, but it is also important that we have the right safeguards in place, especially when the inevitably short-term pressures of politics conflict with the longer-term realities of science. Will my noble friend the Minister carefully consider feedback on the safeguards required for the many expanded powers of direction in this Bill, including reconfigurations, organisation structures, HSIB investigations, and foundation trusts’ use of capital? The collaborative systems leadership at the core of the Bill requires openness and honesty about the difficult trade-offs that are inherent in managing our most precious public service. The Bill needs more of it.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his maiden speech. We all look forward to hearing more wise words from him, I am sure.
We all have waited patiently for the White Paper that was promised by the Prime Minister two and a half years ago, when he said that his Government would fix social care problems “once and for all”. We have now had the White Paper and a Bill, but there is no way that it will fix the many problems that exist in the social care system. At the same time, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that within the Bill there is some recognition of what many of us have been demanding for many years, well before the Prime Minister’s boast.
However, the Bill is silent on many of the problems of social care, and certainly in no way meets the needs of an integrated system between social care and the National Health Service. Instead, we shall continue to have an unequal system whereby the National Health Service will be a part of, rather than at one with, the social services. Funding allocation for social care in the Bill is far too small for the reform that is needed. There is no recognition of the important role that carers play as an essential part of supporting the National Health Service or the important role that they played alongside the National Health Service during the difficult months of the pandemic crisis.
I have always declared my interest in debates of this kind as a member of UNISON, a union with many health and social care workers among its membership. Before I was elected to the other place, I was a union official for nurses, midwives, care workers and others in the health service. Since arriving in Parliament, I have always shown an interest in those workers, who have always been at the wrong end of the wage scale. Nothing has changed in this respect; it is about time that they are recognised for the important role they play in our society.
In truth, the White Paper recognises some of the problems that exist in the workforce and includes a focus on career progression, the move towards the registration of care workers and the proposed changes to care certification. However, notwithstanding those improvements, there is virtually no coverage of the living standards of social care workers in the Bill. It shows a pathetic failure to grasp the gravity of the situation given the severe workforce crisis that exists currently. We all know that care workers are leaving the sector in droves, particularly over the past year. To put it bluntly, there is no point in highlighting the importance of a workforce if there are no workers there to be highlighted. Talk of their importance is meaningless.
To give a sense of the workforce crisis, UNISON shows the important state of the sector for care workers. Nearly 31% of care staff say that staffing levels are dangerously low and getting worse, affecting the care provided. Virtually all workers—some 97% of them—say that their employers are currently experiencing staffing shortages. Care workers have been overworked with low pay. These are all major factors among the reasons why they are leaving the sector for better pay. UNISON argues that 67% of staff say that they are thinking of leaving the sector altogether.
It is quite obvious that the Government must recognise that there is a crisis in this area and that they should do something about it—and quick. I could go on stressing the needs of care workers but time is clearly not on my side. However, I hope that this message gets clearly home to the Government because it is sadly needed.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Stevens on his maiden speech. Our past collaborations were always so productive. I look forward to working with him as a fellow Cross-Bencher.
In this debate, I will focus on the missing part of the jigsaw in the Government’s Health and Care Bill. It requires further amendment if it is to address the care crisis for working-age disabled people. As drafted, this legislation hardly touches on the desperately needed funding reforms for that cohort. Instead, it is largely about inheritance. So much has been made of some people having to draw on their property and liquid assets to pay for social care that protecting accumulated wealth has become the overriding goal of reform. Under the reforms, the offspring of some wealthier homeowners will enjoy a more generous inheritance when they die. However, for disabled people, the Bill takes them nowhere and continues to limit their life chances. We all aspire to owning a home, providing for a family and saving for retirement—living life to the full. For thousands of disabled people, this is not possible without social care support.
Over a third of people who use social care are disabled people of working age. Their support accounts for at least half of council expenditure on social care. Persistent underinvestment by successive Governments has had two major consequences: first, fewer people have access to the support they need to live, even at a basic level, unless they can privately resource it, which means that they cannot play their part in the community either socially or economically; and, secondly, local councils, faced with ever-tighter budgets, are balancing their books by increasing charges for care. This effectively wipes out the funding that disabled people receive from the DWP to meet their extra living costs and avoid poverty.
The Care Act 2014 went some way to address this injustice. According to the Health Foundation, the amendment to the Care Act in the current Bill will not do so. It says:
“Consider a disabled person with no assets, care needs amounting to £500 per week and an income of £50 per week above the minimum income guarantee. If the £86,000 ceiling is reached taking account of their care costs, they will contribute the £50 for 3.3 years. However, if the £86,000 ceiling is to be reached using only their own contributions, it will take them 33 years to reach it. Put simply, they will be 10 times worse off under this Bill.”
This will clearly deny countless generations of disabled people the same economic opportunities. The Bill effectively favours wealthier homeowners over those with more modest assets and lifelong disabilities. That cannot be right.
As the national network Social Care Future clearly identifies in its material,
“we all want to live in the place we call home with the people and things that we love … doing the things that matter to us”.
Social care exists to support us all in that ambition. We know that government investment in social care for working-age disabled people will pay dividends. This Bill provides the perfect opportunity to do just that, if—and only if—it is amended. It is simply unfair to place some people at greater economic disadvantage because they happen to be disabled. I really look forward to working with the Minister on this Bill to make it fully inclusive and fair for all.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his quite outstanding maiden speech.
Overall, I welcome the shift away from competition to greater collaboration and integration in our complex health and social care sector that this Bill signals, but, like others, I am very concerned about the timing of this legislation. The health and social care systems currently face extreme challenges, workforce shortages and burnout, a resurgence of Covid with a new, more transmissible variant, a huge pandemic-induced backlog of treatment, winter pressures and social care in crisis. Now does not feel like the right time for a structural reorganisation which will inevitably divert scarce clinical and management attention from front-line delivery. So my first question to the Minister is: why now?
Secondly, the fundamental problem that the NHS is confronting is a lack of capacity and resilience, particularly the lack of spare capacity in the system, meaning that it is continuously running at an unsustainable “hot” level of bed occupancy. The UK has 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 of population compared to an EU average of 5.2 and significantly fewer doctors and nurses per head of population. So my next question to the Minister is: what plans do the Government have urgently to increase capacity and deal with workforce shortages, and how does this Bill help? Like others, I strongly support the calls for Clause 35 to be amended so that the Secretary of State must publish independently verified assessments of current and future workforce numbers every two years.
I wish to focus briefly on three issues that I shall pursue in the Bill. First, the Bill reads as if it is written by adults for adults. Babies, children and young people make up 30% of the population. They have their own distinct workforce, a distinct legal framework and distinct services. More needs to be done to ensure that the benefits of integration apply equally to the children’s system, and this should be made explicit in the Bill.
It is vital that children are prioritised in the new integrated care systems and that a national accountability framework supports them to deliver improvements in health and social care outcomes for children. There must be a plan to set out clearly how existing duties, including leadership of local safeguarding arrangements, will be transferred from CCGs to integrated care boards without endangering the safety of children or impacting on the provision of services. Following the heartbreaking and horrific murder of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, the Bill should be used as an opportunity to strengthen leadership within these safeguarding partnerships, to improve independent scrutiny of the arrangements, and to ensure that action is taken in response to the lessons learned.
Secondly, as highlighted in a recent report on child vulnerability by the Lords Public Services Committee, there needs to be improved data sharing to allow better joint working across health, education, and children’s social care. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed out, data sharing in the Bill currently applies only to the adult system, for reasons I do not understand. The Bill must surely be amended to make it clear that the benefits of better information and data sharing apply equally to children and that agencies can and should share data where it is in the best interests of children to do so.
Mental illness represents up to 23% of the total burden of ill health in the UK but only 11% of NHS England’s budget. At present, there is no assurance in the Bill that mental health will be given equal precedence with physical health in integrated care systems or by NHS England. This is disappointing after the hard-fought and successful battle, which many noble Lords were involved in, to amend the 2012 Act to make it clear that the Secretary of State must prioritise mental health as much as physical health. While the new Bill does not remove this duty from the Secretary of State, it fails to replicate it in the new triple aim. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I want mental health to be mentioned explicitly in the NHS’s triple aim and in relevant parts throughout the Bill to specify that NHS England, ICBs and ICPs are expected to pursue “parity” between mental and physical health in all their functions and to report publicly on their outcomes.
Finally, on health inequalities, there is clearly scope for the Bill to be strengthened, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made clear. The pandemic has cruelly exposed and exacerbated health inequalities that have long existed in our society. I was going to set out various places where that could be done, but the noble Lord did it so comprehensively and clearly that I shall not repeat it.
If levelling up is to mean anything, the triple aim should be amended explicitly to reference health inequalities, thereby sending a clear signal to all parts of the new healthcare system that this is a priority at all levels.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
My Lords, I welcome much in this Bill, especially the provisions on childhood obesity, and I welcome the end to the 2012 Act clauses which obstructed collaboration between primary and secondary care and community services. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on the work that he did to formulate so much of what is in this Bill and on his maiden speech.
However, as we scrutinise the Bill, there are a number of things that we should look at. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will be surprised that I am going to agree with him on something for once, but I wonder what the philosophy is that is going to drive up standards of patient care. Competition in the form we used it did not work for the reasons discussed, but the danger of the new ICS structure is that we could create local monopolies and will not be focused enough on what really matters, which is driving up patient care. We need to think about how we define what we mean by success for the ICS and how we define failure. That failure regime is not clearly enough set out in the Bill. I also think that FTs should keep their independence, which Clause 54 would seek to remove.
Essentially—the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, made this point eloquently—we have best practice all over the place in this country. We have wonderful people doing wonderful things in the NHS and social care. Everywhere you look, you can find somebody brilliant, often working against the system, who is getting it right. Our problem is that we never seem to be able to spread that best practice to anywhere. The argument for ICSs is that they are bigger, they will contain more ambition within them, and so we will be able to drive their ambition in that way and bring the laggards with us. I think that will be largely true, but we need to make them entrepreneurial. A number of noble Lords in this debate have proposed all sorts of extra people who might sit on these boards. I would only warn that talking shops really do not get things done; we have far too many of them already and I hope that we will be able to keep these things relatively slimline.
As many speakers have said, the biggest limiting factor in the NHS and care at the moment is staff. I would support a new amendment to Clause 35. I suggest that we consider removing the reference to the OBR which Jeremy Hunt made in his amendment; that would make a big difference. I do not think that it is necessary for the workforce strategy to be consistent with fiscal projections, and I hope that might be considered by the Minister.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others have said, we also urgently need to retain staff. We need to train them; yes, HEE needs a bigger budget, but we need to retain the wonderful people that we have. If there is any chance within the structure of this Bill to remove every impediment possible to resolve the pension issues for GPs and to reduce paperwork wherever we can, I urge that we should take it.
We need much better data sharing, but when I was working as a temporary adviser to the DHSC last year, I had a worrying conversation with a wonderful receptionist in a care home. She said to me, “I haven’t been able to talk to a single family today; I’ve got grieving families trying to get through to me on the phone. They can’t get through because it is clogged up with people from local authorities, people from the Department of Health, people from Public Health England, who are calling me to find out the data.” That was a major failing in the pandemic, and we are in danger of making the same mistake again. We must commission for outcomes, but we must find ways to measure them which do not mean multiple agencies—I should have added the CQC, on which I used to sit, to that list—ringing up front-line staff, who have better things to do. We would raise the morale of front-line staff if we stopped asking them to input data into systems again and again.
I want to make two further points. First, if we are serious about parity between mental and physical health, I suggest that we use that phrase to replace “health” in the Bill wherever we can. Finally, Covid-19 has of course exposed what we have long known about health inequalities in this country. I urge the Minister to consider whether the triple aim could be expanded more explicitly to focus on health inequalities.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extremely good introduction to the Bill, He has taken to the job incredibly quickly, taking on this massive Bill so enthusiastically; it is incredibly impressive. I also make a personal testimony to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who I knew from the battle against the pandemic over the last two years. His expertise and experience were brought to bear against that awful disease, and I am so pleased to see him now in the Chamber contributing to this important debate.
The Minister is right: this is a proportionate and welcome Bill that enables us to make important changes. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is right that it came originally from the health and care system. We should remember that when we comment on it, because it is an omnibus Bill that gives those at the front line the tools they need to improve the system. I completely endorse those who have spoken about the importance of collaboration. My noble friend Lady Harding spoke much more fluently than I possibly could. Medical clinical care very often involves complex issues that need a huge amount of collaboration and work to succeed. Therefore, this Bill should try to smooth out anything that creates inadvertent competition, barriers to discussion or hurdles to getting things done. I think that it gives the system the tools to be able to do that.
I also endorse those who have talked about the importance of prevention. The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, is absolutely right; the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, called it a challenge that many advanced economies are facing and he is entirely right. Prevention is key. The pandemic showed us that our current health system is living beyond its means, and we have nothing but challenges ahead of us. The population health measures enabled by the ICSs are potentially critically important. This Bill only enables that potential; I would endorse its power and encourage the Minister to run really hard at prevention.
That is why I support Clause 4 on cancer detection, which was introduced in the other place. It touches on the point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish; by putting an emphasis on outcomes rather than the operational details of cancer detection, it is trying to introduce an important inflection point that I think could be duplicated elsewhere. That is also why I support Schedule 17 on junk food advertising; we have to seize the nettle on that. There was so much sadness in the daily meetings that I used to attend in ICU units. When the numbers of people being intubated were ticking up, so often they were because of comorbidities created by overweight. We need to tackle our obesity epidemic; that is why Schedule 17 is so important. I would also endorse those who have supported the work on hymenoplasty; while I welcome the Government’s moves in this area so far, I think they can go further.
What I really want to endorse is innovation. Data has been mentioned by a large number of noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, talked a bit about productivity; the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talked about patient care; one noble Lord talked about safety. They are all absolutely right. Clauses 81 to 87 in Part 2 are critical, and I would like to hear the Minister’s endorsement of those. I also support the commitment to research. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, spoke very well—much better than I could—about the case for strengthening ICSs’ commitment to research. If the NHS is to achieve what it needs to achieve, it needs to double down on its ability to deliver research; this is an area that the Minister should very firmly commit to looking at, as the Bill makes its progress.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome a Bill that brings together the National Health Service and social care. How could I not? It is a long overdue development. However, I have serious reservations about the Bill’s direction of travel. I fear that the reforms set out here will fragment and disconnect the NHS from the very people—the patients—it was created to serve. The proliferation of protest groups and increasing numbers of petitions, as well as individual cases to challenge existing changes being taken all the way to the High Court, all bear witness to a popular groundswell of opposition to what is happening.
There also comes a warning this week from former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt about the risk of equity-funded investment in care homes. When the motive is profit, he says, standards of care are squeezed. The NHS motive is exclusively private care—and so we come to the continuing inroads made into the NHS by Centene, America’s leading health insurance company and its subsidiaries in this country under Operose. They have been steadily buying up surgeries around the country and including them on their schedule of profit-making enterprises designed to offer good returns to their global shareholders.
Anyone with any knowledge of American healthcare, whether first-hand or reported, will know how expensive it is. The level of your care depends on the level of your insurance; without insurance, you can be refused care. The New Yorker recently reported that American hospitals are closing at a rate of 30 a year. It reported that, increasingly, hospitals are seen as businesses—that
“a fifth of hospitals are now run for profit, and, globally, private-equity investment in health care has tripled since 2015.”
In 2019, according to this report, some £60 billion was spent on acquisitions globally. That “globally” includes—indeed targets—us and our NHS.
Centene and its British subsidiary Operose now own 70 surgeries around the country, from Leeds to Luton, from Doncaster to Newport Pagnell, from Nottingham to Southend, and in many other areas, Centene/Operose now owns and runs for profit surgeries formerly owned and run by NHS doctors. It is now the biggest provider of GP services in the country. It has further designs on the existing fabric of the NHS, seeking to have its representatives sitting on the boards of CCGs, and making decisions about the deployment of NHS funding. This is a direction of travel that needs to be monitored and checked—and it will be.
Why does all this matter, as long as patients have good and free treatment at the point of delivery, wherever they need it? What is the reputation of the company Centene in America? It is not good. Since the year 2000, there have been 174 recorded penalties against Centene, its subsidiaries and its agents for contract-related offences against its patients. The fines paid by Centene go into millions—billions—of dollars. This is not a fit company to be part of the NHS. I repeat the Government’s campaigning cry: “Take back control”—of our NHS.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I first congratulate my noble friend Lord Stevens on an excellent maiden speech. I agree with him that there are substantial opportunities in this Bill, although some things are missing, some of which he referred to, such as mental health and determinants of health. As other noble Lords have discussed, however, I feel the complexity of some of these processes and the difficulty of getting one’s mind around how this will actually work.
I agree with so much that has been said about social care, particularly on the cap. I trust that your Lordships’ House will send this back to the other place rapidly for it to think again. I also agree with many points that have been made on the workforce, although I would make a single observation—that we need to pay attention to changing roles as well as to numbers. In the case of primary care, it will not look in 15 years’ time as it does now. This is for all kinds of reasons, including the way that nurses are taking on a much bigger role; they will continue to do so, and I suspect they will be the lead providers in primary care in 15 years’ time. That is a simple prediction that I may come to regret.
When you make a change such as this, you disrupt the system and some arrangements that used to work. There are two more specific points that I should like to explore in Committee. One is how we ensure that primary care—GPs, but primary care more generally—still has a significant role in approving plans. I recognise that there are practicalities around that, but it is vital that it retains some impact. I also think it is very important that foundation trusts can maintain sufficient independence of action. I know that the concern of NHS Providers is about control of capital in that regard. Some things need to be explored further.
However, my main observation is to follow other noble Lords in saying that we are talking here about integrating health and social care, but that is 20% of the issue; there is so much more outside that. We know all about social determinants; many have mentioned them. We know the massive impact of education, employment, training and housing—both positive and, I may say, negative—on health, and we know the science that underpins that: about relationships, how social isolation leads to dementia; how exercise, exposure to nature, and such aspects, make change. We need to capitalise on that.
I want to make two points that are slightly different from what others have said. First, this is not just about prevention. Prevention is about the causes of ill health; we need to be thinking also about the causes of health, and the two things are often run together in ways that are unhelpful. Creating health is about creating the conditions for people to be healthy and helping them to flourish. It is about human flourishing, eudaimonia, if one wants to go back to Aristotle.
The second point, which goes alongside it, is that the health of the individual is intimately connected with the health of the community in which they live. This is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in particular, exemplified with his discussion about Well North, but also his early experience in Bromley by Bow. There are now examples all over the country of people starting to bring together the things that improve communities with the things that improve individual health. That is a vital part of the future. We have known that for years, but we have not known how to connect it properly with the NHS. I speak as a former chief executive of the NHS in England who failed to make that happen.
My question to the Minister is: how will the Government ensure that those other groups in society—voluntary organisations, housing associations, employers, schools, educators and so on—contribute to creating health and, thereby, supporting the NHS to do its vital work? We need to see health in terms of wonderful healthcare and services and prevention of disease, but also creating the conditions for people to thrive. The underpinning thought here is that our health as individuals is intimately connected with the health of our communities, of society at large and, ultimately, of the planet.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who was chief executive at my father’s hospital. I refer to my role as chair of Genomics England, as declared in the register.
The future of health and care must be collaboration, increased productivity and innovation. To that end, there is much to welcome in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, put it so clearly in his outstanding maiden speech, the Bill is based on recommendations from NHSEI and local health and care leaders, so it is no surprise that it removes statutory barriers that are preventing front-line NHS leaders responding to current challenges. The NHS Confederation agrees. It says that it is not a top-down reorganisation; it is providing a legislative framework for what is already happening on the ground. The King’s Fund says that it has nothing to do with privatisation.
Moreover, I cannot count the number of times we in this place have agreed that integration of services is absolutely critical for delivering higher quality care, and this Bill enables that through health and care partnerships. We have also frequently violently agreed on the unintended consequences of the internal market, so I am looking forward to an outbreak of consensus on the abolition of mandatory tendering, as well as the many public health measures for which I have heard many in this place campaign. It is a move away from competition to collaboration, which can be only beneficial, particularly when the NHS is facing so much pressure.
Having said that, I also say that there are many genuine issues for debate. Others have raised workforce planning, social care and the Secretary of State’s powers very eloquently, so I will not speak to them now—there will be time for debate—but I strongly associate myself with the eloquent contribution of my noble friend Lady Harding. Instead, I add my voice to those who have called for the Bill to go further on clinical research. Evidence shows that research-active hospitals have better patient outcomes, more satisfied staff and higher CQC ratings. For patients such as me with rare diseases, participation in clinical research may be the only way to access effective treatment. We have all seen the impact of the pandemic on the landscape of research. On the one hand, the response to Covid-19 has been phenomenal. RECOVERY, PRINCIPLE and the vaccine trials have all demonstrated our capacity to deliver clinical research with global impact at unprecedented pace and scale. We should be incredibly proud of that.
On the other hand, non-Covid clinical research has faced enormous disruption. Many studies have been paused or cancelled altogether, as those research staff were redeployed either to front-line activity or to Covid studies. Data from the ABPI shows that the number of participants enrolled in commercial clinical trials was 15% lower in June 2021 compared to June 2019, while in Spain and Italy enrolment rose by more than a third during the same period. As a result, the UK has now fallen to fifth in Europe in phase 3 trials initiated per year. As we restart care, we must ensure that non-Covid research is also reprioritised. Of course, that will require the staff and resources to ensure capacity to deliver research at the same time as NHS recovery. I believe that this is exactly what the Minister wants. The Government have set an ambition for the UK to be the destination of choice for clinical research, but we have to ensure that we have the capacity within the health and care system to deliver that research and prioritise it while delivering that recovery. We can start with that today.
Like the 2012 Act, the Bill only includes a duty “to promote research” in Clause 19. While welcome, that has too often allowed clinical research to fall down the agenda. We can do more. The Bill provides a once-in-a-decade opportunity for us to embed research right at the heart of the NHS by putting that ambition on a statutory footing.
The Bill would be stronger if we mandated integrated care boards to ensure that the NHS organisations for which they are responsible are conducting clinical research. They should publish and transparently track that research in their annual reports and joint forward plans to understand exactly how that clinical research is being delivered in a way that meets the needs of local communities and ensures that they are increasing the diversity of participation.
Those proposals are supported by a long list of medical research and patient charities, as I am sure would be expected, but also by a number of colleagues in the other place who tried to push forward such amendments. Sadly, so far, they have failed. I urge the Minister to think again as the Bill goes through the House, because we have the opportunity with it to encode clinical research—and the hope that it gives so many—directly into the DNA of the NHS. Please do not let this opportunity pass as we take the Bill through this House.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I declare my registered interests, including my presidency of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists and the Royal Medical Benevolent Fund, and my chairmanship of the oversight panel reviewing the care of people with learning disabilities and autistic people who are being detained in long-term segregation. I plan to make five short points but, first, I welcome the encouraging maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and I am glad that he highlighted the importance of mental health.
I introduced an amendment to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 with support from many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Patel. It committed the Government to parity for mental and physical health and illness. Some progress has been made, but not nearly enough. The Royal College of Psychiatrists suggests that there is scope to extend the commitment to mental health in the Bill across all levels of NHS organisation, including on integrated care boards. I agree.
My next point is that getting it right for people with learning disabilities would be a litmus test of how far we have made adequate and safe provision for everyone. That is what addressing inequalities is about. People with a learning disability face many barriers which contribute towards premature and avoidable mortality, including discrimination, such as the inappropriate application of “do not resuscitate” orders; or existing legal duties not being met, such as providing reasonable adjustments or meeting requirements of the Mental Capacity Act.
I support the proposed new legal duty on the CQC to assess the performance of local authorities in discharging their regulated care functions under the Care Act, as recommended by the Health and Social Care Select Committee. Mencap suggests that there should be a specific duty on ICBs to take account of the needs of people with learning disabilities. This goes further than the recommendation in the autism strategy, which is simply for a named learning disability and autism lead.
My third point is about education and research, both of which are essential to recruitment, retention and equality right across all care, well-being and health services. I will focus on education for a moment. Education is central to reducing discrimination and removing the barriers to equal access. The Government have stated their intention to introduce mandatory training in learning disability and autism for all health and social care staff. This recognises failings in existing mainstream health and social care training. Furthermore, an annual turnover of nearly one-third of all social care staff is a shocking waste of human resources. I would support meaningful training and valued career pathways, especially for direct care staff. We could learn such a lot from countries such as Germany.
If we do not plan for future generations by making children and families central to this legislation, including families with disabled children, we are letting down future generations. Beginning with the first 1,001 days, from conception to the age of two, would build the foundations needed for lifelong health and well-being.
Finally, care is not secondary to health but fundamental to it. The current system is often too mired in bureaucracy, with budget wrangling leading to poor service provision and poor outcomes. In my view, we urgently need a national care and health Bill that is genuinely integrated. It should see people of all ages as whole people whose mental and physical health and well-being cannot be divided up into packages, having been thought about and funded from within different organisational structures.
This Bill is an opportunity to bring true integration between health and social care and between mental and physical health services and to improve outcomes for everyone. We should also remember the social determinants of health, the role of the voluntary sector and the informal elements of care and well-being. I hope the Minister will consider my points as the Bill progresses, and I would welcome a discussion around supporting the amendments required to enable them.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, with her wealth of experience in this field, both personal and professional. I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and look forward to working with him again.
It has always been my role in your Lordships’ House to remind colleagues that, whatever reforms we make to health and social care, however many new acronyms we have, and however many new structures we set up, the bulk of health and social care in our society is provided not by paid professional services of any kind but by the so-called informal sector, the unpaid army of family, friends, neighbours and communities on whom we all rely.
Carers play an essential role in supporting the NHS and social care systems. Without their support, our systems would not have been able to cope with the increased demands they have seen during the pandemic. For many years, we have used the estimate of 6 million unpaid carers. During the pandemic, about 4.5 million people took on new caring responsibilities. Their total contribution is now estimated to be worth £193 billion every year—more than the cost of the NHS itself.
My test of any new legislation on health and social care is: how does it affect carers and will it help them be recognised for the vital role they play? The answer to that question is only partly positive. Carers welcome greater integration and collaboration between health and care services—the stated aims of this Bill—since their lives are made even harder when services are not joined up and data is not shared effectively and efficiently. I very much welcome the duty in Clause 6 to consult carers, and the duty on integrated care boards in Clause 20 to consult them around planning and commissioning.
There are some large omissions in the Bill which will have to be rectified if carers are not to suffer as a result of its introduction. For example, I suggest that a new duty should be placed on the NHS to have regard to carers and to promote their health and well-being. Carers are not systematically identified, supported and included throughout the NHS, although good practice does exist. In most social care systems, carers are legally recognised, but this does not apply to the NHS. For effective integration to be achieved across the system, there needs to be a statutory duty to have regard to carers and to promote their well-being. I remind your Lordships of the negative effects of caring on carers’ own health, with three-quarters of them reporting that their own physical and mental health is affected as a direct result of caring responsibilities.
Clause 80 is of great concern. This has been extensively debated in the other place. Incredibly, it actually removes rights from carers—rights which were hard fought for by me and many others during the passage of the Care Act 2014 and in other legislation. This Bill repeals the legislation that gave carers a fundamental right to an assessment and ensured that services were provided to make sure that hospital discharges are safe. There are endless horror stories about unplanned discharges with which I could regale your Lordships if time permitted. Some 68% of carers say that they were not asked whether they were willing and able to care at the point of discharge. Some 61% report that they were not given the right information and advice to help them care safely and well. Surely we must, at the very least, maintain carers’ rights, not reduce them—so this must be amended. I am sure that the Minister, with his understanding of carers’ needs, will be sympathetic.
I have two other areas of concern. The first is about the definition of “carer”. This is not defined in the Bill. Since the NHS is an all-age service, we assume that the definition that already exists under previous legislation will apply and that young and parent carers will therefore be included—but this must be defined and clearly stated in statutory guidance.
I also share the concern mentioned by many other noble Lords about the cap. Research by Carers UK found that 63% of carers were contributing financially in their role. For some, the contribution was relatively modest but, for others, it ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds. These proposals without the cap will leave many carers with low or modest assets very worried indeed.
I know that many of your Lordships recognise the contribution of unpaid carers. Indeed, many of us will be carers at this very moment, will have been carers in the recent past, or expect to be carers at some point in the future. I am confident therefore that we shall be able to amend this Bill to make it another important step in the hard-fought process of getting unpaid carers the recognition and support they so richly deserve.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, unlike Mr Gove, the House has definitely not had enough of experts, as our welcome for the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, has shown.
I am an amateur, but a couple of years ago I was lucky enough to serve on the Economic Affairs Select Committee, under the brilliant chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. I am sorry he is not here today. We wrote a report called Social Care Funding: Time to End a National Scandal, which is well worth rereading in the context of this Bill. I have been trying to work out whether the Bill does much to deal with this national scandal and have concluded, sadly, that it does not—indeed, it does not really try.
I would not have raised national insurance contributions to provide the money that the National Health Service so badly needs right now. Taxing work rather than taxing wealth is intrinsically and fundamentally wrong. But what really sticks in my craw is to brand the increase in national insurance contributions as needed to fund social care, and then to ensure that none of the money can go to social care for at least two or three years—probably never.
In my view, social care funding has to be ring-fenced. If the money is all in one pot, the NHS will always snaffle it for understandable, well-known reasons. An ageing population brings ever-increasing demands; the more successful the NHS, the greater the demands on it; and welcome advances almost always bring strongly positive relative price effects—medical inflation runs well ahead of general inflation. Medicine also provides the prestige jobs. Social care is the poor relation, struggling for attention and not getting it at all in this Bill.
I am all for improved co-ordination between hospitals, GPs and care workers, and I welcome some of the provisions in Clauses 21 and 26, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, but they do not address the funding problem. Continuing to rely on local government to find much of the money seems to me to be both hypocritical and inequitable. It is hypocritical, because local government has been squeezed by a decade of cuts and because central government will always want to minimise the taxes for which it is blamed, while someone else gets the blame for inadequate local services. It is inequitable, because some parts of the country will always be richer than others.
Of course, the link to business rates is particularly regressive. The 2019 report from the Select Committee pointed out that
“Demand for social care is often greatest in areas where business is least buoyant.”
Social care needs central funding.
On staffing, current levels of pay and conditions for the 1.5 million people who work in the care sector are a scandal that the Bill does not address. Nor does it look at how to find them. In 2019, 8% came from elsewhere in the European Union and 10% came from further afield. They are insultingly and quite wrongly classified as unskilled workers, so will the Home Secretary let them in?
Thirdly, the Bill ignores unpaid carers, that unseen army of friends and family—often children—on whose kindness we trade unfairly. They need help, but the Bill does not mention them; the words do not occur in it.
Fourthly, reading the Bill, one would think that social care is for those in their declining years, and I join those, like the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who find Clause 140 shockingly regressive. The fact is that well over 50% of what is now spent nationally and locally is to help people of working age, not to fund care homes but for daycare centres, home visits and helping those with disabilities. The provision of social care is notoriously patchy across the country. The Bill will not cure that, and I do not think that a cure will be found until social care has its own ring-fenced national funding, its own national standards and, in my view although not that of the Select Committee, its own national service: an NCS to match the NHS.
So my biggest concern about the Bill is what is not in it. A fortnight ago, the Health Secretary told the other place that it reflects the Government’s
“commitment to end the crisis in social care and the lottery of how we all pay for it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/21; col. 311.]
I only wish that were true, but I fear that an opportunity is being missed.
I will make one last point very briefly. I was struck by Mr Javid’s rejection of the suggestion that he be required to obtain the consent of the relevant devolved Government before making regulations under the Act in an area of devolved competence. Surely that is what the devolution settlement requires? Whatever happened to the Sewel convention? I rather hope that a version of Amendment 82, which was rejected in the Commons at the Government’s insistence, will be retabled in this House.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I join with all noble Lords to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I really enjoyed his constructive and funny maiden speech.
If integration is the aim of the Health and Care Bill, it fails in one extremely important respect, brought into stark relief by the tragedy of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. I say this not to appropriate a hard case, but because the two reviews led by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, following similarly horrifying child deaths, both stressed the need to integrate all the services that should keep children safe. Although prevention and early intervention in the form of family help have been missing for too long from the pipeline that led to children’s social care, this lack is now finally being rectified by the Government’s focus on rolling out family hubs. Yet this important new infrastructure, which also integrates paediatric health, goes unmentioned in the Bill.
Family help needs to include an emphasis on the prevention of family breakdown, the elephant in the room of children’s social care policy. As I said yesterday after the repeat of the Statement about Arthur,
“Evidence shows that children on the at-risk register are eight times more likely to be living with a natural parent and their current partner”—[Official Report, 6/12/21; col. 1677.]
than the national distribution for similar social classes. Children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries than children living with two biological parents. When both mother and father feel kin altruism towards a child, this can make a significant and decisive difference to that child’s health. Good family and other relationships are health assets, so the Bill should treat family-based interventions as part of the overall health approach and recognise the need to integrate them with physical and mental health provision.
Even absent this monstrous case, the Health and Care Bill should be reinforcing and integrating other cross-departmental work in government, such as the commitment to champion family hubs for families with children aged nought to 19—or up to 25, if there are special educational needs. Family hubs build on the work of children’s centres but go far beyond it and are central to the implementation of the Start4Life workstream, based in the Department of Health and Social Care. In fairness to the Government, this agenda has gathered considerable momentum since the Bill was published, and family hubs are now a big-ticket spending item in the £500 million spending-review commitment to support families.
They can also work preventively to meet children’s health needs, in relation to childhood obesity for example, as close to home as possible. In Essex, family hubs deliver midwifery and immunisation services and prevent unnecessary attendances in GP practices and A&E. They also deploy community-based clinical expertise for conditions such as allergies, continence, perinatal mental health, speech and language services and neuro- developmental conditions such as autism. This means that busy parents, who often have several children to look after, are spared lengthy and expensive hospital visits. When getting to that visit proves too difficult for the family, the ill child goes without treatment, and hospital- based services have yet another wasted appointment.
A preventive community asset-building approach requires out-of-hospital care to be protected and enhanced, possibly by ring-fencing funding for community-based provision. Yet the importance of preventive health support and treatment has not been adequately covered in the Bill. It is simply listed as one of several commissioning requirements of ICBs, with no broad mention of children’s health. Only young children are mentioned in the context of maternity services. Finally, the desired short and long-term health and well-being outcomes for children and families need to be determined, achieved and measured.
In summary, children’s community health provision must begin with a preventive community asset-building approach and be aligned and integrated with public health and local authority-funded early-help provision. As Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, said about Arthur, the life of a child is of “inestimable value”. The omission of school-age children, young people and family support was always puzzling, given the integrating imperative of the Bill. It makes even less sense in the wake of this tragedy.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I am driven to start my contribution by referring to the cruelty of the evil stepmother and terrible father of little six year-old Arthur. I hope this Bill will update and include safe children’s services. In doing nothing, incredible harm was done to this little boy, who was starved, poisoned with salt and beaten to death. I feel very sorry for the relations who tried to warn services but were ignored. Over the years, there have been too many terrible deaths and cases of cruelty towards neglected vulnerable children. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, is also supporting children today.
This Bill should improve communication and co-operation between services. Emergency services should be able to retrieve patient GP notes. X-ray and scan results should be able to be shared between hospitals and trusts. So much more should be done to speed up diagnosis and make emergency medicine a priority. It seems very concerning that there are young, bright people who want to train in medicine but there are not enough training places. We need more doctors, radiologists, radiographers, nurses and therapists, as well as all the other staff. The workforce is vital, as it is in social care and for disabled people living in their own homes. We have reached a crisis point.
The Bill can be improved if patient voices are included. Many people feel that the patient’s voice should be included in both the integrated care boards and the integrated care partnership by Healthwatch or a similar body, which could collect data from all the different sources representing patients. Patient-public engagement needs retaining, and there needs to be more clarity around the relationship between ICBs, partnership boards and the CQC.
Reorganising the NHS and care services in the middle of a pandemic is an enormous challenge for all concerned. The Bill seems to be encouraging local services, with some hospitals in rural areas having been downgraded. In order to get adequate services and specialised healthcare, patients have to travel miles and some patients need help to do this. Patients should not miss out because of where they live. Can the Minister confirm that all patients who need the necessary specialist treatments will get them? Patients with rare conditions also need access to the appropriate medicines, and very rare medicines should not be restricted. This includes end-of-life medicines, which should not be devalued.
The number of Members taking part in this debate shows how important health and care is to this country. Will the Minister tell us how much importance is being put on public health and the prevention of ill health? The extra workload due to coronavirus should not mean that other infections are put to one side. Working together and not in silos should help the social care providers; that seems to be what is needed.
In this Bill, who takes responsibility for sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, gonorrhoea, TB and many more infections? The global problem of drug resistance must not be neglected. There is also a growing problem of urinary infections and resistance.
We need to fight for our health. Therefore, scientists who produce vaccines should be supported. They need to know that the funds will be forthcoming so they can go ahead and produce new vaccines to fight new variants. Their research is vital to keep society safe. I hope this Bill will also keep our health and social care safe. I end by congratulating my noble friend Lord Stevens on his splendid maiden speech.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. Listening to her makes me realise how wide-ranging this Bill this. It is complex, as well, and will be a great challenge to our Minister as he guides it through this House. Not only does there seem to be a growing acknowledgment of the Bill’s complexity; there is also a consensus that the workforce crisis is the most significant challenge facing health and social care. All roads lead back to this problem. If we do not have the right numbers of staff with the right skills and qualifications, we will not be able to reduce the backlog. If we do not have the staffing capacity in social care, we will not be able to help people leave hospital. If we do not have sufficient capacity in primary and community care, unnecessary strains will be placed on secondary care. While the workforce problem remains at crisis level, we are still putting patient safety at risk.
There is no single solution. It is difficult; it requires a range of actions focused on recruitment, retention, pay levels, career pathways and better use of the skills of the wonderful people who work in both health and social care. It requires short-term fixes, where we can enact them. It certainly requires long-term planning and a clear strategy.
I listened carefully to the debates when the Bill was in the other place, particularly at Report stage, and to the right honourable Jeremy Hunt. I am very grateful for his thoughts and for those of the King’s Fund, NHS Providers and all the other people who have been supporting us and pressing us with ideas. As the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, I hope that we will explore what steps we can take to ensure that it sets us in the right direction on the serious workforce issue. With the support of noble Lords, I will seek to amend the Bill.
I am also concerned about the extensive powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in local configurations, and about the sheer range of delegated powers that the Secretary of State will have, which could impede the independence and effectiveness of NHS England and Improvement. I look forward to examining these issues in Committee.
Your Lordships will know that I have spoken in some detail in previous debates about the recommendations in our review First Do No Harm. Thankfully, I am not going to repeat those points today, but the fact is that the healthcare system—the whole system—failed. It let patients down. These were not a few isolated incidents; there was a pattern. It affected thousands of people, significantly, women and children. It was not just minor inconvenience or short-term problems; it was harm of the most devastating nature that continues even today. It was all the more devastating because it could, and should, have been avoided.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed to implement some—sadly, not all—of our recommendations. Once enacted, those recommendations will improve patient safety and reduce the risk of avoidable harm. Although we can do more to reduce avoidable harm, we can never prevent it completely. Therefore, when things do go wrong, we need a system that is responsive and compassionate. Surely, that is the hallmark of any decent society.
During latter stages of the Bill, I intend to table amendments to establish redress schemes for those who have already suffered and for a fresh way of dealing with similar cases in the future—one based not on apportioning blame and not stressful, expensive and time consuming, but instead a no-blame non-adversarial system focused on systemic failings administered by an independent redress agency. Such a system exists in other parts of the world and it works well. We should have it here.
Finally, I see the main aim of this Bill as to recognise and correct failings in the experience of patients, remove barriers to delivery, and decide whether following the science is best delivered by politicians and civil servants or top management and medical expertise. These are big questions to which we must find the answers.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I join the welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham.
The pandemic has been a magnifier of every single inequality on the planet. I hope we can all agree on our enormous good fortune to live in the land of the NHS, arguably the greatest experiment in compassionate collaboration in the history of the world. It is cause for genuine patriotism without the slightest risk of xenophobia because this service is not just envied the world over, it was built by the hard work, endeavour and innovation of people from all over the globe as well. It even has “National” in its title and mission.
While some noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the need for local flexibility and responsiveness, I fear the Minister will have to do more to convince your Lordships’ House—let alone those watching anxiously outside it—that this Bill will address widening inequalities in health, care and other outcomes, rather than baking in fragmentation and privatisation, notwithstanding his welcome opening remarks about the founding mission of a service which should be cradle to grave support, available to all and free at the point of use.
I join my noble friend Lady Bakewell in seeking greater safeguards to prevent private companies taking representation in NHS governance structures in a clear and institutional conflict of interest, inevitably necessitated by a profit motive, that will always threaten the principle of universal provision where there is limited supply and limitless demand. Similarly, public health and care professionals should be the default providers of these vital services that have proved as vital to the safety of the nation as the police and military over the last couple of years.
The complexity of this reorganisation has already been remarked upon at length, but I fear that it conceals rights of direction without corresponding overarching legal responsibility upon the Secretary of State. I would like to hear the Minister’s specific explanation of provisions to the contrary. Statutory powers and functions should not be capable of delegation to non-statutory bodies. All those working in health and care should be protected, not just with warm words and applause, but with statutory recognition of terms, conditions, pensions and collective bargaining alongside appropriate management and regulation in the public interest.
As others have said, it is high time for a national care service to dovetail with our National Health Service, giving cradle to grave security for those in need of it and a parity of respect and protection to those working within it. Likewise, lifting mental health provision from its current Cinderella status and investing in such services as lifestyle and preventive care would save billions from being wasted on substance abuse and criminal incarceration, and provide rewarding careers for young professionals in an otherwise increasingly automated world.
Finally, I will say a word on the vaccinations, to which perhaps nearly all of us in your Lordships’ House owe our lives. Those who peddle non-science about vaccines are just as dangerous and irresponsible towards their neighbours here and around the world as those who deny global warming. They of course have a right to express their views, but I suggest we have a duty to do more to correct their falsehoods.
Given that most of the initial investment in the world’s major vaccines, including here in the UK, came from public and philanthropic sources, not to allow a narrow and time-limited vaccine patent waiver at the WTO so that the poorer nations of the global south can speed up vaccination and defeat variants, is as incomprehensible a decision as any I can think of. Future generations will have little forgiveness for it, let alone respect.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to respond to this very important Bill and in so doing warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who will clearly make a very significant contribution to the work of this House.
My biggest concern is that the Government are planning a major NHS reorganisation at a time when the NHS has suffered—and continues to suffer—the greatest workforce stress since its inception. Medical staff are burnt out, they are retiring early, leaving the service mid-career, reducing their hours, or planning one or other of these steps in terrifying numbers. Others have referred to this problem. Managers throughout the service, many of whom are doctors and nurses, will be focused on their own jobs and futures rather than tackling the unprecedented staffing crisis.
I gather the Government are considering deferring the implementation of this Bill for six months. But this is not a situation that is going to be resolved in a matter of months. I understand that the CEOs of the ICBs have already been appointed and for months senior staff have been focused on the forthcoming reorganisation, with detrimental consequences to the service.
Having said all that, I want to mention six issues. First, as other noble Lords have said, the urgent need is for the Government to focus their attention on workforce numbers, not only now but in the future, to deal with a haemorrhage of staff and the growing needs of the ageing population. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, put it rather well: they need to fill the hole at the bottom of the bucket as well as filling the bucket from the top. I will therefore be supporting the Jeremy Hunt amendment, which seeks to address this issue.
My second point is another general issue. I serve on the Delegated Powers Committee which recently published a major report condemning the growing trend toward skeleton Bills, excessive use of Henry VIII powers, disguised legislation and rules masquerading as guidance, which are never seen by Parliament and yet which government expect and require to be followed. The committee has not yet looked at this Bill, but on my reading of it there are at least 150 delegated powers, a tiny number of which involve some sort of parliamentary scrutiny. Huge parts of the Bill are skeletal, with disguised powers. When the Delegated Powers Committee reports, I hope this House will look very carefully at the powers in the Bill and amend them as appropriate. I hope the Government will support those changes.
Thirdly, I and many others have strongly welcomed the move away from the old legislative focus on competition on the assumption that this would improve services. Of course, it has not. There is a strong argument for having the NHS as the default option for NHS contracts so that private companies are involved only where absolutely necessary. A powerful argument for this approach is the fact, which I very warmly support and welcome, that the Government want to establish a joined-up collaborative service. Fracturing of the service works against that objective.
Fourthly, there is the composition of the ICBs, which I think we will talk about a lot. Private company representation is an issue, but most important will be to ensure clinical leadership, not only on ICBs but at every level of the integrated care system. We must also ensure representation on these boards from the many sectors of the NHS; public health and mental health must surely be included as essential on every ICB. We should take account of the pervasive impact of mental health problems and the permanent underfunding of mental health services, with appalling consequences for those affected. Finally, the voluntary sector also needs a voice on those boards.
Fifthly, end of life care and the urgent need to establish patient choice in palliative care are not mentioned in this Bill. Only 4% of the population have completed advanced directives and the medical profession in general is much more aware of the need to respond to the patient’s expressed wishes. Crucial to high-quality palliative care is the patient’s right to choose at the very end of life, and the Bill needs to play its part in this area—we cannot afford not to.
Finally, children’s services are also remarkably absent from the Bill; I believe the Government will want to put this right. These are just some of the most important issues and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. His matchless experience of healthcare has been communicated to us with a pleasantly light touch.
I rise to speak to the proposed new subsection (2A) outlined in Clause 4(2) of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Bethell referred. This was one of three amendments made to the Bill in another place which were accepted by the Government. The mover of this amendment was my honourable friend John Baron who was for nine years the chairman of the APPG on cancer.
The OECD has confirmed that the survival rate for cancer in the United Kingdom ranks near the bottom of the table when compared with other major economies. For some cancer types, only Poland and Ireland were below us. As we have improved our survival rates, so have other countries, and there is very little evidence of our closing the gap with a better performance, despite the considerable increase in health spending in recent decades.
In their research, my honourable friend and his committee discovered that, once a cancer is detected, the NHS performs largely as well as other comparable health services. However, where our NHS falls down is in catching cancers at their crucial early stages. The APPG campaigned, with some success, for a one-year survival rate indicator to be adopted by the NHS at local level. The advantage of adopting this yardstick was that it gave local NHS bodies the opportunity to promote initiatives which boosted early diagnosis. It also gave them the flexibility to devise their own solutions. However, the APPG uncovered the tendency of local clinical commissioning groups to focus on process targets, with funds being released against performance against them.
In recent decades, the NHS has been beset by numerous process targets, of which waiting times is a high-profile example. As a result, these yardsticks have been used at the expense of front-line measuring of the success of the treatment of, among other things, early cancer. The new subsection (2A) proposed in Clause 4(2) addresses the problem by proposing that NHS England should be required to include
“objectives for cancer treatment defined by outcomes for patients with cancer”
and that these are to have
“priority over any other objectives relating to cancer treatment.”
The objective of the proposed new subsection is clear. Process targets may have their place, but it is the simple, clinical procedures of defining outcomes for patients with cancer which will hopefully concentrate resources on early diagnosis, which is currently the Achilles heel of the NHS.
I look forward to scrutinising in Committee this new amendment, which was initiated by John Baron in another place. It is the bedrock of a key change of emphasis in cancer treatment which has, I am happy to say, been adopted in principle by Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. I think he would be wise to reflect on what happened in 2012; he was not around, but there was a period of pausing to reflect before the Government decided to return to the work and move on. Given the problems we may encounter this winter, it is vital that health, not reorganisation, comes first, and the Government should be willing to delay if need be.
Changes to the Bill are needed. I am no expert on the overall structure of the NHS and its related bodies; my interest is primarily in welcoming in the Bill the mention of the narrow areas I work on, including public health related to obesity, diabetes, addictions, alcohol and so on. I welcome the movement on obesity, but more work needs to be done there. I give notice that I will raise some issues that were raised in the Commons concerning labelling, calories and alcohol.
The other big issue that I know a little about is the workforce. There is another angle from which we can try to approach this shortage of resources; we can look perhaps at the further development of social prescribing. As we all know, there is a considerable fund of support and enthusiasm for the NHS. Some 750,000 people volunteered to give service in the early part of the Covid pandemic, but nothing has really been done; from what I hear in speaking to some of them, they were not even contacted afterwards or given anything to do.
This is a major failing on our part, so I hope we might look beyond the NHS structure and see whether we can get greater resources there to help us. Matt Hancock’s idea of the National Academy for Social Prescribing is good. There is no reason why we should not endeavour to increase the number of people working in that area and have a faster rollout than presently planned. If we could do that, it would to a degree ease burdens on the staff in the NHS itself. We should look further to see how we can have greater public and patient involvement in the National Health Service. We have seen the great fund of good will there over the course of the past two years. I regret to say that we have not really built any kind of structure to pull more people in, one way or another.
I was interested in NHS charities. In 2018, I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, about creating a national charity for the NHS to which people like me could leave something in their wills. At present, I have nothing designated for the NHS, but I would like to give something. As I get older and have to have more and more treatment, I am sure I will feel even more grateful. There is a local charity in Chelsea and Westminster where I live, but it is not well known. Communications need to be reviewed to establish closer relationships between the charities and the public. There is a great fund there, with money and physical resources available for the NHS, if the authorities are prepared to look down more, rather than looking upwards all the time. That would be to the benefit of the country overall.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I am an NHS recidivist, like many in this House today, but, after 40 or 50 years of employment in it, I am not necessarily a great fan.
Somebody mentioned 20 reorganisations; I can think of nine that I was personally involved in, some of which I was very enthusiastic about at the time. Looking back, I see that none of them addressed the NHS problems of chronic low productivity and some very poor outcomes—the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, mentioned some relating to cancer. I know some of the data is difficult and not easily comparable, but we are consistently producing poorer outcomes than we should be getting for the resources we are putting in, particularly resources going into those who are employed in the NHS.
The third great problem is, as always, the attitudes—the hangover—which are particularly marked in some parts of the country. Certainly, there are the attitudes of the NHS to its patients and to our feeling that we are supplicants asking for help when we should be receiving a service as of right. These attitudes have not really shifted and have, in many ways, got worse.
I understand why we might be having a reorganisation now. After all, the direction of travel that we have been moving in for so long has come to a bit of a standstill because of the difficulties of foundation trusts not being able to exercise any powers because they are in debt. The direction of travel seems to have come to a full stop. Everyone is asking for better integration between health and social care. We must deliver that. The difficulty is that, if you look at where integrated social care works, it does not work because of senior management only. We have had integrated care boards in Northern Ireland since 1973. I have visited and seen them enthusiastically in action. In fact, at senior level, they work quite well, and some interesting programmes have come out of them. However, when you look at them on the ground, you see that health and social care staff are not necessarily working together. They must be collocated in teams that are jointly managed to make a real difference to individual patients and their carers.
This Bill is a little part of the start of a system that could work but there are some great big holes. For example, I would like to know to whom the integrated care partnerships are accountable. Certainly, we cannot see any way that their strategic plans might be necessarily taken over by the integrated care boards. Do we have some guarantee that they will take notice of what the integrated care partnerships want?
The other problem is the great white shark of the NHS swimming alongside a shoal of sardines, including local authorities, care providers and independent sector care provision. I have seen it time and again: the shark always gobbles up the resources. We saw it again in the recent care Bill. I want to know how that will be addressed. Can the Minister guarantee that we will get mental health as an equal partner on the integrated care boards? That seems utterly essential. Public health must also be in there. Can the Minister reassure us that that will be in statute?
Another problem with this Bill is the clawing back to centre of powers. Again, I understand the frustrations that Ministers see. I remember watching Sir Edward Heath hold up the closure of a rather second-rate neurosurgical unit for 10 years because it was in his constituency. I watched Sir Frank Dobson being seduced by consultants at Barts and the London and ending up with a profoundly expensive two-site system that was quite unnecessary for east London. I want to know how—I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on this—those doing the detail on this Bill will somehow constrain ministerial meddling.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and congratulate him on his frank and witty maiden speech. I declare an interest as chair of both the Association of Medical Research Charities and the Specialised Healthcare Alliance.
Last year, members of the Association of Medical Research Charities contributed £1.7 billion to medical research in the United Kingdom—more than either the NIHR or the MRC. The Specialised Healthcare Alliance’s 120-plus members campaign for those with less common and rare diseases, which affect some 3.5 million people in the United Kingdom. Both organisations bring the patient’s voice and interests to medical research in the UK. I will focus my remarks on medical research and rare diseases.
The Bill before us does not offer any significant differences in these areas from its predecessor, the 2012 Act. In Clause 20 on page 17, the Bill sets out a duty in respect of research for each ICB. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, explained, it says only that ICBs will have a duty to “promote” research. This is equivalent to the duties already existing in the 2012 Act. In the Commons, there were significant attempts to strengthen this and upgrade the duty to promote to a duty to conduct. We believe that the amendments proposed to achieve this—notably from Chris Skidmore, a former research and innovation Minister, and my colleague, Wera Hobhouse—had real merit. We will want to return to them in Committee.
We will also want to make sure that, to make a duty to conduct research effective, this duty will also extend to eligible organisations for which ICBs are responsible. The benefits of making it a duty to conduct, rather than just promote, research are well evidenced and wide-ranging. They include improved patient outcomes, improved job satisfaction among health workers and significant gross value added being generated. It is well evidenced that patients treated in research-active settings have lower mortality rates and increased confidence in the care they receive. There is an equally strong body of evidence that shows that engaging in research improves job satisfaction, boosts staff morale and can reduce burn-out. Research also presents the ideal opportunity for patient involvement.
I now turn to rare diseases and patients with complex conditions. The proposed structural changes in dealing with these areas would benefit from some additional safeguards and reassurances. The plan to delegate or transfer the commissioning of certain specialised services from NHS England to ICBs makes it vital that minimum national standards are strictly observed. I know from conversations with NHS England that that is its clear intention. However, we need more detail on how this is to be done, how it is to be monitored and how any corrective actions may take place. Also, what mechanisms will be in place to take advantage of learnings across ICBs and generate continuous improvement? It is especially important that we know what measures will be in place to prevent the fragmentation of the care for people with complex comorbidities. We shall want to ask how the interests of this group can be embedded in the ICB decision-making process.
Finally, I turn to the question of approvals. We want to see provision made in this Bill for establishing a new assessment route for medicines for people with rare and less common conditions, with better engagement with these patients and faster timescales—perhaps something analogous to the approach taken to the creation of the highly specialised technologies appraisal programme of 2012. We will want to discuss this issue in Committee.
The UK is already a medical research superpower, as recent events have demonstrated. If we are to maintain and profit from that position, as the Government wish, investment in research is absolutely critical. That investment does not only require proper funding; it requires collaboration between funders, especially between medical research charities, the NHS, our research universities and industry. It also requires recognition of the importance of listening to patients and patient groups and involving them in every step. I look forward to raising all these matters, as well as the Government’s bizarre and overenthusiastic use of delegated powers, in more detail as the Bill makes progress.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I have finally reached the head of the long queue to, like other noble Lords, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his trailblazer of a maiden speech. As we all know, he has been at the forefront of health reform for decades. He signalled today that he has lost none of his vim and vigour, it has not abated and he will continue his lifetime’s work in your Lordships’ House. We are lucky to have him.
I declare an interest as chair of a company that supplies services to the care sector as well as to other sectors. Like some others, I broadly welcome the Bill and its companion piece—this month’s White Paper on adult social care. Indeed, the White Paper is notably impressive; I have not found myself saying that many times in this House. It is absent of political rhetoric and plainly the result—as has been made clear today—of a long and sensitive consultation both with providers and with those for whom they care. It sets out a truly daunting challenge, making clear the sheer complexity of the conditions that can strike any of us, or our families, at any moment, as well as the sheer scale of current demand. Last year, a fraction under 2 million requests were made for care support. Nearly 850,000 people are currently receiving state-funded long-term care. I make three sets of observations.
First, on front-line integration, I strongly welcome the introduction of the new bodies that will ensure proper integration of the services provided by many categories of public and private suppliers of care at local level; and I welcome the plan that that these new bodies, and local authority providers, will be regulated by the CQC. However, both the Bill and the White Paper are silent on how this integration will be achieved. Almost all large organisations—I have worked in many—struggle with the task of providing a seamless experience for the users of the services they offer, in both the public and the private sector. Which of us has not spent fruitless hours on helplines, passed from pillar to post? How will the integrated care partnerships operate and their success be measured? Will the multiple parties that provide care share a common technology platform? How will user data be shared? Will there be common measures of success? How will good practice be syndicated? That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish. In the last months of my father’s life, the help he received in navigating the multiple parts of the health and care system was well-meaning but chaotic. Will there be a nominated personal navigator for those with complex care needs to help them steer the best path through?
Secondly—many have raised this point—the workforce in adult social care is of a staggering size. Currently, 1.7 million people work in the sector. The White Paper fully recognises the contribution made by those who work in care, but does it go far enough? Do we not need to celebrate the increasing skills now needed in the social care sector? Do we not need a clear career progression with a status and a hierarchy something akin to those deservedly enjoyed by those who nurse? When I worked in government, I was struck—very much like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—by how poor workforce planning had been in the health system. The elephant in the room is that, plainly, the Treasury bears considerable responsibility for that. There are already chronic worker shortages in care. In the next 20 years, the number of over-85s is projected to increase by nearly 1 million. Like many of your Lordships, I am hoping that I will be among their number. The forecast is that, by 2035, we will need one-third more care workers than we employ now. We will need to transform our approach to strategic workforce planning to bring that about. Will the Government do that?
Thirdly, on the social care contribution cap—which, again, many have mentioned—I recognise that the Government’s new proposal is an improvement on the old, but it has an utterly disproportionate impact on those with little wealth. I urge the Government to think again, to design a scheme where everyone with assets makes a contribution to their care costs, but which is progressive, where those of greater means assume a greater burden.
Overall, though, I welcome the Bill, and the social care White Paper, as real steps forward.
Lord Prior of Brampton (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should first refer to my declaration of interest—in particular, that I am currently chairman of NHS England. Looking down at the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and also seeing the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I could almost believe we were back at a board meeting at NHS England. I will give the House an idea of the kind of chief executive the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, was. At the beginning of a board meeting he would tell us what he thought, and then, to avoid any unpleasantness, at the end of the meeting he would tell us what we thought, so we all went away perfectly happily. It was a very good arrangement. It is wonderful to see him here in this House, and he will make a huge contribution, I am sure, in the years to come.
The phrase “another NHS reorganisation” is designed to send a chill through the sturdiest of hearts of all of us who have worked in the NHS for many years, so why do I actually think that the Bill is the right thing at this time? First, there is a pragmatic reason: it has very wide support from within the NHS; it goes with the grain of NHS culture; it is a Bill to be delivered bottom-up. Secondly, there is another pragmatic reason: it is already happening on the ground. NHS England and NHS Improvement already operate as one organisation, and locally integrated care systems have been and are being created. Thirdly, this is not some new-fangled ideological concept dreamt up by an ambitious Secretary of State. The process towards integration was launched some seven years ago by my former colleague and noble friend Lord Stevens. Then, it was called the five-year forward view. The underlying philosophy of the Bill has been road-tested in numerous places across England for seven years.
Fourthly, the fundamental basis of the Bill is, I think, unanswerable. I quote something verbatim from the NHS Five Year Forward View written seven years ago which is still true today:
“The traditional divide between primary care, community services, and hospitals—largely unaltered since the birth of the NHS—is increasingly a barrier to the personalised and coordinated health services patients need. And just as GPs and hospitals tend to be rigidly demarcated, so too are social care and mental health services even though people increasingly need all three.”
Finally and fifthly, the ICS structure will enable the NHS more effectively to deliver population health and, in particular, to address the growing and unacceptable levels of health inequality that disfigure our society.
For all those reasons, I support the Bill. I hope, however, that the Government will recognise that the improved accountability and transparency that resulted from the purchaser-provider split, the productivity gains that came from the incentives built into payment by results, and the innovation value driven by competition should still be kept as drivers of improvement and change within the ICS structure. I also hope—this will not be popular on all sides of the House, although it used to be popular on the other side—that this Government will publicly recognise the very important contribution that the private sector can make to delivering high-value care. I hope these issues will be debated fully in Committee.
The Bill, in whatever shape it finally takes, will not on its own mend a healthcare system that is extremely fragile, as many healthcare systems are in the developed world. Most health systems in the developed world are not, in reality, health systems; they are late-stage sickness and emergency care systems. By using digital technologies and predictive AI, by incorporating genomics, by focusing on population health, out-of-hospital care and self-care, and by investing in precision, personalised public health, we have a chance of changing what has now become an outdated model.
There are four particular issues I will leave with the Minister. The first is the workforce. I commend the amendment put forward by Jeremy Hunt in the other House. Long-term workforce planning is essential to the future of the NHS. The second is mental health. We have made huge progress but we are not there yet; there is no real parity of esteem in the provision of services and funding for mental health. Thirdly, I would like to see the ICBs committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions, which the NHS as a whole is now committed to. Finally, on social care, I thought the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was pertinent. He is absolutely right: we are at the beginning of reforming social care, not the end.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his excellent maiden speech. I am delighted that he has joined the House, with all his many years of expertise in this area. I look forward to his contributions at future stages of the Bill.
In the time available, I will focus on issues relevant to elderly social care. Some 10 million adults are affected by care needs. Some are short term and others very long term, but over the next 20 years the number of people over the age of 85 will rise from 1.4 million to 2.4 million. Estimates suggest that about 44% of the over-65s already have some form of disability. Clearly, the costs of delivering social care and the amount spent on it in our society will significantly increase.
Council expenditure on care is already over £20 billion a year, with around half of that on the over-65s. But this is almost the same in real terms as it was in 2010. What has happened is that councils are increasingly rationing care, and unmet care needs, especially among the elderly, are rising inexorably. The funding is starting from an exceptionally low base. Much more attention needs to be given to delivering social care.
There are welcome points in the Bill. I welcome the intention to provide a care and support plan to arrange services in order to help people live independently and to prevent or delay the need for care, and the recognition that it is best if people can stay in their own homes. I also welcome the new CQC duties to independently review and assess local authority performance in delivering what the 2014 Act was designed to deliver, which we still have not yet successfully done.
I echo the points other noble Lords made about the need to invest in the workforce, and the fears. What is the Government’s plan to ensure additional workforce capability and capacity now? I fear that we have had a couple of unforced errors—mandatory vaccination for care home staff before it is required in the NHS, and new immigration controls that mean we cannot get staff in from overseas. The pay for social care workers, for whom there is already a 30% turnover rate across the sector, especially front-line staff, is now lower than for shop assistants or cleaning staff, who have better working conditions. I would welcome the Government’s estimate of the number of care staff needed and how they plan to deliver those.
I welcome the extension of prevention measures and the focus on commissioning, with the CQC overseeing the payment of fair rates for care, but I note that the Government continually say that they intend to move towards the local authority paying a fair rate to cover costs. In 2017, the CMA estimated that self-funders pay an extra 41% to cross-subsidise the underpayments by those funded by the councils. Do the Government have an estimate of when councils will actually pay enough to cover the costs, so that we do not put extra burdens on the very people who need care and are funding it themselves?
Regarding the care cap, £86,000 is not a cap on the amount people need to pay for care. Clause 140 has made the inequity even worse. With a fixed cap, those of more modest wealth will inevitably lose far more as a proportion of their assets than people who are much wealthier or who live in areas with higher property values. I hope the Government will pay close attention to the needs of elderly people who do not yet receive care, and the unpaid carers who will look after them, often at the expense of their own health.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register, specifically as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of Whittington Health NHS Trust, and as vice-chair of the UCL provider alliance. I am grateful to the King’s Fund and others for their briefings, and declare a further interest as a former chief executive of the King’s Fund. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his superb maiden speech and share his concern that there is not a greater focus on mental health in this Bill, and indeed on the determinants of health and public health in general.
We have so little time to speak that I will simply support what many noble Lords have already said in asking for further assurances around workforce planning and education and training, given that we have an absolutely exhausted workforce and we face tough recruitment issues. If it is bad in health, it is completely dire in social care. I also echo what other noble Lords said about the Secretary of State’s new powers and the effect on the poorest of the way the £86,000 social care cap is designed.
I will focus on three specific things. The first is capital spending limits for NHS foundation trusts, because the present drafting differs significantly from what was set out in the NHS’s 2019 legislative proposals. I hope we can go back to those proposals, which were a sensible compromise between system and organisation. That is particularly important for specialised commissioning, given that ICBs are set up largely to be accountable to their local populations. In north-central London, only a third of our provider income and asset base relates to north-central London residents, so safe- guards are essential to ensure that ICBs have a statutory responsibility to maintain and develop specialised service assets, as well as those serving their populations.
The Bill appears to say that NHS England can pass many of its commissioning activities but not its responsibilities to the integrated care boards. Delegating complex commissioning arrangements for those specialised services where there is no evidence base for joining up pathways of local care will lead simply to a fragmented approach. Providers such as my own, UCLH, Great Ormond Street and others providing regional or national specialist services face the prospect of agreeing contracts with 42 ICBs rather than a single commissioner, adding significant bureaucracy and transaction costs. I wonder whether that can be sensible.
I am absolutely delighted that the membership of the ICBs will include, among others, representatives from local authorities. The guidance from NHS England states that it is expected that the local authority representative
“will often be the chief executive”.
This wording implies some flexibility, but there is a very strong case to be made for the local authority representative being one of the local council leaders, who are, after all, the elected representatives responsible for running local services, including children’s and adult services—precisely those services where we need improved integration with health, as many noble Lords have said. I hope the Minister can give us an assurance that each ICB will have the freedom and flexibility to reach this decision locally.
Lastly, most of us will warmly welcome the Health Service Safety Investigations Body. The Bill makes provision for creating a safe space within investigations to enable clinicians and others to provide information without the fear that that will be disclosed or used for disciplinary purposes. That is understandable, but the clause as drafted seems to cut across the unique constitutional role of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the NHS and other public services.
The Bill prohibits the national ombudsman from accessing information held in the HSSIB safe space without seeking permission from the High Court. Schedule 14 appears to strip the ombudsman of long-held constitutional powers by being excluded from the safe space while the same exclusion does not apply to coroners. This would be the first restriction on the ombudsman’s powers since it was established back in 1967. It contravenes international standards set out in the Council of Europe’s Venice principles and the United Nations resolution on the role of the ombudsman, which was co-sponsored by the UK Government, and it will undermine public confidence in the administrative justice system, with patients feeling that they have less access to justice and public accountability when failed by NHS services—because we do not always get it right, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has made abundantly clear. I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill, but there is still much to clarify and change.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, my little granddaughter is appearing today in her first school nativity play, rather wittily titled “A Midwife Crisis”. I am sure it was a midwife crisis, but a veil was drawn over the actual birth of the infant child—I think it was a do-it-yourself affair. Sadly, we too have a midwife crisis, along with a nurse crisis, a doctor crisis and indeed an across-the-NHS crisis.
If we take the pulse of the NHS, we find that it is in serious trouble. If we ask why, the quick answer is now always “Covid”—but of course that is not true, and the Benches facing us know that in their hearts. When the Conservative Party came into government in 2010, waiting lists were low. Today waiting lists are at 6 million, and they were already at 4 million before Covid struck. Why? The answer is that for a decade annual NHS funding increases had been at their lowest levels ever. That withdrawal of funding was described as efficiency cuts. How can it ever be efficient to cut 17,000 beds or to have over 100,000 vacancies for doctors and nurses? George Osborne, in his austerity policies, took a scythe to training places in his very first Budget. So let us not hear from the Conservative Benches that somehow this has all just come upon us by surprise; it was a deliberate set of policies.
Let us look at the whole business of the public health budget. Colleagues spoke about its importance in creating health and preventing illness. That budget has been cut by 24% since 2015-16. Do we think it is going to be restored in the Bill? Not one bit, yet that money would be well spent because it would reduce the number of people who got ill. As we know—all the statistics have shown it, along with the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies—the Sure Start programme, which was cut, in itself reduced the hospitalisation of children by 18%, but that project has been thrown to the winds.
There is now an emergency in our hospitals and GP surgeries, and people are worn out. I recently completed a report for the Royal College of Surgeons on improving diversity and inclusion in the surgical profession. When you dug deeper and asked why women had left the profession in their thirties, the answer was that it was the whole business of their lives. Staying on was impossible because of the failure of any real consideration of the demands made on people’s lives and the ways in which women just found it too difficult to combine all those things, including childcare and having a home somewhere close to where they worked. If you are married to another doctor, they are often sent miles away and given a job nowhere connected to you. That whole lifestyle has not been considered in any of this. However, the Bill addresses none of that.
The original plan was worthy: it was to undo the vandalism done to the NHS by David Cameron and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—I make no apologies about saying that, even if he is in this Chamber—which blew the NHS into marketised fragments that were forced by law to compete rather than co-operate. Now the word is “collaboration”, but that was not the word being thrown around then. The whole point is that in 2012 that Act opened up all contracts to private tenders. Competition law should have no place in the running of our National Health Service because services need to work together. Yes, the word should be “collaboration”, and I have heard it from any number of persons in this House. Collaboration and integration should be the bywords of our National Health Service.
The original plan was to have integrated care systems across the country to rationalise and plan local services. The idea was to include local authorities and combine social care with health, but the Bill does not marry social care and health. The NHS and local authorities could be pooling their resources, but there is no machinery for doing so in the Bill. The Government have given themselves the absolute power to appoint all the directors of an integrated care service, and refuse to bar private providers from sitting on those boards. The Government have also resisted an amendment in the other place to make the NHS a preferred provider in any tendering process. This is all about privatisation, and it is always done by stealth. Look at all the disgraceful cronyism that was displayed in distributing contracts at the outset of Covid. Many in this Government have a distrust of public service. They refuse to accept all the evidence that a state-run NHS is a success story, yet we spend less money on it than our comparators, we run it with too few doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, and we pay them all badly.
This could have been a great opportunity to create an even better NHS but also to create a unified national system of health and social care that worked together in a seamless way. Unfortunately, it is in the hands of an ineffectual, incompetent and ill-led Government, so I do not have much confidence in what is being promised.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his excellent maiden speech. I think, too, that this is an appropriate time to pay tribute to those staff in hospitals, care homes and the community who have laboured so hard over the past two years. However, routine medical care did not happen. Elective surgeries were cancelled and treatment for the most serious conditions and illnesses was limited or not delivered, and now we have a major problem. The problem is actually worse in Northern Ireland, where people routinely wait five years for necessary treatment. Across the UK, the frustration of doctors and other medical practitioners at their inability to provide essential services because of staff shortages—resulting in part from the Covid emergency, but not just from Covid—is well-known.
I first served in 1996 on one of those health boards to which the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, referred. Then people remained in hospital because they could not be discharged to their own homes with proper care packages or to residential and nursing accommodation. Some 25 years later, it is still a problem. For 25 years the issue has been discussed, papers written, committees formed, strategies devised—and the problem has got much worse.
The compulsory immediate Covid vaccination of staff, low levels of salary for the intense and difficult work of caring for those with reduced mobility, dementia and serious ill health, and a lack of support have resulted in a further loss of staff from the care sector. Care of this kind is inevitably resource-intensive. It is not just mechanistic; it requires a compassion and humanity that very often simply make it possible for people to settle in places where they would rather not be but must be. Will the Government ensure that there is a change of philosophy that will result in a greater respect for and appreciation of those who care in such circumstances, consistent with our proudly-proclaimed Great British values?
The repeal of Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is welcome. The new processes, which are still being developed, must enable proper procurement and remove unnecessary bureaucracy but ensure that contracts are awarded with proper scrutiny and that there is consideration of the impact of individual contract awards on the provision of services generally. Can the Government give an assurance that accountability and transparency really will result from the passing of this Bill?
There is also a need to ensure that the creeping privatisation of the NHS will not result in increased costs, reduced equality of access to services, and longer waiting lists. The public sector NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must be the default provider of NHS services.
The potential conflicts of interest for those such as employees of private healthcare providers as members of ICBs has been referred to repeatedly. They will be responsible for the commissioning of NHS services. I can see the benefit of private sector experience, but government must ensure proper accountability and there must be a mechanism for regulating and identifying conflicts of interest when they emerge.
Finally, the proposed level of delegation of power to the Secretary of State over operational clinical matters is quite simply unacceptable.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his very uplifting maiden speech.
I shall direct my remarks to Clause 4. This inserts a new provision into Section 13A of the National Health Service Act:
“The objectives that the Secretary of State considers NHS England should seek to achieve which are specified in subsection (2)(a) must include objectives for cancer treatment defined by outcomes for patients with cancer, and those objectives are to be treated by NHS England as having priority over any other objectives relating to cancer”.
This is a very specific and important mandate. Henceforth, successful management will be judged by “outcomes for patients”: how many survive and for how long.
Let me explain why this is important. For the first time, cancer survival rates from the date of diagnosis will be given priority over other objectives in the treatment and management of cancer. Hitherto in respect of cancer this country has focused for too long on targets, such as the two-week wait to see a specialist after a referral and the 62-day wait from referral to first definitive treatment. Those targets are not irrelevant or unimportant, but they are only part of the picture and have distorted the way we have managed cancer. They have had too much priority as measures for achieving funding support. They have not resulted in better results.
Over the last 20 years, there has been only limited evidence of cancer survival rates catching up with international averages in other prosperous countries. Professor Sir Alex Markham, the founding chief executive of Cancer Research UK, has observed that
“comparable health services abroad continue to outperform the NHS in terms of cancer survival. They all remain focused on cancer outcomes and the UK would be foolish not to do likewise”.
This clause should put that right.
When it comes to treatment after diagnosis, I understand that the NHS largely performs as well as other comparable health services. However—this is the important thing—it is not as good at catching cancers in their crucial earlier stages. If the new commissioning bodies under the Bill have to focus on outcomes, they will monitor survival from date of diagnosis. They will have to collect that data, identify dates of diagnosis and match outcomes. This will show which places are doing better than others. Researchers can then establish what the more successful places do and how they differ from the less successful ones. That way, routes to success may be identified. Improvements can and should follow. That is true evidence-based medicine.
Hitherto, data collection and data transparency have not been a strength. As Bowel Cancer UK told the APPG on Cancer, the priority should be to
“improve the quality and use of data”
produced. Indeed. Another point is that data on the less common cancers are not used consistently throughout the NHS. The focus to date has been on the so-called big four: breast cancer, prostate cancer, bowel cancer and lung cancer. Yet it is a fact that the other less common cancers, taken as a whole, constitute more than 50% of cancer cases in England at any one time.
The new statutory obligation addressing outcomes for all cancer treatment would ensure that such data are collected across the range of different cancers. This new provision will provide the springboard for long-overdue improvement in cancer detection and cure. I commend it to the House.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the NHS was founded on the principle of not for profit and serving all people equally, with dignity and respect for patients and staff. This Bill violates those principles. It accelerates privatisation of the NHS. At my local hospital many services, such as physiotherapy, have already been privatised, and employees had to reapply for their jobs on inferior terms. The Bill neither protects employees nor prioritises patient care. It enables private companies to secure NHS contracts even though they do not deliver value for money. A typical cataract operation is 50% to 100% more costly in the private sector than on the NHS. It is the same story for knee and hip replacements.
Around 11% of the annual NHS budget goes to private companies, which have shareholders and overpaid executives to appease. Up to 25% of the amounts paid to the private sector disappear in dividends, interest payments, lease payments, rents and other intragroup transactions, often to an offshore affiliate. This leaves very little for front-line NHS services, and the waiting lists inevitably grow. The likes of Virgin healthcare have milked the system and pay little or no corporation tax. This Bill will facilitate even more of the same and rob the NHS.
The 42 independently run integrated care systems would be responsible for commissioning and delivering services to a group of people on a geographical basis. This heralds further fragmentation of the NHS and will create another postcode lottery.
The Minister, like many others, has mentioned integrating the health and care services, but the issue of merging the budgets is highly problematic. Take the NHS: it is free at the point of delivery, but social care is not—it is means tested. The Bill offers absolutely no clarity about how the budgets are to be merged, and there is nothing in it to prevent some NHS treatments or services being reclassified as social care and thus force people to pay more for the services. Social care budgets are fixed and capitated; overspends are not allowed. If the same was to be applied to the NHS, many people would simply not receive the treatment to which they are entitled. I hope that the Minister will clarify these issues.
Of course, we could eliminate lots of problems simply by accepting the principle that social care must be free at the point of delivery and paid for through taxation. However, I fear that a party or Government addicted to hurting the poor will somehow not accept that new policy, so we have a problem.
The Government have made some cosmetic adjustments to the Bill, but employees or personnel from private healthcare companies can still sit on the boards of the 42 ICSs and influence NHS commissioning decisions. This creates conflict of interest and must be absolutely banned. I do not recall any public marches or petitions urging the Government to ensure that individuals from Centene, UnitedHealth, Bupa, Spire and other private companies must somehow make NHS decisions. This is an ideological decision by the Government; there is no other explanation. I hope the Minister will explain the ideological basis of this meddling by the private sector.
It is also a matter of concern that the Bill gives the Secretary of State numerous powers and that he is accountable to nobody, least of all Parliament. There is no real public accountability. Should we really be trusting things to Ministers? We have already seen how they have abused their position in awarding lots of Covid-related contracts to cronies and party donors, without any public accountability. We are still awaiting details of those. What is there to prevent the Minister abusing his or her power in the future? There are absolutely no guarantees in this Bill.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. I draw the attention of the House to my interests: I was a non-executive director of a health authority, and am chair of ISCAS, the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service.
I welcome the Bill in so far as it contains changes that the NHS requested, promoting local collaboration and reducing bureaucracy. My only hesitation is how such a fundamental reorganisation will affect the NHS when it is already under such huge pressure from the pandemic.
While the Bill is mostly structural, the real test is whether it will deliver positive change for patients. I note that one of its aims is to deliver a range of targeted measures to support people at all stages of life. In the debate on 14 October, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke movingly about hospice and social care. Can my noble friend please tell me whether the integrated care systems will have a duty to commission end-of-life and palliative care services to meet the needs of the population? I think I was told that, at present, 60% of these have to be raised from charity, which is unimaginable for other forms of healthcare. Surely, end of life is a critical and essential time when a patient needs most support.
Continuity of care is also a very important factor, especially in the care of the very young and the very old. In the debate of 14 October, I cited an article in the Times about a Norwegian study published in the British Journal of General Practice, which demonstrated the benefits of having the same GP for years. It showed that those who had the same doctor for between two and three years were about 13% less likely to need out-of-hours care, 12% less likely to be admitted to hospital and 8% less likely to die that year, rising to 30%, 28% and 25% after 15 years. It was stated:
“It can be lifesaving to be treated by a doctor who knows you.”
Yet in the UK, GP practices are becoming bigger, and the relationship between doctors and patients less constant. While patients over 75 in the UK are also given a named GP, some doctors interpret this as just having to look at patient records. While I understand that patients who wish to be seen urgently cannot always see their GP that day, how can a doctor deliver appropriate and responsible care of a patient without ever meeting them?
To deliver good healthcare and care needs good staff, and the BMA estimates that the NHS is currently facing a shortfall of 50,000 doctors. Many GP practices seem overstretched. Can we ensure that we train more GPs and change the system so that it is advantageous for them to work in GP practices rather than as locums? I know that many people now feel that they have to fight to get an appointment with a GP, or are simply unable to get one. We need to ensure that carers, both paid and unpaid, get the recognition and status that they deserve. A good carer is invaluable and we have a shortage of them too.
I hope that these changes in the Bill will ensure more focus on prevention rather than cure—reducing smoking and obesity, ensuring a better diet and other initiatives would result in a healthier nation. Health checks and screening are also important, to pick up issues such as cancer earlier, when it is easier to treat. Checks for older people are also vital to pick up issues early so that they can lead fuller lives and thus need less care—which all reduces the burden on the NHS.
Part 4 of the Bill will establish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body in statute. The impact of clinical negligence on a patient and their family can be devastating. Moreover, the costs have quadrupled in the last 15 years to £2.2 billion in 2020-21, equivalent to 1.5% of the NHS budget and eating into resources that should be available for front-line care. Surely we urgently need to find a better way to deal with these cases rather than resorting to law, which can take years to settle, putting a patient through yet more stress. I gather that nearly a quarter of the costs of clinical negligence go to legal fees.
I congratulate those who campaigned—and welcome the provisions—to make the practice of virginity testing an offence. It is a horribly demeaning process and an abuse against women. However, surely it is inextricably linked with hymenoplasty, and any commitment to ban it will be undermined if we do not ban them both together.
To conclude, in welcoming this Bill I am mindful that how we treat our elderly, infirm and ill of health is a measure of our society. We must not be found wanting.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, when you are number 55 in a 74-strong speakers’ list, you have not got much new to say. As other noble Lords have said, there is much to be welcomed in this Bill—certainly including its intention and stated aims of integration and innovation, particularly for those who require rehabilitation.
However, as always, the devil is in the detail. I must thank Nicola Newson for an outstanding Library briefing. I also join others in congratulating my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham on a superb maiden speech.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced in his speech that drug users were to be offered rehabilitation, but I did not hear him refer to the Bill. This is a pity, because I can think of no other form of rehabilitation that is so subject to local conditions and arrangements and therefore so natural to be included in an integrated care system along with speech and language and all the other subjects requiring rehabilitation.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, when the Bill was in the other place there was considerable concentration on workforce issues, which seem to me to be paramount. There are simply not enough doctors, nurses or other healthcare professionals to go round, particularly in the midst of a pandemic, and the future looks very worrying, particularly where replacements are concerned.
It seems to me that we will have our work cut out to try to improve the Bill, bearing in mind the fate of perfectly reasonable amendments tabled in the other place. Yet try we must, because there are too many long-term and national issues at stake.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his excellent maiden speech. I also applaud the work of John Baron in the other place, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and others have done, on focusing the Government’s attention in the Bill on cancer outcomes, and of my old chief executive, Professor Alex Markham, with whom I was privileged to work at Cancer Research UK.
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, who does so much for those of us with communication needs, and I count myself among them. It is also appropriate because I am going to focus my remarks on how the Bill represents a golden opportunity to breathe life into building back better so that for children and young people with communication needs, and their families, it is more than just another soundbite.
Of course, I appreciate that that is also what my noble friend the Minister wants, because we all have a common interest in countering the post-pandemic scepticism about politicians’ ability to deliver. I suggest that the best way of doing that is to make the Bill a vehicle for hope: hope for the 62% of children with communication needs, whom the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists found did not receive any speech and language therapy during the first lockdown; hope for their families; in short, hope that the future will be better, because the prospects of these children and young people will be improved by the Bill.
Just to be clear, I am not talking about hanging more expensive baubles on the Christmas tree. Rather, I am talking about making sure that all the lights on the tree actually light up—in other words, ensuring that everything works, that the Bill does what it says on the tin, and that the systems are truly integrated. The question is: what does that look like for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs who, sadly, despite constituting 10% of children overall, are still so far down the priority list?
First, the Government could build on the welcome precedent they set recently in the domestic abuse legislation in ensuring that guidance refers specifically to people with communication needs. Can the Minister ensure that the integrated care systems guidance regarding babies, children and young people includes specific reference to those with speech, language and communication needs?
My noble friend the Minister will know better than I that the long-term cost of not supporting children and young people with communication needs can far outweigh any short-term savings. For example, children with communication needs are at greater risk of mental health problems, unemployment and potential involvement in the criminal justice system if their needs are not identified and adequately met from an early age. So it is in everyone’s interest that integrated care systems give due regard to meeting their needs.
I would therefore value my noble friend’s reassurance that integrated care systems will not be allowed to consider children’s and young people’s communication needs as optional, given how this could exacerbate postcode lotteries, with all the longer-term false economies that I have already alluded to. Would my noble friend consider putting the guidance on to a statutory footing?
In conclusion, I ask my noble friend if he would be prepared to meet with me and the chief executives of I CAN and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists to consider how we can ensure that the Bill improves data and information sharing for children as well as adults and that, in the same vein, the barriers currently preventing local authorities and the NHS from planning and delivering services in a joined-up way for children with communication needs are removed?
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I add my own warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham on his excellent maiden speech.
One of the most dispiriting and dislocating experiences that any large organisation can suffer is to be subjected to repeated waves of substantial reorganisation. It diverts attention away from the delivery of outputs and on to issues of structure and process, and just as, and often before, one set of changes is embedded, another looms. This leads to confusion, reduced efficiency and poor morale. So the Bill, representing another upheaval for the NHS, carries considerable risk.
I acknowledge that some of what it proposes goes with the grain of evolving practices in parts of the NHS and that it incorporates a number of welcome changes. The shift to a more integrated approach to health and care is long overdue, and the abandonment of the competition straitjacket will be cheered by the vast majority of practitioners. The question remains, however, whether such improvements could have been secured in a way that would be less dislocating for the NHS.
It is important to remember that a Bill such as this sets only a broad framework and that giving it effect requires a great deal of subsequent detailed work. At a time when Covid continues to stretch the NHS and the medical profession, perhaps even more so in the months ahead, does this represent the best use of scarce resources?
Turning to points of detail, in the time available I will touch on just one provision that the Bill does contain and two that it does not. Like other noble Lords, I worry about providing for increased political control over managerial decisions. I can understand how frustrating it might be for Ministers to have no control over decisions but nevertheless to have to bear the public and political consequences of them, but they need to ask themselves whether their closer involvement in the process is likely to lead to better decisions. I fear not. We have seen in the past that political priorities, often driven by dramatic headlines, are likely to be out of kilter with long-term health strategies.
While I am on the subject of strategies, I am disappointed that the Bill has nothing meaningful to say about planning and delivering the future NHS workforce. A quinquennial description of a system does not constitute a strategic response. Effective personnel planning has a simple equation at its heart: workforce equals the average annual intake times the average return of service. All three elements of this equation are crucial. The workforce requirement must be defined, and recruiting and retention must be appropriately balanced to maintain the right spread of experience and expertise. At the moment, we have no idea of the requirement, but we know that we are not training enough medical personnel and that retention is poor and getting worse. If we do not take urgent action to address these problems, none of the proposals in the Bill, no matter how worth while, will make a substantial difference.
The most pressing need is to improve retention. Defining the requirement and increasing recruitment are important but they will take some time to have an effect. Stemming and, if possible, reversing the increasing outflow of trained personnel will have the quickest impact on capacity. On a number of occasions, I have asked the Minister’s predecessors what actions are being taken to address the problem and received nothing but vague reassurances. Meanwhile, the situation has worsened. Will the Minister now undertake to set up an empowered task force to remedy this crucial situation?
Finally, I have pointed out in previous debates that the NHS is an ungoverned system in that it faces ever-increasing demand and ever-increasing technological opportunity. No enterprise can succeed in the long term unless it manages its outputs as well as its inputs. At the moment, the NHS’s outputs are varied on a haphazard and sometimes irrational basis, often through uncontrolled waiting lists. Unless and until we face up to the fact that the NHS cannot do everything, we will never have a properly governed system. Because of the imbalance between growing demand and opportunity on the one hand and inevitably limited resources on the other, healthcare is rationed always and everywhere. The question for us is whether we wish to devise a fair way of doing that or to continue with our present, incoherent system of force majeure.
The current Bill, like all its predecessors, has nothing to say about this. It therefore treats a number of distressing symptoms but does not address the underlying condition that threatens the long-term well-being of the NHS. In this regard, it is another missed opportunity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my declaration of interest in the register: I currently work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association and my father was a dispensing doctor. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the Bill, which I broadly support—particularly its emphasis on greater collaboration between GPs, hospitals and local authorities.
If I can paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, whom I congratulate on an excellent maiden speech, I agree that all health services are local. However, I disagree with him on his support for the fluoridation of the water supply, and refer him to the case of the petitioner, Mrs McColl, against Strathclyde Regional Council. You might say that I cut my legal teeth on this case because I spent nine months as a Bar apprentice and the remaining time as a devil; my devil master was one of the advocates for Strathclyde Regional Council. Crucially, Mrs McColl had dentures; she had no teeth. She argued that fluoride is a carcinogen and that the action Strathclyde Regional Council sought to introduce, which the Bill also seeks to introduce, was unsafe, ineffective and illegal. I agreed with her. She won her case. I cannot see how it is appropriate to prescribe such an interventionist action that could be achieved by other means: either regularly brushing children’s and adults’ teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride or reducing sugar in the diet. So, on that, we will disagree, but I warmly welcome the noble Lord to the House and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the meeting we had to discuss these issues, at which he heard me argue that the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care tend to be urban-centric. A lot of that has been proved in many of the speeches this evening. Dispensing doctors have a unique role to play. They are general practitioners who are permitted to dispense medicines—in effect, a GP and a pharmacy rolled into one—for patients who would otherwise have difficulty accessing one or both, not least due to the distance from their home. All these services are in rural areas only. I pay tribute to the role that dispensing doctors play as an integral part of the health service in rural communities, building strong relationships with their patients. They are crucial to the delivery and promotion of preventive services and well-being, which is so dear to the heart of the Conservative manifesto.
I will focus on delivering healthcare and social care in a rural setting. I urge my noble friend to confirm that he will redress the inequalities already identified in this Bill, particularly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to restore the balance in favour of spending on rural areas as opposed to urban areas and in favour of spending on primary care as opposed to secondary care. Does he share my concern that the ICSs will be full of secondary care practitioners and that primary care practitioners may not be as well represented as they might be?
I share the concerns expressed by others this evening about the number of GPs, many of whom are facing retirement in the next five or 10 years and have real concerns about their pensions. Again, I regret the fact that the Government—as shown both this evening and with the Health Secretary’s acceptance to the health Select Committee next door in the other place—have not kept their commitment to increasing the number of doctors in the next four, five or six years. That is deeply regrettable.
Will my noble friend the Minister use this opportunity to redress the balance in spending between urban and rural areas? Rural areas are facing issues with isolation and the distance that patients have to travel to access healthcare; they also have disproportionately higher levels of older people with chronic conditions. This is a golden opportunity to address these issues; I warmly invite my noble friend to do so.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, particularly on his robust defence of fluoridation in Birmingham. I am going to concentrate on one clause, one schedule and one issue: Clause 144, Schedule 17 and part of the Government’s plan for tackling childhood obesity.
I have lost count of the reports from Select Committees and the National Audit Office on this vital issue, which, irrespective of the damage to health, is on course to bankrupt the National Health Service. I am informed that, since the early 1990s, there have been 14 reports containing 700 recommendations. No Government have done enough. When the coalition came in in 2010, there was a flurry of activity. The outcome, a serious plan, was effectively squashed by Theresa May in 2016 under pressure from the food industry. I was at a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee when I heard officials—I shall not name them as I had worked with one of them before—spell out what was planned, but it did not come about.
So, it is better late than never that the Government are acting. There is increased political will to act; this is to be welcomed and actively supported. We have moved on from the “nanny state” arguments nurtured by the food industry. Besides this Bill, though, I would like to know what the Government have been doing since September 2020, when the National Audit Office published HC 726, its report on childhood obesity. Its key findings were worrying, and the five recommendations were a serious plan of action. I have looked but, to be honest, I have not been able to get the detail.
The figures on childhood obesity are startling and on the move. They are not static—we are getting fatter. The National Audit Office’s report pointed out that 20.2% of 10 to 11 year-old children were obese in 2018-19. That figure rose to 26.9% for children in the most deprived areas. The brief from the Obesity Health Alliance gives more up-to-date figures. The last year has shown the fastest increase in child obesity on record. More than 40% of children are obese by the time they leave primary school; for year 6 children, the figure is up from 21% in 2019-20 to 25.5%. It will be really difficult to reverse this trend.
I am about to make my only politically incorrect point. I could not help but notice, in recent years, the astronomical size of some teachers in primary schools. Emerging evidence shows that, besides a 1% year-on-year growth in obesity, the Covid pandemic’s impact is likely to have accelerated the pace of increase in childhood obesity, so there is even more reason to be concerned.
I will support the Government’s action and spur them to do more. They could do a lot worse than adopt the 10-year Healthy Weight Strategy published by the Obesity Health Alliance in September this year. “Healthy weight” is a good way of describing the desired outcome. It does not conjure up too much negativity. I will be watching to ensure that there is no watering down of the modest proposals by the men who made us fat. In this respect, I prefer the evidence from the National Audit Office to that from the food industry on the effects of advertising.
Talking of the men who made us fat, the BBC should show again the 2012 BBC Two documentary “The Men Who Made Us Fat”. The science and methods, both physical and behavioural, that the food industry uses to get us to eat more are eye-watering in their lack of concern for the consequences to public health. I commend the Government and urge them to do more, and I will oppose any watering down.
As an aside, exactly two years ago this week I lost two weeks of my life without warning, with clots, sepsis, pneumonia and a lump. The staff at Hereford County Hospital stopped me going over to the dark side. So far, so good, and I am very pleased to say that I am part of a clinical trial to check the effect of the booster on those who have had leukaemia and lymphoma —a trial called “Prosecco”.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, fancy having to follow that. I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his excellent maiden speech. I have known him, on and off, for several decades, and am pleased to see that, after seven years of managing the NHS, he retains his sense of humour.
I declare my interest as a member of the Dilnot commission and I certainly welcome the decision finally to implement our proposals, 10 years after we reported. I note that even now the Treasury cannot resist using a meaner means test than we proposed. That approach does not do much for the Government’s levelling-up agenda and I wonder whether Michael Gove’s department was consulted before the decision was made.
We must reverse this mean-spirited approach. The Dilnot commission’s proposed individual cap was served up to deal with a problem that we were asked to solve: the unpredictable high care costs that fell on individuals randomly and unfairly. We were not asked to deal with the underfunding of the adult social care system that has built up under successive Governments. However, back in 2011 we did say that there was an underfunding of £1 billion a year on annual expenditure of about £15 billion. That £1 billion a year has now risen to at least £8 billion, with no credible plan to rectify matters. Publicly funded adult social care faces an existential crisis, which this Government have simply failed to address and do not address in this Bill.
I will now identify a few issues that I shall be raising during the Bill’s passage. The first is the issue of timing, whatever the contents of this Bill. I have been involved with two NHS reorganisations. As a civil servant, I was involved with Keith Joseph’s disastrous and expensive 1974 reorganisation. In 2005, as the Minister for NHS reform, I was involved in tidying up someone else’s reforms. Like others, I am also a veteran of the passage of the 2012 Act, which this Bill is correcting. Perhaps I can give a little advice to the Government from this experience.
NHS reorganisations are always more expensive than their architects think. They take longer to complete than they think, and their implementation disrupts service delivery. The 2012 Act changes were estimated to have cost about £3 billion and to have disrupted NHS operations for about three years. A large number of deficiencies in this Bill have been identified this afternoon and evening, and these cannot easily be put right in time for the Bill to be implemented from next spring. I shall therefore raise the issue of a sunrise clause in the Bill, given the variable pandemic that the NHS is handling and the backlog of treatments it faces. There is a backlog of 5.8 million patients if we believe government estimates, or a queue of 13.6 million patients if we believe the recent estimate by the LCP health consultancy. Whichever one we plump for, this is hardly the right time to get a tired NHS staff distracted and anxious about another NHS reorganisation.
I turn very briefly to other issues. Clauses 18 and 68 deal with patient choice, which I welcome, but I hope to table amendments that would provide a mechanism to enable patients to exercise choice from among public or private providers of NHS services at NHS prices when they face long waits for treatment.
I do not have time to go into many other details, other than to raise again my intention to resurrect two recommendations, 33 and 34, from this House’s 2017 Select Committee report on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care. The recommendations proposed an independent office for health and care sustainability. Such a body would have no operational responsibility and it would report to Parliament regularly on issues around health and social care funding and the workforce. The recommendations were not taken up by Jeremy Hunt when he was Health Secretary. Since then, however, he seems to have had a change of heart and thinks that something along these lines is needed to keep Governments honest, as I think he said. Blessed is the sinner who repents, and we need to return to this issue in Committee on the Bill.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it has been a long debate and a lot of very interesting things have been said. I wish to concentrate on the health part of this Bill.
Most of the things that scream “health” to me are in the back of the Bill. There is the traditional subject of fluoridation. It is nice to know that that fight is still running. I would side with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, whom I welcome to the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this one. I think there are few rounds left in it, but let us see whether we can win it now.
When it comes to advertising restrictions for unhealthy foods, this should have happened a long time ago, and we have been talking about it for an awfully long time. Talking about the lobbying on this, I can remember at a party conference being entertained to dinner by somebody who tried to convince me that if you did not serve full-fat, fizzy drinks to children and offered them just water, they would, lemming like, leap on to the roads to get those drinks and be run down in their thousands. It is not a very good argument, and I did tell them that by the end of the meal.
I would like to look at something which is not really in the Bill, namely the wonder drug when it comes to health, which is exercise. The Bill does not address it very much, but the fact is that exercise in most forms is one of the things that improves your health and your resilience to infection later in life. The Bill does not do very much to encourage it. The Department of Health has the political muscle and goes into all other parts of government in certain ways—so why are we not pushing it from the Department of Health and why are we not using this Bill as a vehicle for it?
While it is a wonder drug, it also has a wonderful sugar-like quality—among all the varieties of exercise and sport, there will usually be one for you if you keep at it. However, just saying, “Go out there and do it” does not work; we know this, and it is a fact that the Government are starting to address. We have had an Agriculture Act encouraging farmers to turn bits of land into footpaths, but that will not help if we have not encouraged the rest of government to make them accessible. Are we making a car park or a bus route available? Are we getting various bits of government to talk to each other?
Sports have a small crisis coming up due to lack of activity caused by the pandemic. We are losing adult players who provide the administration and coaching for younger players. There has been a fall-off, and many sports are struggling to get them back in; my own rugby union is suffering from this. Can the Government do something coherent to help? Surely there must be a way to put something in the Bill to support exercise. This is done on a voluntary basis, and—let us face it—mainly funded by those taking part. Am I the only person here who has paid subs to join a club and paid match fees?
We need to make sure we get something in here to help us. A little encouragement and help—a little cohesion between bits of government—is required to get the best out of this opportunity. I look forward to Committee, when I will be encouraging noble Lords to put something in the Bill to make the situation easier. We are missing out the biggest assist we could have for public health: making exercise, recreation and sport easier to do. They have survived this long because people enjoy doing them. If any Government cannot cash in on that, heaven help them.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, to this House, and I join in the welcome for this Bill, in so far as it enables greater local collaboration to deliver integrated care. However, I also share concerns expressed across the House today that the Bill must do more to address the health inequalities exposed and exacerbated by Covid. The Bill offers a chance to make progress on reducing unfair, systematic and avoidable differences in health between different places and communities, yet its core duty in relation to this—
“to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between patients”
in terms of access to and outcomes from health services —is unchanged from the existing legal framework despite this duty having failed to deliver the change required.
The narrow focus on access to and outcomes from health services ignores the key point that health outcomes are influenced most strongly by the social, economic and environmental conditions in which people live. As my noble friend Lord Mawson explained so well, NHS organisations are significant local players; they are rooted in their local communities, yet they operate at scale. By acting in place-based partnerships with local government, the voluntary sector and other anchor institutions, they could positively influence the broader social determinants of health in their locality; but retaining the current duty, as narrowly defined, misses this potential.
The new triple aim also fails to mention health inequalities, missing the chance to drive home the need for action. The Minister in the other place argued that the requirement to promote health and well-being, combined with existing duties, obviated any need for a specific reference, but the widening gulf in inequality suggests that existing duties are not enough. I hope that the Government will heed the calls today, including from my noble friend Lord Kakkar, for this omission to be addressed.
Also missing from the Bill is the explicit inclusion of parity of esteem for mental and physical health. A decade after the Health and Social Care Act 2012 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to secure parity of esteem, mental health services are still underfunded, with mental illness representing up to 23% of the burden of ill health but only 11% of NHS England’s budget. This Bill must unambiguously restate the commitment to parity, offsetting any suggestion that “well-being” be understood as a proxy for mental health; it is not the same thing.
One group disproportionately impacted by health inequalities is the 1.2 million people in England with a learning disability and/or autism. Annual mortality reviews have highlighted their increased likelihood of dying from causes that could have been treated, and of dying younger than their peers in the general population: 23 years younger for men with a learning disability, while for women it is 27. The NHS Long Term Plan prioritises people with a learning disability, while the Government’s autism strategy expects that all integrated care boards established by this Bill will have
“a named executive lead for autism and learning disability”.
So will the Government follow their own advice, and stipulate in the Bill that ICBs include this named lead?
Other noble Lords have spoken on changes to the cap. I want to highlight the impact on working-age adults in the social care means-tested system of the Government’s announcement on 17 November that local authority contributions towards care would no longer be counted towards the cap on a person’s total care costs. In England, a quarter of a million working age adults rely on social care to live independent lives, and they stand to be particularly disadvantaged. They are disproportionately asset- and savings-poor. They are likely to receive care for longer periods and therefore to accrue higher costs. They are also more likely to pay care costs that do not contribute to the cap, such as the cost of a personal assistant to enable them to work or enjoy social activities. Sir Andrew Dilnot proposed a zero cap on anyone developing an eligible need up to the age of 40 on the basis that they could not be expected to have planned for their needs, nor to have accumulated assets to pay for them. If the Government continue to reject a zero cap, how will they mitigate the risk of catastrophic care costs on those least able to bear them?
Finally, the Minister stressed again in his opening remarks that much of this Bill simply puts existing integration efforts into legislation or gives effect to policies emanating from the NHS itself; in other words, we are told that disruption is minimal. But this Bill is just one among a suite of reforms, White Papers, reviews, transformations and reconfigurations. The Government need to do more to articulate a vision for how they work together, and how, as a whole, they will deliver for communities, patients, service users and the workforce. They need to demonstrate to the people who will have to implement these changes, while dealing with the impact of a global pandemic, how all these measures will combine to significantly improve health and care.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as a fellow Brummie by origin, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on his maiden speech. I also express my very strong agreement and support for my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Shinkwin in the emphasis they have placed on Clause 4 and the importance of improving cancer outcomes.
With regard to the speech by my noble friend Lord Naseby, I will say how remarkable it is that we seem to have accepted, almost without dispute or protest, the transformation in GP services in this country, which are no longer delivering what we have traditionally expected them to deliver. That is perhaps something that can be explored further as this debate continues, because it seems to pass by with nobody commenting, as if it would be rather rude or impertinent to say something about it. But it is a real phenomenon, which is being deeply experienced.
I generally support this Bill—it is a very good Bill —but I would like to make three points. First, we take it for granted nowadays that Nye Bevan was right to insist on a topdown centralised National Health Service. But that view was contested at the time, and by no less a person than Herbert Morrison, with his long service in local government.
I am grateful to the Library for finding for me a rather fiery Cabinet minute from Morrison arguing for local authorities to keep their role in healthcare provision. That did not happen, but perhaps if it had happened, we would have had a less troublesome bifurcation between the health service and social care that we have spent so much time since trying to address. We are back here now trying to do something to fix and amend that relationship.
My concern, with my experience of local government, is simply this: that the new statutory integrated care partnerships must maintain a proper balance between the National Health Service and local government and respect the democratic and local character of the latter. As was said, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, there must be the threat that when you have such a large shark in the room, some of the minnows get squashed. That might not be an exact analogy, but the drift is clear.
My second point is that I will be supporting my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes in her proposals for the collection of UK-wide health outcome data on an interoperable basis. The pandemic has shown that everyone in the UK is entitled to the same high health outcomes from our National Health Service. To achieve that, we must have comparable data and appropriate mechanisms.
My third and final point—I am sure that at least some noble Lords will recognise this, which the pandemic has brought to the fore—is that health policy is increasingly seen as the new form of social control. One hears calls for non-medical conditions such as gambling addiction to be treated as a medical problem. The phrase “public health approach” to a problem is the new code for policies designed to coerce, tax and nudge people into doing what is thought best for them.
This Bill gives us fluoridation. It gives us an advertising restriction on what are thought of as unhealthy foods, but even government figures, despite the catching enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, show that this would result in a trivial reduction in annual calorific intake. In Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has already told us, we can expect a raft of further amendments of an illiberal character. I will end by saying that these will not be uncontroversial, nor should they be.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register as chair of Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals, now part of Guy’s and St Thomas’ Trust. Like others, I pay tribute to both the speech and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and thank him for assisting us in making a merger of two trusts work where both sides wanted to do it.
Like so many of us, I am hugely proud of the NHS, its formation and its evolution, but I am also hard-headed. To be funded properly and remain broadly supported as a universal service, it needs consistent investment and intelligent, well-evidenced reform. I was aware of that before the 1997 general election, when I felt that the very foundation of a universal service was at stake. Underneath the warm noise, I feel that somewhat now again. I am hugely supportive—indeed, incredulous—of those who work in the NHS, but that must not morph into unconditional support without challenge for the outcomes and delivery of the service around the country.
I have spent more time, really, connected to a different public service—education—where arguably there has been a more sustained principle of reform for 20 years or more. We have seen a sustained push to raise standards across the piece, with a particular focus on under-attainment and disadvantage. We have seen devolution of budgets and responsibility to the front line, clear accountability and action on failure, facilitated by inspection and data, and support for getting talented people into teaching and leadership. Do not get me wrong: it has not all been rosy, and I have had many disagreements, but today is not the time for that. My point is that there has been a visible approach and journey over the last couple of decades.
Contrast that with health: centralisation, then decentralisation; PCTs; SHAs; CCGs; regional NHS bodies; Monitor; NHS England and NHS Improvement —then merged; we could all go on. Now we have ICSs, acute collaboratives, myriad reviews and too many meetings and demands for information. Those demands are made on the very people who are trying to deliver services for patients all the time.
The Bill, laudably, aims to improve and move the NHS from a siloed approach to a properly comprehensive system of health and care. It wants patients to be treated at the right time and in the right place and outcomes and treatments to be more equitable. Who would not support that? Of course we want greater integration; it makes complete sense, but the devil is in the detail. What I and, I suspect, others will want to understand during the passage of the Bill is how it will improve outcomes—or will it simply even things out? Will there be action on failure or a soggy “Let’s all help each other out”? By that, I do not mean shouting at press conferences at overstretched people, because we all know that simply will not work.
Will there be space to encourage clinicians, managers, scientists and entrepreneurs to be innovative and drive new practice and efficiencies? Will there be incentives to get improvement? Will AI and machine learning really be exploited? Where is the focus on life sciences to harness the huge opportunity that a national health service offers? Will data be used to empower patients, and will data systems work so people are not tied up with endless requests from the layers—using different data systems, of course?
I also wonder whether Covid “gold” has, understandably, in many ways allowed a command-and-control system to become paramount. How we will turn that back to allow talent and ideas to flourish, or will that be sacrificed? I have to say that the Statement from the department on foundation trusts and capital is a warning sign for me. We must incentivise performance at the front line.
Will the really hard issues be examined and reformed—I am thinking particularly of primary and community care—or will that be left to “working together”, with the usual focus on hospitals, albeit probably through the parallel acute collaboratives? Crucially—others have said this far better than me—where is the comprehensive workforce plan? Without it, too much of this will be hot air.
I suppose I am sceptical—and I do want to be convinced—because I find it unusual, let us say, to see integration leading to extra layers and bureaucracy. Of course I want better partnership, better leadership and better care and for that to be spread widely around the country. But I have to say that my experience as an NHS chair for four years has been that good governance has to be tangible, transparent and provide clear differentiated responsibilities and accountabilities. You need strong and effective boards with a range of backgrounds and experience, and I do not really see this here. The governance is a muddle and I suppose that in some ways, I am arguing that I do not think it is bold enough.
I get the arguments for more integration of local care—of course that makes sense—but I do not yet see the Bill delivering what we really need. My plea is that, together, we really examine the Bill on the basis of why, what, how and who. Otherwise, we will end up doing another set of reforms five years from now and will not deliver the modern, integrated, universally supported system we all need and want. Please let us take the chance to get this right, or at least make it much better than now.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I spent some decades of my personal and professional life trying to improve health and social care through the statutory and voluntary sector. I welcome the prospect of refining the Bill in the interest of service users and staff alike, to whom I pay my deepest respects in the light of what has been an impossible and worsening situation for the health of our nation.
I recently witnessed two contrasting events: a patient in an acute ward for mental health, and another progressing though intensive care and then a surgical ward. The staff shortage and lack of adequate care support is indeed grave at every level, and I know my family will not be the first or last to share these harrowing experiences. Therefore, my principal reaction to the many aspects of this ambitious legislation and the report on adult social care is that they ring hollow as wishful prayers.
The Government have said that the Bill is driven by NHS demand. I fear that most frontline staff across the service do not agree; nor have they asked for the inevitable fragmentation and the huge structural upheaval which may result, given the existing shortage of staff and funding within the NHS and care sector as it struggles with Covid.
Of course, I hope that the panacea on the written papers will improve service users’ actual experience. Given the glaring lack of any meaningful references to workforce development and, ominously, of any indication that the long-standing consequences of inequalities and discrimination are being addressed, my confidence is rather low at this point.
We are asked to respond to a 10-year plan fit enough to address a massive, long-standing crisis where people are waiting to receive the urgent care to which they are entitled: 1.5 million hours of commissioned care is not being delivered and at least 400,000 adults and families are waiting for formal assessment. This gravely undermines the human rights of those who may already be experiencing a great deal of indignity, pain and desperation. Does the Minister accept that the new proposed boards and commissioning structures may create an even greater backlog of unmet needs?
How do the Government propose to address these anomalies while introducing the new challenges of means-tested personal care and private care companies into an already frail NHS, which struggles to manage current demands? According to the Royal College of Nursing, the Bill as it stands does not address nursing staff concerns, ensure patient safety or give adequate weight to staffing shortfalls in the NHS and the social care sector.
According to other leading experts, including ADASS, £1 billion for the social care sector, while extremely welcome, is not aligned to the reality of the £7 billion investment required to meet urgent needs, and is unlikely to remedy the current crisis in social care. The fear is that the prolonged and chronic historical underfunding—the insufficient resources allocated for social care in the community, which is a disjointed system at local level—will exert even more pressure and cause untold misery and suffering for individuals and families who are among the most vulnerable: the elderly, the disabled with learning disabilities and autism, and people needing mental health support. Integrated care will therefore remain dysfunctional locally, regardless of the fact that half the available social care budget is spent on working-age adults with learning and physical disabilities and the elderly to empower care in the community.
We know that supported housing is seen as a critical linchpin of independent living and is projected to increase by 2030. With only £300 million for these options, does the Minister accept that the Government will have to broaden their reach to widen the network of providers, including specialist and BAME providers, to provide comprehensive and equal care across all communities?
How will these proposals affect the lives of black and Muslim men experiencing mental health crisis who are festering in hospital wards without adequate support, counselling and rehabilitative programmes, and with next to nothing on prevention? I am pleased to hear the new announcement for funding for drug and alcohol treatment. As an experienced leader in the field of dealing with substance misuse at local and national level, I can assure the House that adequate funding for resources and social work support is indeed effective in preventing revolving doors, which can save the NHS and the justice system millions. As the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, clearly and eloquently said, the Bill should be the right place to consider this service.
Caring institutions and organisations are often run by poorly paid and undertrained staff, including social workers, who are once again in our sight for scrutiny. I declare my interest as one. I have worked in child protection and with domestic violence victims and survivors, as well as those with disabilities and substance misuse problems. I understand the horrendous pressures at the front line.
I have two final points. The APPG on Children, alongside many leading NGOs, is anxious that the Bill does not do enough to bring the benefits of integrated working to children and families. I support its asking the Government to commit to assess the Bill’s impact on children within two years of its implementation. Lack of investment in social work, police and education has once again led us to a tragic death, that of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. As a social worker, I have witnessed the demeaning and catastrophic effect of child abuse. Heartbreakingly, it is a fact that lessons learned from what happened to diminish the hope, the smiles and Arthur’s last breath may not prevent the last cry of a child unless we empower staff at the front line of managing complex violence and abuse in our midst.
Finally, I draw the House’s attention to the points raised by the Inter-Collegiate and Agency Domestic Violence Abuse coalition. It views the Bill as an opportunity to deliver the health needs of survivors of domestic abuse. It rightly asks that the guidance for integrated care systems and partnership boards be placed on a statutory footing to ensure that it is adhered to across the health service. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that this guidance should also apply to those with learning disabilities and communication needs.
I welcome and congratulate noble Lords—
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, contrary to the clock, the noble Baroness has been speaking for nearly eight minutes. Perhaps she could bring her remarks to a conclusion.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I welcome and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I hope that we will all work together to enhance this Government’s efforts for better regulation. I hope that we can safeguard the needs of the most vulnerable in our society.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests in the register. In particular, I am chair of the Queen’s Club Foundation and president of Tennis Wales. My purpose in speaking during Second Reading is to highlight the growing importance of sport, recreation and physical activity as essential components of the proactive health policy sought in many of the measures in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Moynihan and I have been working on this important issue. He was keen to speak today and offers his apologies as he is in Wales for long-standing school governor meetings. However, he will be with us in Committee.
The background to our concern, also shared by my noble friend Lord Hayward, is the notable move that sport and recreation has made from isolation from government policy up until the 1990s to taking centre stage in both health and education policy-making. Indeed, there is hardly a department of state where sport and recreation do not feature as an important strand of policy-making. While this debate is not about schools, who can deny that making sure that physical literacy is at the centre of modern educational policy is vital in the decade ahead? Participation levels have remained stubbornly low in the UK. Despite winning the right to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London 2012, the excitement in the build-up as we prepared to host the games from 2005 to 2012, and the much-fought-for sports legacy which was meant to raise the bar for sports participation across the country, our levels of participation and enjoyment of an active lifestyle have actually fallen as a percentage of the population.
The Key Data on Young People material recently published by the Health Foundation makes compulsive reading. What is known and appreciated is that the risk factors for later mortality are laid down in the teens and early 20s. The major risk factors leading to mortality or illness in later age are directly related not just to tobacco use or alcohol, for example, but to obesity and a lack of physical activity. If we take action and reverse this trend, physical activity can and must become a major factor in redirecting our health policy away from simply addressing illness to preventive work aimed at improving levels of physical fitness, well-being and mental health.
Covid has now changed the picture for the worse. In January this year, experts expressed deep concern that the coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on children’s physical activity levels. New figures from Sport England show that the majority of young people failed to meet the recommended 60 minutes of daily exercise in the 2019-20 academic year. That was a decrease of almost 2% compared with the previous 12 months. Almost a third of children—2.3 million—were classed as inactive as a result of lockdown restrictions, not even doing 30 minutes per day. That was up by 2.5%.
There appears to be little evidence that we have returned to pre-pandemic levels—an essential starting point to address 15 years of flatlining, growing obesity, growing inequalities and a crisis of fitness among young people. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to address this fundamentally important challenge. In Committee, we intend to introduce amendments to the Bill to ensure that the original plans for an Office for Health Promotion are enshrined in legislation, so that participating in sport and physical activity is at the heart of the Government’s plans and that people can and should enjoy healthier, happier and more productive lives.
On 29 March this year, the Government issued a press release announcing the welcome news that the Office for Health Promotion would be up and running by the autumn. The Prime Minister publicly welcomed the move, as we did. He said:
“The new Office for Health Promotion will be crucial in tackling the causes, not just the symptoms, of poor health and improving prevention of illnesses and disease … Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of physical health in our ability to tackle such illnesses, and we must continue to help people to lead healthy lives so that we can all better prevent and fight illnesses.”
However, this welcome news—which I saw as a watershed step in the right direction by the Department of Health, underpinning, as it did, the vital importance of seeing sport and recreation as an inherent part of wider policy initiatives for social prescribing, physical and mental well-being and a fitter population more capable of tackling obesity and sickness, as well as a preventive policy for a healthy lifestyle—has been dropped.
In its place, an Office for Health Improvement and Disparities was formed. I say “in its place”, because the words of the Prime Minister had been erased from descriptions of the substitute body taking the place of the Office for Health Promotion. Mention of physical activity was completely deleted, resulting in the stark absence of any reference to its vital importance.
Whatever the final shape of the approach taken, I believe a key division in the Department of Health, bringing together the policy strands of active lifestyles, health and well-being, should be at the heart of British policy formation, and could achieve far-reaching benefits for all members of our community, particularly the hard-to-reach groups. My noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward and other colleagues who share similar views look forward to exploring ways in which this can be achieved when we return to the Bill in Committee early in the new year.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in medicine and physiotherapy and as a Bevan Commissioner. Like others, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who clearly brings a veritable wealth of experience.
In the debates during the previous health and social care Bill, there were two references to the Titanic, and it felt as if we were commissioning different lifeboats. The lifeboats never arrived. We have two separate systems, health and social care, both of which are creaking under current pressures and severe workforce shortages. Integration is essential and complex. Integrated care boards need comprehensive membership, with a broad overview for patients and children.
Specialist palliative care services, like maternity services, must be commissioned as core. Would you depend on fundraising events for a woman to be able to have a caesarean section in obstructed labour? No. So why do we allow distress in severely ill people to go unaddressed because there is no specialist palliative care service commissioned? I do not mean after-care, as was suggested in the other place. Good specialist palliative care must be commissioned to be integrated across the trajectory of a person’s serious illness, to deal with problems in a timely way when the prognosis is unknown, not just when people are actively dying.
Children and young people need to be considered in all parts of the system, with integrated services and early mediation for disputes between clinicians and loving parents. Abuse, alcohol and drug addictions, the promotion of cosmetic procedures, dental caries and nutritional problems are all part of the public health emergency for children and young people we now face. Underpinning all of this for children is data. There is a desperate need for a unique identifier for a child that goes across health and social care. Some 46 years ago, I admitted a child who had been dipped in boiling water. The case went to the Old Bailey. This week, we heard of a child being brutally assaulted and killed. Has nothing changed? We cannot continue to have social care data kept separate from healthcare and not linkable to education and police records. To improve life chances, we must have relevant information rapidly available. Across the UK, transferable and comparable data is also imperative for decisions in devolved Administrations to be made in the best interests of the patient. This Bill needs to show that.
Seven years after Framework 15, workforce projections remain uncertain. Some 48% of advertised consultant posts went unfulfilled across the UK last year, and there are long-term vacancies on top of that. Unless workforce planning, education and training improve, underpinned by research initiatives and findings, care provision will not improve.
We also need to recognise the appalling work environments, where staff do not feel looked after or valued. Social care will only have the status that it deserves if there is an integrated career path with the NHS, with staff travel time paid for and staff able to access support and advice if they are concerned about someone—with their opinion being valued—without having to go through multiple hoops.
Cancer outcomes at one year are falling behind that of our European colleagues, yet our research is ground-breaking. Sticking with process targets is not good enough. We must not water down the amendments so ably introduced in the other place and accepted by the Government.
Disease does not respect the clock or the calendar. The Bill fails to address the overwhelming number of problems that arise during the three-quarters of the week that is out of hours. The Bill also fails to address the large number of people being treated in inadequate premises because overcrowded emergency units are unable to move sick patients through to wards because there are no beds. Currently, one cannot expect ambulances to offload in a timely way or expect staff to give each patient safe care. Discharging into the community to assess needs in people’s homes makes sense, but where is the workforce to do it? Physiotherapy and occupational therapy are essential in every team to avoid deterioration as well as to restore well-being.
Until health and social care are integrated, we will not solve any of the problems that we face. I believe that the budgetary systems need to be combined. Clause 140 feels like trying to apply an enormous sticking plaster to tackle the underlying chasm: the gap between the current rationing of social care by means-testing versus an NHS free at the point of delivery. The success of the integrated vision in the Bill rests on social care being an equal partner to the NHS, but significant work is required if parity is to be achieved. We have much to do.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, although like my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I respectfully disagree on the topic of water fluoridation, a measure that I strongly oppose and that I will focus on tonight.
It is disappointing that mandatory fluoridation has been slipped, virtually unnoticed, into the nether regions of such an important Bill, without its own debate and without proper scrutiny. Moreover, it all seems very rushed. I stand before noble Lords today not as a scientist or a connected party of a lobby group but as someone who has grave concerns about the risks posed by widespread water fluoridation. I contend that high-quality evidence that has come to light in North America since 2017 suggests that fluoride can damage the developing brain and reduce IQ. I conclude that water fluoridation has not been adequately researched by those who have initiated the Bill. The practice cannot be considered safe and should not be extended throughout the country.
In Europe the only countries that have agreed to water fluoridation are Ireland and the UK, with 10% population coverage, with Spain, Poland and Serbia having done so to a very minor extent. In studies in 1999 and 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged that fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There really is no need to swallow fluoride or put it in drinking water, when topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are available.
Children, particularly bottle-fed babies, are unfortunately being overexposed to fluoride. Infants consuming formula mixed with such water receive the highest exposure to fluoride by body weight—a dosage 100 to 200 times higher than a breastfed baby. This overexposure leads to dental fluorosis, or discolouration of the enamel, when the permanent teeth erupt. Since we have now learned that fluoride crosses the placental membrane, it is evident that the foetus receives an even higher exposure than a bottle-fed infant at a more vulnerable time.
Proponents claim that over 60 years of research has demonstrated that the measure is safe and effective. However, most of that research has focused on the hard tissues: the teeth and bone. It is only recently that high-quality research has focused on other tissues, with disturbing results. According to recent US Government-funded studies published in leading global journals—Bashash, 2017 and 2018; Green, 2019; and Till, 2020—fluoride has the potential to damage the developing brain of both the foetus and the infant, leading to lowered intelligence and increased symptoms of ADHD. Making these observations even more alarming is that the damage was observed in fluoridated communities in Canada—a country that fluoridates at 0.7 parts per million, versus 1 part per million in the UK. The Till paper showed an IQ decline of 9 points among bottle-fed children in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities. These findings are so serious that they make any discussion of dental benefits of this practice moot. You can repair a damaged tooth but not a damaged brain.
The irony of the Bill’s proposals is that they will harm most those whom they seek to help. Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition, and thus most likely to be vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic side-effects, are the less well-off, who are the very people being targeted by the proposed fluoridation programmes. We should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for low-income families and invest in programmes such as Childsmile in Scotland.
In his written evidence to the recent White Paper, Professor Stephen Peckham, government adviser to the current Select Committee on Health in the other place, chaired by Jeremy Hunt, stated that
“if the Secretary of State was looking for ways to improve oral health then water fluoridation should not even be considered given its lack of effectiveness. More attention should be given to schemes such as Childsmile in Scotland which has been proven to reduce inequalities, reduce admissions for tooth extractions and provide broader public health benefits beyond oral health. Such a scheme links very clearly to addressing obesity issues as well”.
Professor Peckham rebuts government claims in the White Paper that water fluoridation is proven to improve oral health and reduce oral health inequalities. He argues that such claims are based on inconclusive evidence and studies predominantly carried out pre 1975, before the wide use of fluoride toothpaste. Peckham further argues:
“We should not be considering any new schemes given the increasing amount of evidence linking fluoridation to harmful health effects.”
Only eight years ago, the Government made a decision to transfer decisions on this issue from the NHS strategic health authorities to local government. The specific reason given was that local communities should have a stronger say. This Bill reverses that position and reverts to the centralisation of control with the DHSC.
Surely, if health measures are to be imposed on the individual and if the community’s final say in the matter is removed, the scientific evidence should show overwhelmingly that the measure is both beneficial and safe. In the case of water fluoridation, I do not believe it is either. At the very least, I urge a delay in proceeding with this measure until the National Toxicology Program in the US—which for the last five years has been undertaking a systematic review of the fluoride neurotoxicology studies—publishes its report, expected in early 2022. The public will not easily forgive us for rushing ahead without availing ourselves of the best scientific research on the matter.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to this House and enjoyed his erudite speech—and I am supportive of the fluoridisation of water. I draw attention to my interests as outlined in the register, particularly as a registered nurse and chair of a small housing association that specialises in housing for people leaving care.
This Bill is welcomed by many health and care communities, and I support its emphasis on collaboration and integration between mainstream NHS providers, public health, social care, the voluntary sector and, in some cases, the independent sector. This will be essential to meet our health challenges and increase productivity. The Bill refers to patient-focused care provision, yet future success will be achieved only if people take greater responsibility for their own health based on public health advice. For this reason, I suggest that the term “person-centred care” is substituted in many parts of the Bill to emphasise the partnership in care between service users and professionals. How can this House be assured that the structural changes proposed will reduce health inequalities and ensure parity of esteem between mental health, learning disability and physical healthcare services?
There is a concern that in ICBs there may be an overrepresentation of local acute trusts. I support amending board structures to mandate representation for mental health and learning disability providers; a member of the local community to represent users and carers; and a nominee from social services and public health. This will be vital to achieve balanced decision-making and fair allocation of resource.
In 2020 the World Health Organization launched a vision for nursing, with a clear policy committing all nations to increase the proportion and authority of nurses in senior health positions. I hope the Government will consider this in their new structures.
I support proposed amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State must lay regular reports before Parliament outlining the system in place for assessing and meeting the needs of the health, public health and social care workforce in England. Reports should include independently verified workforce numbers—in full-time equivalents, not headcount—and should indicate the proportion who have been trained in the UK and those recruited from overseas. The World Health Organization is clear that while healthcare workers’ migration can be positive, wealthy countries should not be overreliant on recruitment at the expense of lower-income and middle-income countries. Reports should identify the number entering training in the UK and the number of leavers, and should provide information on retention, including examples of best practice.
The Bill introduces the NHS payment scheme, designed to enable the integration of service delivery. To realise this ambition, there must be central prioritisation of early intervention and timely discharge. In August 2021 there were 25,836 days of delayed discharges for mental health services; 32% were attributed to social care and 11% to housing. The proposed payments system may make it easier to prioritise proactive community care, but this priority needs mandating in order to ensure that the new payments scheme drives reductions in delayed transfers of care and does not simply continue to accommodate extra bed days in hospital.
Patient safety and the relationship to safe staffing cannot be overemphasised. Amendments are necessary to promote workplace health and safety, including in community settings; the supply of PPE and other safety equipment; and clear mechanisms for staff to raise and resolve concerns. Staff teams should include relevant skill mix, adequate time for clinical supervision and access to continued professional education in data management, new research findings and interpersonal skills to provide contemporary evidence-based practice. I look forward to working with others in Committee to ensure that amendments concerning the issues that I have raised are considered.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, 63% of people in England live with obesity or are overweight. At last obesity is recognised as a significant health challenge that needs to be addressed. The figures are stark: none of the obesity strategies published by Governments since 1992 has successfully reduced the prevalence and inequalities of obesity. Researchers from the University of Cambridge studied why this was the case. They analysed England’s 14 obesity strategies and 689 obesity policies proposed by Governments over the past 28 years, and found that obesity policy has been largely unfit for purpose.
Around 76% of all policies had no plan to monitor or evaluate whether they were working. A further 81% were published with no cited evidence, for example on whether the policy was likely to be effective, while 91% included no cost or budget for implementing policies. Just 8% of the policies that the academics looked at included all the necessary details about how the strategy could readily be implemented. A total of 43% of the policies they studied required people to make changes to their lifestyle, such as diet or exercise, which, sadly, we know do not work. Just 19% of policies focused on making it easier for people to be healthier by shaping the choices available to them.
That is where this Bill, specifically Schedule 17, comes in. Every child has a right to be healthy, no matter where they live. It should be a simple principle to follow that we make it as easy as possible for children to access healthy, nutritious and delicious food to ensure that they get the best start in life. We want them to grow up fit and healthy in an environment where picking the healthy option is the easy option.
The reality today makes this hard. At school, on the street and on their screens, young people are overwhelmed with unhealthy food options: canteens selling cakes, doughnuts and cookies, while failing to provide enough fresh fruit and vegetables; fried chicken shops and other cheap, unhealthy fast-food options opening up on every other street corner; and a bombardment of advertisements for unhealthy food on TV and online, beamed into children’s eyes all day every day. With unhealthy food so regularly in the spotlight, it is no wonder that it plays such a starring role in children’s minds.
This food environment has resulted in a public health crisis. One in three children leaves primary school overweight. Childhood obesity is increasing at an alarming rate made even worse by the pandemic. Recent NHS data shows the biggest year-on-year increase in childhood obesity on record. The problem is not just getting worse; it is getting worse faster.
An unhealthy diet is linked to many negative outcomes in life. It is a path that leads to a higher risk of preventable conditions such as type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, heart and liver disease and cancer, and leads to poor performance at school, bullying and mental health issues. It results in many potentially avoidable deaths, including the likelihood of hospitalisation, even death, from Covid if the person is overweight, and costs our NHS in excess of £6 billion a year—and climbing. The impacts are not shared evenly across society. Children from deprived areas are more than twice as likely to have obesity than their more affluent counterparts.
I support the restrictions on advertising unhealthy food and drink on the television, on-demand programme services and online. I commend the Government on bringing these proposals forward. Advertising is very different today. It is no longer confined to just a billboard in town, the back of a newspaper or a 30-second spot on television. Marketing companies can now reach us all day every day online, through our phones, tablets, computers and more. The young people at Bite Back 2030 published research earlier this year reporting that children in the UK see nearly 500 online junk food adverts per second. They see endless streams of advertisements for unhealthy food on their social media channels, saying that it is “overwhelming” and “like the wild west”. They feel hopeless against the narrative that junk food is the only option.
Marketing is manipulating young people to crave more, buy more and eat more unhealthy food. Between 2010 and 2017, spend on food and drink advertising increased by 450%, yet just 2.5% of total food and soft drink advertising spend goes towards fruit and veg. The other benefit of these restrictions is that they will level the playing field, incentivising the marketing of healthy foods and giving businesses that want to prioritise child health more of an opportunity to be innovative and creative in the way they put healthy food in the spotlight. These restrictions are regarded by many as an opportunity for companies to innovate and champion products that benefit, rather than harm, public health.
Children’s health must come first. The legislation does that by making it easier for young people to live without the constant reminder that they could eat a burger, order some chips or grab an ice cream. That is a good thing and very much a step in the right direction.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as the founder and co-chair of Visionable, a provider of services to the NHS; as a board member of Nuffield; and as an adviser to Telstra UK. I also chair the NHS Confederation, the largest body representing health leaders in the UK.
I welcome my noble friend and colleague, Lord Stevens, to this House. We have often had debates. It is great to see him here. It is obvious now to all of us that he is very smart and very funny. He is a certified national treasure. He has been welcomed to the House, and deservedly so.
I want to make a few points on this Bill—hopefully briefly, given the hour. First, this Bill is a ground-up Bill; it is not an imposition from on top. Rather oddly, it would be strange if we did not support the Bill, not least because the restructuring would be the result of us not supporting it. We have chairs of ICSs in place; we have chief executives of ICSs in place; and we have strong relationships across health, local government, housing and education in place. This Bill provides the legislative infrastructure to enable ICSs to go faster. Not to support this Bill is a backwards step. I know because the last Bill, in 2012, could be seen from space. I chaired the NHS England sub-committee that authorised some 211 CCGs. I wake up perspiring in the middle of the night at the thought of going back there. This is better, and it is not just me saying that; it is the majority of health leaders in the UK.
I also point out that those noble Lords who are concerned about privatisation need not worry. I say that again because the leaders in the NHS Confederation, in the health system, in the acute care system and in the social care system are not. Personally, as the son of a nurse of 40 years, I would not be standing here supporting this Bill if that were the case. I would not support this Bill, and neither would members of the NHS Confederation. It is already in place and happening because the people leading those systems believe that ICSs and population health will make a significant contribution to the thing at the top of 95% of their to-do lists: health inequity and inequality, exampled by the experience of Covid. The Covid experience has forced systems to work together—for example, local authorities to work with acute trust and acute trust to work with social care. It is imperfect but necessary. It is as a result of that learning that we need population health and the infrastructures to support it. To that extent, I support this Bill.
There are examples. Many Peers have talked about particular sections of the community. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to people with learning disabilities. In West Yorkshire and Harrogate, the ICS decided to prioritise people with learning disabilities as part of its acute waiting list response. It could do that because it was operating on a good understanding of population health needs, stratified according to real need in that area. That is what ICSs can do, and that is what we should encourage them to do.
However, there are some concerns. Ministerial powers are the number one concern of many health leaders. I do not quite understand it, to be honest; I am not convinced by the introduction to the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. The powers are sweeping. In informal discussions, I did say to him that my feeling was this: why would he want all these powers? How would he feel having them? It is the equivalent of attaching a lightning rod to your derrière and dancing blithely into the middle of a lightning storm. Why would you do it?
More seriously, let me give noble Lords an example of why this really matters in practice. Following a review of Kent and Medway’s stroke service in 2015, the local council referred a decision to create three hyperacute stroke units—HASUs—to the then Health and Social Care Secretary, who then passed it to the independent reconfiguration panel, which approved the changes in autumn 2019. The green light for the decision sat on the desk of successive Health and Social Care Secretaries until just a few weeks ago. This means that those HASUs will not be up and running until 2024. It is estimated that 25 people a year would avoid death or disability if HASUs were established, so those delays have cost lives.
These powers are not necessary. They work against the very principle of this Bill: to distribute leadership so that it is as near as possible to the people who need health and social care. I will be supporting amendments to this Bill that reduce the powers of the Secretary of State so that the Government can benefit from the principles enshrined in this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, summed up the position on the workforce brilliantly, ably supported by my noble friend Lord Stevens. The fact is that, without a credible plan, you plan to fail. It is as simple as that. The thing in the room that people are afraid of noting is that a proper analysis will cost money. Well, not having a proper analysis will cost lives and money.
I will say a couple of things to close. First, I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Stevens on mental health and I will support amendments that give greater clarity on that issue. Secondly, the idea that we might slow down this Bill is for the birds. We need to examine it, obviously, but we need to move with full speed because people are waiting for services that are joined up. The then chief executive of the NHS commented on the last major change as being one that could be seen from space. This is not that change. It is a change which will enable health and social care to be felt by patients and citizens, which is what I commend this Bill to the House to do—though it is not for me to commend it. However, we should support this Bill for that reason and support the leaders of our health and social care system, who have worked so hard through the pandemic. Now they want this support; let us give it to them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am going to structure this speech untraditionally, beginning with a short list of some of the issues that I expect to pick up in Committee and adding to the list already laid out by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb as her agenda. The British Association of Social Workers is concerned about the dilution of local authority responsibilities. The Institute of Alcohol Studies points out the failure to address the harm done by advertising for alcoholic products. The Venice Commission concludes that it undermines trust in the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Unpaid carers are deeply concerned about Clause 80, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, outlined, and, of course, multiple organisations and Peers are gravely concerned about the lack of workforce planning.
I want to spend most of my time looking at the big structural changes introduced by this Bill—astonishingly, as many noble Lords have noted, at a time of tremendous pressure and struggle for our health service. The warning from the British Medical Association that the Bill will
“do more harm than good”
in this context must be noted. I want to engage particularly with two speeches, starting with that from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He raised the way the kind of structures created by the Bill reflect those that
“JP Morgan and Rockefeller used when creating vast monopolies.”
Those noble Lords, among them the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, insisting very vigorously that the Bill is not about privatisation—really, really it is not—might like to reflect on that analogy.
The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Adebowale, noted that integrated care systems have been around in one form or another for six years already. They were brought in de facto into the NHS, without parliamentary oversight, and now we are being asked to approve that model. Somehow, that makes me think of the Henry VIII powers that, rightly, so exercise many of the legal experts in your Lordships’ House. I do not believe anyone disagrees with the idea of integration. Regarding each individual engaged with the system as a person needing a mixture of medical and other care, not as a set of conditions, is obviously essential and all too rare. But the big question is, how? There is an important question to ask about models: what are their origins?
The origins of so much thinking about healthcare systems in the UK come from the United States—as do many of the personnel, who come from giant American healthcare companies. I am talking, of course, about the top of management. That is astonishing, when you think that the world’s richest country can reasonably be classed as having the world’s worst health system. It is a system that absorbs enormous resources—financial, physical and human—to produce astonishingly bad outcomes, whether measured by mortality, morbidity, the actual volume of care provided or inequality. Yet we seem to draw most of our thinking, and many of our senior personnel, from the US.
Maybe I am wrong that this is a failure; maybe the issue is the purpose of the system. If you acknowledge that the purpose of the US healthcare system is to be a cash cow, not a care provider, then on that measure it is a raging success—one that is already consuming about 8% of England’s NHS spending and providing a quarter of our mental health in-patient beds.
It has not always been so. Think back to 2015, when Hinchingbrooke Hospital was briefly in the hands of the healthcare company Circle. Soon, care was rated “inadequate”; the company complained that it was not making any money and handed it back to the Government. Multinationals have found it hard to make money from operating some elements of our current health system but now, potentially, they will have a new way of taking over.
The integrated care board model is closely based on health maintenance organisations, also known as managed care organisations. These are responsible for providing only limited free services to an identified group of people. In the US, they are like customers, but very constrained ones. The sad reality of where we are now in the UK is that, with our level of spending on health significantly below that of nations of comparable wealth, we are already heading towards this. A survey by openDemocracy found that one in five people had had a doctor or other health professional suggest that they needed to go private to get the care that they needed. Nine out of 10 patient-facing staff said that they had been unable to give a patient treatment or a procedure that they would benefit from. With a block of patients and a fixed budget, how much further might this Bill take us down that road?
Lest noble Lords think I am going out on a limb here, I point out that the BMA has noted that the Bill
“risks making it easier for private companies to win NHS contracts without proper scrutiny.”
We have already seen this in action in our social care system over decades under successive Governments. The Bill does nothing to tackle the predatory financing that has consumed our care homes sector, with 84% of beds provided by for-profit companies, and one-sixth of the fee for a bed in financialised homes going towards interest payments.
If this brief outline has left noble Lords wondering or puzzled about the apparent lack of resistance from the Front Bench on this side to the basic structural changes here, where should they go? I suggest they read the work of Professor Allyson Pollock, Peter Roderick and Caroline Molloy on openDemocracy and, on social care in particular, the work of the APPG on Limits to Growth.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble and national “treasure”—the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—and welcome him to the House. I wish to focus on three areas: care homes, care workers and carers.
Last night, “Panorama” examined the financial structure behind two big care home chains. It discovered that the ultimate owner was a private equity company based in a tax haven, and that between that owner and the home there might be more than 100 other shell companies. Furthermore, the equity companies owning the chain changed frequently, each time taking more money and loading the debt on care homes.
The result was that at least 20% of the money that should have gone to support the resident was used to pay interest on the debt and dividends to shareholders, leading in some cases to poor care. Moreover, in a number of cases, the debt became unsustainable, so the home had to go into receivership, with the residents left in great uncertainty about their future. Is the Minister content that the present Bill will be able to ensure that the financial structure behind care homes in the future will not be of this type, able to load debt on to homes in a way that harms residents?
That having been said, the vast majority of care homes provide dedicated service. This was very much shown in the first phase of the pandemic when, for example, care workers actually lived in some homes to safeguard the residents from infection. However, there are now 170,000 vacancies in care homes and almost every home in the country has been hit by staff shortages, as underpaid and exhausted care workers leave. This raises the whole question of their pay, conditions and status.
There is a totally unacceptable turnover rate of care workers, as the noble Lady, Baroness Altmann, emphasised, while their average pay compares very unfavourably with that of a shop worker. Of course, this applies not just to those working in care homes but to the vast number now working in the community, trying to care for people in such a way as to keep them in their homes. We are still in a position where far too many hospital beds are being occupied by those who should be cared for in the community. That depends on care workers actually being available.
I believe in and greatly value the business sector of our society, not least innovators and genuine entrepreneurs. The whole country depends on their success but no less should we value the care sector and recognise this in the status that it is given, which should be reflected in how its workers are paid and treated. At a time when we will soon have 1 million people suffering from dementia and with the prediction that by 2050 that figure will be 2 million, we are no less dependent on the care workforce than we are on those working in business.
I welcome the Government’s recent statement that they are spending a least £500 million so that the social care workforce has the right training and qualifications and feels recognised and valued for its skills and commitment; they are also prioritising workforce well-being and support, including better access to occupational health services. The second question I ask the Minister is this: is he satisfied that this Bill, as set out at the moment, will ensure that this very excellent aim will be properly checked and monitored?
I now turn to carers—that is, those caring for a relative or friend on a voluntary basis. The support provided by people caring for a family member or friend who is older, disabled or has a long-term condition is vast. Prior to the pandemic it was estimated to be worth £132 billion per annum and during the pandemic, in one year, at about £193 billion. With an ageing population we are likely to continue to see a rise in the number of people providing care in this way. Carers’ health is often impacted by caring. Those who care for people in their house for more than 50 hours a week are twice as likely to be in bad health than non-carers. Carers UK has suggested some interesting amendments to this Bill to ensure that this element of the care sector is properly recognised and taken into account.
Finally, the word “care” is a precious one. The categories of “care worker” and “carer” are fundamental to our society. They need to be recognised accordingly, both in our attitudes and in the law, the latter so often being powerful in shaping those attitudes. I hope that as a House we will be considering amendments which ensure that that is indeed the case.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, being asked to make a winding-up speech is a mixed blessing. There may be nothing new to say, but at least one has more than five minutes in which to say it. Like the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, one has to listen to the vast majority of the debate. I am sure they will join me this evening in saying what an absolute pleasure it has been. We have heard passion, compassion and expertise, all peppered with a little bit of humour—and I am right with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, especially on the medication. It has certainly emphasised why we need your Lordships’ House: to give detailed scrutiny to Bills coming from another place. In that respect, are we not very lucky to have been able to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to our ranks? I welcome him and congratulate him on his maiden speech.
When I look at a Bill like this one, I ask myself whether it will deal with the most urgent issues in the sector. So I have a little list of the questions. Will this Bill fix the crisis in social care; reduce health inequalities; ensure parity of esteem between physical and mental health; reduce the backlog of treatments while improving patient safety; improve access to primary care and reduce the demand on A&E; enable those who need social care to get it and help unpaid carers; provide the right number of qualified staff in both the NHS and social care; enable the commissioning of multi-agency pathways; improve recruitment and retention of NHS and care staff to enable them to work within safe staffing levels; enable public health to carry out prevention activities and protect us all from future pandemics; enable research and innovation to be implemented as quickly as possible and ensure that patient data is shared only in the patient’s interest and with appropriate security? Unless the answer to these 12 questions is “yes”, the Bill should either be ditched or considerably amended. It is quite clear from this evening’s debate that your Lordships are determined to do the latter.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I start with the fundamental issue of why the Government want to push these measures through at a time when the NHS is stretched beyond endurance and social care is at breaking point. Thousands of hospital beds are occupied by Covid patients; others cannot be discharged because there is not enough social care. No wonder—some care homes have had to close because they did not have enough patients to make them pay during the pandemic; others have had to close sections of beds because they cannot get enough staff. The backlog for elective treatments is not going down well enough, and both health and care staff are exhausted. GPs and pharmacists are trying to do their usual job while at the same time stepping up the vaccine programme. A White Paper on social care was published less than a week ago and another is promised next year, and it is at this time that the Government have chosen to change the structure of the health and care system.
The Minister will no doubt say that many of these changes have been requested by the health and care sector to enable them to continue to work more closely together without legislative barriers. We know that many areas have been preparing for the change for some time. That is all true, and the direction of travel is most welcome. However, winter is upon us, and services are not showing the resilience we need in preparation for it while at the same time having to prepare for these imminent changes.
The Government are taking a very big risk by asking the system to make these changes now. Can the Minister please be clear about why he is so confident that it can be done next April without the NHS and care providers taking their eye off the very heavy ball they are already carrying? None one of us wants to see a “Titanic” disaster, but the iceberg is upon us.
I move to the obvious potential benefits of the new integrated care systems, if they are set up correctly and with everything thought through. The Bill has been described as broadly permissive, and this may allow services to be arranged to suit the particular conditions of each of the 42 areas and the sub-areas between them. However, there is a danger that funding will be sucked in, as usual, to the large hospital trusts in each area and social care and community services will be left behind. From these Benches, we are particularly concerned about this. How will that be avoided? How will all the relevant interests be appropriately represented? For example, certain aspects of health such as mental health, sexual and reproductive health, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Barker, public health and prevention services such as anti-smoking, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rennard, and weight loss pathways, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, may not get the attention they need right at the heart, at the ICB level, where budget decisions are made. In Committee, we will of course probe how this can be achieved. However, if representation of these services is made at the right level, there is potential for improvement.
If major changes are to be made, there is one overriding issue that must be at the heart of all ICS management, and that is addressing the health inequalities in their area. Although some parts of the country suffer more than others, no ICS will be without a group of people and neighbourhoods where health outcomes are well below the average. How does the Minister expect the ICBs to deal with this? It is not only the right thing to do but also best for the economy. People are not productive if they are not well fed, a healthy weight, active and with good mental well-being. Indeed, if the NHS is to survive financially, we need to work on prevention of ill health and avoid an older population with multi-morbidities. How much more cost effective it will be to prevent this than to pay for its effects.
Inequality also exists in the ability to pay for care, and we will probe the effects of the Government’s recent cap proposals, as my noble friend Lady Pinnock explained. Reflecting what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, can the Minister say where the responsibility for family and friend carers will lie under the new regime? There are millions of unpaid carers in this country, some of them still children and some very elderly themselves. The recent White Paper says very little about them, but it is somewhere in this new system that the responsibility for their welfare will lie. Where is it?
My noble friend Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and many other noble Lords have pointed out that, at the other end of the age scale, the Bill says nothing about children and there has been no child impact assessment. I will not repeat everything that they said, but can the Minister tell us whether we will get a child impact statement? Where will the responsibility for safeguarding children lie? If it is going to the ICBs, that is a very long way from the place-based committees where all the delivery of services are made, and the current system already leaks, so we must be very careful.
My noble friends Lord Shipley and Lady Pinnock have talked about local authorities, which have numerous responsibilities for social care and public health. This Bill should be creating a partnership of equals between the ICS and local government. In Committee we will probe how local authorities can influence the distribution of budget from the ICB. Many ICSs will cover several local authorities and some authorities will cross two ICSs. How will that work? Of course, it is at local level that all the services that we are talking about will be delivered, so we will also probe the relationship and lines of accountability between the place-based committees and the ICB. In his introduction, the Minister mentioned the phrase “bottom up”. The epitome of that in this new structure is the place-based committees and the voice of the patients they represent. How will their voices be heard at an appropriate level?
The Government are hoping that the new integrated care systems will be more financially efficient than under the old regime. This may be so, but it is vital that it is not at the expense of quality. We welcome the removal of the dominance of competition in procurement, with more emphasis on quality and collaboration, but we will be watching very carefully to ensure transparency in procurement. Contracts must go to companies and service providers who are chosen on their merits and not on who they know. The ICS board, however large or small it is, must be seen to be independent and not influenced by private interests, because it will have enormous power.
Talking of power brings me to the new powers of the Secretary of State. There may be justification for some of them for accountability’s sake, but these must be tempered by appropriate limits, consultation and transparency. However, there is more than a little tension between the Government’s stated objective of being broadly permissive towards the ICSs and giving more power to the Secretary of State, especially the power to intervene at an earlier stage in local service configuration, and even to propose a new local reconfiguration himself or herself. That is going too far and is against the spirit of the Bill.
If health and care organisations and providers are to work more closely together, a lot of patient data will be exchanged. The objective is to have a common system so that information can be quickly and accurately exchanged. We will scrutinise this part of the Bill to ensure that this is always in the patient’s interest with an appropriate level of need to know, privacy and accuracy. The mandatory health services safety investigations body appears in Part 4 of the Bill.
I well remember hearing a previous Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, at a King’s Fund lecture several years ago, describing how it would seek to find out what went wrong without apportioning blame, so that learning could occur across the system. It struck me then, as it does now, as a very worthy objective. He said it would be based on the Air Accident Investigations Branch, which has been very successful. For it to work in the interests of patients, it must be independent and have the trust of staff. The so-called safe space in which staff can explain what happened is a very important element of this, and I would be concerned about any attempt to encroach on it. We will look at that in detail at a later stage.
I end on the most important factor of all in the delivery of health and care services: the workforce. Over the past few years, the number of vacancies has been growing and is now chronic—not helped, particularly in the case of social care, by Brexit. Safe staffing levels have been breached, and that means that patients are in danger, so we will lay amendments to ensure the provision of sufficient staff with the right level of training to ensure safe staffing levels. Planning for the provision of enough qualified staff has not been good enough, and a review of workforce planning every five years will not do. Given how quickly things can change, that is not often enough.
We will support efforts to provide more accurate predictions of need and more frequent review of the plans to provide them. We are also concerned that the focus could be on NHS staff only and that care staff will be forgotten. Does the Minister agree that they, too, need skills and career paths to ensure high-quality care and encourage recruitment and retention? We look forward to the delivery of the £500 million for this promised in the White Paper and wonder whether the Minister can say how the training will be delivered in the new integrated service. It will be one of the most important duties of the new integrated care systems.
This must not be just another NHS reform Bill. It must be about improving the health and care of the whole nation. I look forward to the Minister’s replies to these important questions.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a non-executive member of a hospital trust in London; indeed, my chair is in the Chamber. I was also on a CCG for three years and it got absorbed into its local ICS, so I have lived this story, too.
I thank noble Lords for a debate that has done as much justice to this Bill as time has allowed. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who is much too young to be a national treasure, if he does not mind me saying so. I also thank the outside organisations and the Library for the many briefs. Patient groups, royal colleges, regulators, trade unions, the EHRC, health charities, campaigns, and even a chocolate manufacturer, on behalf of the confectionery industry, and a large optician chain have a close interest in the Bill and have troubled to tell us so, and I thank them very much.
I particularly enjoyed the contribution from my noble friend Lord Howarth, linking, as he did, the arts and health and well-being. All I can say to my noble friend Lord Rooker is that I would not mind being on the prosecco experiment myself, particularly at this time of night. For my part, I intend to focus on the core of the Bill, the NHS reorganisation. The key questions about the Bill are surely these. What does it do for patients? How does it address health inequalities and the NHS workforce? Does it make things better or worse, or is it silent, and what can we do in this House to improve it to tackle those challenges? That is surely our job.
On the workforce, for example, my noble friend Lord Turnberg, the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and many others pointed to the fact that, without a plan and a comprehensive strategy that covers all the health and social care workforce, it is not possible to deliver better care for patients to address health inequalities, which is why amendments about the workforce will receive significant attention as we move forward.
Many of us were in the House during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was never fully implemented because it was a bit of a mess, if I may say so. I remember the tangled spaghetti of organograms resulting from the 2012 reforms. If the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, thinks that this one is worse, I dread to think what that would look like. Of course, we will have to untangle that.
As my noble friend Lady Merron said in her opening remarks, we are not convinced that this is the Bill that the NHS and social care need at this time. In 2017, the Government should have prepared a Bill that simply implemented changes to reverse the worst of the 2012 Act, stop the pointless bureaucracy and ease the implementation of the NHS long-term plans. However, we are no longer in 2017: we have been through the biggest public health disaster of modern times. We can be grateful for the huge strengths of our NHS, but the pandemic has also amplified the inequalities and serious flaws that need addressing.
I will give three examples of what we have to address in the Bill. We all understand that primary care provides the vast majority of NHS care and will play a more significant role in prevention, tackling health inequalities and supporting capacity issues in the hospital sector under the NHS Long-Term Plan. Therefore, it is vital that primary care has an input into the new integrated care partnerships, which will advise the integrated care boards, which are usually much smaller. The key point is that working towards genuinely integrated health and social care, focused on the needs of individuals, is not recognised in the Bill as it stands. For example, where is the role of health and well-being boards? They are stuck in some kind of floating structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out.
I turn to the second thing that is missing. We know that social enterprises and charities are vital in the delivery of health services. Social enterprises, for example, are delivering one-third of all community health services and two-thirds of all out-of-hours health services. They deliver care services, dentistry, mental health services, addiction treatment and many more services. They are a serious and significant part of local health systems. These organisations should not be left out of the decision-making processes.
My point is that we must find a way to do two things. We must ensure that these excellent providers of services are involved in the planning of services at ICS level. We must also ensure that the issue of social value is recognised. The NHS is committed to using social value within commissioning and procurement decisions. Unfortunately, the Bill does not include any reference to social value, which means that the new procurement system for the NHS may go against the grain of the rest of the public sector.
The third issue to address is integration and social care. While the Bill was in Committee in the Commons, we learned that, at some point, there is to be an integration White Paper, which certainly was not in the disappointing document that was launched last week. There is still no overall strategy or plan to address the immediate scandal of inadequate social care. Many in government do not appear to understand that social care is about not just the old and care homes but children and young people with disabilities, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, explained to us.
There is a 10-year vision in the paper launched last week, but it has no milestones, no targets, no strategy and not much funding. It has vague promises, and waters down the Care Act 2014, so we on these Benches will look carefully and critically at that part of the Bill. Let us not pretend: this is an NHS Bill and not yet a health and social care Bill. Surely our job is to make it into that.
Of the many briefings we received on the issue of health inequality, to which the Bill refers, I was struck by the one from the EHRC, which suggested that integrated care partnerships’ strategies should
“include an explicit focus on addressing inequalities in access to and outcomes from services, and that groups sharing protected characteristics”
should be
“fully consulted on their development … Integrated Care Partnerships are required to include representatives from social care and mental health to ensure parity of esteem and a genuine ‘whole system’ approach.”
My noble friend Lord Bradley, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others have said this today.
In the Commons, the Government levelled criticism at my colleagues over their desire to put safeguards into the Bill and the Government’s desire to leave maximum latitude for local solutions. There is an irony here. The Government want to control appointments. They want to agree all the so-called flexibilities and not leave them to local planning at the moment. The Bill is far more top-down system management of the old school, so the Minister can expect some discussion around reconfiguration.
There are concerns about how the new bodies will be accountable. I join my noble friend Lady Morgan in a plea for clarity about this. How are the new bodies accountable and to whom? There is also nothing in the Bill at the moment about accountability to the public and patients.
We need to address issues about who can and should sit on boards that allocate the billions; about restrictions on deals with private providers, on which I am sure that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lady Chakrabarti will hold our feet to the flames; about making sure that procurement is done properly; about the new bodies being far more open and transparent than current ones; about respecting the whole NHS and social care workforce, not just doctors and nurses; about including children and safeguarding; about removing fragmentation between different flavours of provider bodies; about a genuine and active role for local authorities in preparation for real integration; and more. I fear we may be here for some time.
We on these Benches absolutely want the Bill to be amended to achieve the outcomes we all agree about—for example, the plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, about innovation, and workforce rights, dealing with inequality, transparency, local design and population health. We want to work with our colleagues across the House to ensure that the Bill reflects all those things that we agree about.
The Commons had 21 sittings in Committee and did not even scrutinise the social care cap amendment and other government amendments inserted on Report and at Third Reading. We will have to do that too. I congratulate your Lordships’ House on giving the Minister a clear insight into the scrutiny we believe the Bill now deserves and will receive in the coming weeks. I congratulate him and the Bill team in anticipation of the efforts they will have to put into that. I look forward to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. I also ask him to ensure that the House is given sufficient time in Committee and at the other stages to give the Bill the scrutiny and thought that our NHS and social care system deserve.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my thanks and gratitude for this excellent and wide-ranging debate. I hope noble Lords will understand that I may not be able to answer every point in the time available—unless they are prepared to stay here all night. I am grateful for the constructive and thoughtful contributions of noble Lords from all sides of the House. When I first entered this House, a noble friend who was a Minister here and in the other place said that, in the other place, you are probably one of the few experts on the Bill you are taking through, but in this place there will be at least one other expert. I disagree: there are many experts who will know far more about this than I do, but I look forward to learning from noble Lords across the House and listening to their expertise.
I echo those who praised the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. He will be a valuable addition to the House. I caution against describing him as a treasure, because the problem with treasures is that people want to lock them away, put them behind a glass case, or bury them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked how the Bill would be different from previous reorganisations. I make it clear that this is not a reorganisation that comes from my office or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s office in Victoria Street. Instead, the Bill builds on the evolution up and down the country over the last decade led by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, to deliver joined-up care.
This is the right Bill at the right time, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said. I was extremely struck by the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar, Lord Adebowale, Lord Stevens, and my noble friends Lady Harding and Lord Hunt of Wirral, in support of the principles underlined in the Bill. I am grateful for their support. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, the Bill is not a cure-all; no Act of Parliament could ever be. However, it can set the framework for people to find solutions that work; that approach has been the guiding light.
I will now address some of the issues raised across the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said, integrating services around people is the only sustainable way of delivering high-quality health and care systems and, more importantly, delivering improved outcomes for everyone. This has been a goal of health systems across the world, and it is at the heart of the provisions in this Bill, including putting new integrated care systems on a statutory footing. To meet that challenge, a key principle of the Bill is to ensure that the legislative framework is flexible and responsive to local population needs. It is right that local areas should be able to determine the arrangements that work best for them. Frimley is not Cumbria; we should not try to create a one-size-fits-all single model for both.
To protect this flexibility, I ask noble Lords to consider whether it is appropriate to add additional prescriptions on membership and duties for integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships, although we will, of course, be happy to consider suggestions for additional guidance and support for the system. In that spirit, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Walmsley, Lady Masham, and other noble Lords who raised this, that we are working with NHS England and the Department for Education on bespoke guidance in relation to children, including the vital issues of safeguarding, special educational needs and disabilities.
I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for raising the role of family hubs, and for his sustained work in advocating for the family hub model. I assure him that this Government have committed to championing family hubs and we are working to roll them out. I also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and other noble Lords that we are fully committed to supporting carers, including consulting them in the development of services. I reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, and my noble friend Lady Hodgson that integrated care boards will be responsible for commissioning palliative care services as part of a comprehensive healthcare service.
This may be a convenient moment to consider the question of parity of esteem, as raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Watkins, my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others. References to health in the Bill will already apply to mental, as well as physical, health. Likewise, I hope that I can reassure many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that tackling inequalities is deeply embedded in the Bill. Given the backgrounds of both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and myself, we believe very strongly in tackling inequalities. At the same time, I remind noble Lords of the establishment of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, with the focus on disparities and tackling inequalities. It is important that we give our support in tackling disparities right across our nation.
Integrated care partnerships will plan to address local needs, including the wider determinants of health, and the triple aim places new duties on NHS bodies to consider the health and well-being of the people of England when discharging all their functions. I listened carefully to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Pinnock, on the principle of subsidiarity—the role of place. We want to empower local leaders to support integrated and person-centred care at place level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lord Lansley, the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and others raised the question of why we are putting forward a two-board approach. This approach recognises the importance of integration, both within the NHS and between the NHS and its wider partners. I reiterate that this was co-designed with both the NHS and the Local Government Association. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Crisp, that ICPs—integrated care partnerships—will have flexibility to draw members from a wide range of sources including organisations with a wider interest in local priorities, such as housing providers and education, as well as art and culture organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked why the Bill provides for CQC assessment of integrated care systems. It is important that members of the public can understand how well their health and care system is collaborating and that their local hospital is providing a safe, high-quality service.
My noble friend Lady Blackwood and other noble Lords raised the importance of research. I assure the House that we share the objective of wanting to see research embedded in the health and care system, not only to improve healthcare outcomes but to contribute to the goal of making the UK a hub for life sciences globally.
To address the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Chakrabarti, I assure the House that we have no intention of opening the door to privatisation. As the King’s Fund has said, there is nothing in the Bill that is likely to drive more NHS funding towards private companies—a sentiment echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. I also remind noble Lords that successive Labour and Conservative Governments have seen the value of collaboration between the voluntary sector, the private sector, social enterprises —as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—and the state.
On integrated care boards, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about transparency. Integrated care boards are covered by the Public Bodies (Admissions to Meetings) Act and will be bound by the principles of openness and proper public engagement.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Bethell with great interest. I agree that data sharing is essential to true integration. I know that many other noble Lords support this but they also, rightly, raised some concerns. The information provisions in this Bill are part of a wider range of commitments set out in the draft data strategy. We will ensure that the system has the ability and competence to share and use data appropriately and effectively to benefit individuals, populations and the health and social care system.
I listened carefully to the many contributions on social care from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Campbell, and many others. Social care reform is a challenge ducked by generations. Successive Governments have commissioned reports on social care only to see them gather dust on bookshelves and never be enacted. This is the first attempt for many years to tackle a long-standing issue. Many noble Lords have spoken about it being ignored for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years. Anyone who has looked at the history of demographics and economic history will know that this challenge was coming a long time ago, yet successive Governments have kicked it down the road. We hope that this Bill, alongside the upcoming integration White Paper and the recently published social care White Paper, will go towards meeting that challenge. The social care White Paper sets out a 10-year reform vision that puts people at the centre of social care. It will ensure greater choice, control and support to lead an independent life with fair and accessible care.
We are backing that vision with investment. The Prime Minister has announced an additional £5.4 billion to begin a comprehensive programme of reform, including an extra £3.6 billion to reform the social care charging system, an extra £300 million of investment in housing, £150 million of additional funding to improve technology and increase digitalisation across social care, and £500 million of investment in the workforce. As technology improves, we hope that the nature of social care will change, enabling many more people to spend longer lives in their own homes with adaptations and better technology. Would it not be great if the United Kingdom were at the forefront of those technological developments?
I recognise the strength of feeling in relation to Clause 140, but I remind the House that it is absolutely essential that noble Lords look at the package of social care reforms as a whole. Our reforms will stop unpredictable and unlimited care costs, significantly increase the means test to help those with the least wealth and help people to plan for the future.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise that, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in the other place, nobody will be worse off in any circumstances than they are in the current system and many people will be better off. The reforms mean that the Government will now support an extra 90,000 older care users at any given time. Comparisons have been made to previous proposals for reforms to the charging system. I remind noble Lords that many of these were not in fact acted on, partly due to concerns over unaffordable costs. Unlike previous proposals, our reform package is credible, deliverable and affordable.
There has rightly been much discussion of workforce planning for the NHS and adult social care. I have listened carefully to the contributions on this very important subject made by many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Harding and Lady Cumberlege, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cavendish and Lady Thornton. Ensuring that we have the health and care workforce that this country needs is a priority for this Government, and the most recent figures show that there are record numbers of staff working in the NHS, including record numbers of doctors and nurses.
The Bill builds on this work. Clause 35 will bring greater clarity and accountability to this area. The department has also commissioned Health Education England to work with partners to develop a long-term 15-year strategic framework for the health and regulated social care workforce. For the first time, this will include regulated professionals in adult social care. That work will look at the key drivers of workforce supply and demand over the longer term and set out their impact on the future workforce. We anticipate publication in spring 2022. Supporting all this work is our recent announcement of our intention to formally merge Health Education England with NHS England. Such a merger will help to ensure that workforce is placed at the centre of NHS strategy.
I now turn to some of the wider issues raised during this excellent debate. I beg your Lordships’ indulgence, as time may not permit me to answer every point raised, and I commit to write to noble Lords whose points I do not address. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for the time I may take to write some of those letters.
On the power of direction for the Secretary of State, I am afraid I cannot agree with the characterisation suggested by some noble Lords. Instead, I would echo the former shadow Minister in the other place who said that
“the public think that the politicians they elect are accountable for the decisions taken in the interests of their health”.—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 21/9/21; col. 393.]
We agree. I would also like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that Ministers have no intention of requiring hospitals to report on the movement of a broom cupboard. I am afraid that is a mischaracterisation, albeit a witty one, of how Ministers intend to use their power.
We anticipate that Ministers will be involved only where decisions become particularly complex or a significant cause of public concern, or if they cannot be resolved at a local level. Local NHS commissioners will continue to be accountable to NHS England and for developing, consulting on and delivering service change proposals. However, we believe that strengthening democratic oversight will make it more likely that the right decisions will be taken. Any decisions will be based on the evidence and consultations that have taken place, and where the Secretary of State chooses to intervene they will, rightly, be accountable to Parliament and the public.
I welcome support for the establishment of the Health Service Safety Investigations Body and agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Walmsley, and others that it is essential that the HSSIB is an independent body and a safe space. This is what the Bill delivers. It was always difficult to achieve the right balance between openness and getting people to come forward so that we can make sure that we improve and learn lessons.
As raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the Bill contains a number of delegated powers. Many of these are not new but simply reflect the replacement of clinical commissioning groups with the new integrated care boards. Far from a power grab by the Secretary of State, many of these powers will be exercised by the NHS.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Reay raised the question of fluoridation. I gently remind noble Lords that although tooth decay can be prevented or minimised by adherence to a healthy diet, water fluoridation is seen to be the only intervention to improve dental health that does not require sustained behavioural change over many years. It also disproportionately benefits poorer or more disadvantaged groups.
As many noble Lords have commented, prevention is in many ways better than cure. That is why we are so concerned about childhood obesity, a concern shared by noble Lords across this House. It is one of the biggest health problems this nation faces, and I am grateful to many noble Lords for the support that related measures have received today. We want to be quite clear that, as these measures are taken forward by local integrated boards and commissioners, we must rely on evidence, learn lessons and, when something does not work, try something else. We have to use the power of discovery to make sure that we are finally able to put obesity to bed or to reduce it on a significant scale.
I was also grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to reciprocal healthcare agreements. I hope I can assure her that such arrangements will be entered into only when they are in the best interests of the people of the UK and the NHS. The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic.
I thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her remarks and for her tireless work in championing patients, ensuring that the voices of patients and their families were heard in her First Do No Harm report. My noble friend continues to be a voice in the House for patients in general, and for the women and their families who have been so terribly affected by matters covered in her review. She continues to champion their cause and their calls for redress. We are committed to making rapid progress in all areas set out in our response, and we aim to publish an implementation report in the summer of 2022.
Finally, I welcome those, including my noble friend Lady Hodgson, who raised the issue of hymenoplasty. The Government agree that this is a repressive and repulsive procedure. We have convened an independent expert panel to make a recommendation on whether it should be banned. That recommendation will be published before Christmas.
This Bill is the product of extensive engagement with stakeholders across the health and care system, including partners in local government as well as the NHS. It will provide a platform that empowers local leaders across health and care to build back better and to continue to deliver a world-class service, fit for the 21st century and beyond. I urge noble Lords across the House to trust the judgment of our health and care staff as much as we value their commitment and their care. I know that noble Lords will work together to make this Bill better during the coming weeks and I commend the Bill to the House.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 11th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jan 2022)
Baroness Thornton
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 313 in my name, but I shall allow those noble Lords to leave who do not particularly wish to hear my peroration this afternoon.
It is a pleasure to open proceedings in Committee on the Bill. These amendments concern the need to publish an impact assessment, a matter with which your Lordships’ House is very familiar. I expect that the Minister will now tell us that the Government have now delivered on this amendment because—guess what?—first thing this morning, into our inboxes popped an impact assessment, so I of course claim that as my first victory. We need to find out whether this impact assessment is actually any better than the ones that have gone before and whether it fulfils the requirements in both the amendments, and I confess I have not had time to read it yet, but I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
The real issue is that the Government’s lack of serious and realistic impact assessments is symbolic of the lackadaisical manner that this Government take to Parliament and the legislative process, which is why I intend to take this opportunity to make a few general points for context on themes which I expect will recur throughout deliberations on the Bill.
We have received a highly critical report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, more recently, a report from the Select Committee on the Constitution. In the words of the Delegated Powers Committee, the DHSC is again introducing a Bill which
“falls so short of the standards which the Committee — and Parliament — are entitled to expect.”
The Bill lamentably fails to address the recommendations set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation, and the Constitution Committee agrees with that assessment. It says:
“We regret that the powers under this … complex bill are structured in a way that hampers greater detailed parliamentary scrutiny, and note that the Bill … was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny”,
from which it would have undoubtedly benefited. The Delegated Powers Committee further says:
“The Health and Care Bill is a clear and disturbing illustration of how much disguised legislation a Bill can contain and offends against the democratic principles of parliamentary scrutiny.”
These are serious charges, and ones which tell of the nature of the task before the House in the next few weeks. The Bill allows 21 affirmative regulations and 42 negative. It provides for Orders in Council, schemes, rules, licence conditions, 46 directions, and makes 17 references to guidance and one to publishing the document. Of the 156 delegated powers, more than half are subject to no parliamentary procedure. I urge noble Lords to read and reflect on both those reports and allow their concerns to govern the process that we have before us over the next few weeks. Our job, surely, is to put some flesh on this skeleton framework Bill. We need to test the Bill with these reports, and the splendid, if concerning, document Democracy Denied?
On that theme, we on these Benches are concerned about how the Bill centralises powers, with the system being effectively top-down, managed by the new, improved NHS England—for example, with powers to appoint and dismiss key staff without any kind of democratic oversight. On top of that, we have a power grab by the Secretary of State that has drawn widespread opposition.
At Second Reading, and previously in the Commons, views have been expressed about the Bill: how it fails to address the main issues facing the care system and that it risks disruption in the NHS at a time when attention should be elsewhere as we struggle against Covid, which continues.
Of additional concern, we are told to expect two vital streams of information of great relevance: a White Paper on integration and further announcements on changes to social care. It would help to know when these will be available. Is it sensible to proceed without them?
It is welcome that the implementation date has been pushed back and that we have more time to undertake effective scrutiny of the Bill. Our position is clear. We support the parts of the Bill that come directly from the long-standing requests from the leadership of the NHS to remove the worst aspects of the previous 2012 Act. We have already made the point that we warned about the consequences of that Act and, in general, we welcome a return to principles of collaboration and co-operation.
Our aim will be to ensure that the NHS’s desired outcome is achieved with appropriate safeguards against unintended consequences such as a rise in private sector involvement or an increase in the power of vested interests over those of patients, but we will do so in a way that minimises any disruption.
It would of course have been far simpler to have a Bill just reversing the previous Act, which should have been introduced years ago as soon as the negative impacts had been properly recognised. Such a Bill would have passed much more easily, but we are where we are.
It would not be too harsh to say that the Bill has become a bit of a mess and we are here to do our best to get the legislation into shape. So far, there is evidence of a lot of agreement on the major issues with three or four glaring exceptions which we hope we will be able to resolve perhaps between the end of Committee and Report. Our challenge is how valid concerns are dealt with and how much the House is prepared to leave to ministerial assurances of good intent—as it always has been.
The amendment regarding implementation sets out concerns about the extent of any disruption to an already hard-pressed care system. Cynics say, and the evidence tends to confirm, that reorganisations rarely achieve anything much other than disruption and unintended consequences, and this is an NHS reorganisation Bill above all else. It is to be hoped that ending compulsory competitive tendering, putting the integrated care bodies on to a stronger statutory footing and consolidating the top level of the NHS can be done with limited impact.
It should be mentioned that many aspects of the changes are either already implemented or will go ahead even before the legislation is passed. The NHS has got into the habit of ignoring the legal niceties in recent years to get round the problems created by the 2012 legislation, and I am not sure whether it should be congratulated on that or not. However, it should be a fundamental part of our scrutiny that we have a full and comprehensive impact assessment with all the assumptions and expectations spelled out. I am not sure whether this document fulfils that; we may return to it later in the Bill.
The previous impact assessment was very poor and incomplete. Our amendment points this out and suggests that, with a system as fragile and complex as the NHS, there ought to be a reasonable period for assessing the impact and planning accordingly. This is not intended as a delaying tactic. If the alleged impact assessment that we have so far had been a great deal better, the need would not be so strong. Delay will not help the NHS but neither will a bad Bill. Let us remember that aspects of the previous Act were still being argued about years after it had passed.
Others are also intending to contribute on the general point about the need for some assessment of impact, perhaps through a review or through a parliamentary process such as a sunset clause. We will support those too. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support the demand of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for an impact assessment and look forward to having the many hours it will take to read and thoroughly digest. As she said, this is a Bill of 244 pages with 155 substantive provisions and 156 delegated powers, over half of which allow no parliamentary scrutiny. Although the general thrust of it, in relation to easing the transition to more integrated and collaborative working, is welcomed and indeed demanded by the sector, that same sector is now very hesitant about its introduction at this time. As I prepared this speech, there were 122,000 absences in the NHS due to Covid and 200 members of the Armed Forces were being drafted in to help; 24 hospital trusts had declared a crisis situation, 20% of beds are occupied by Covid patients in 16 hospital trusts, and discharge targets are not being met.
So, despite the many preparations for this structural change to the NHS, many in the sector have welcomed the short delay in implementation that is being proposed. The Government have said that they want the Bill to be permissive, but the question is, permissive to whom? It is a skeleton Bill that gives a wide range of powers to the new ICSs to commission services in the way they think fit, but it also gives the Government unprecedented powers to use regulations, guidance and even published documents to specify what should be done in future. It gives the Secretary of State considerable new powers.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, I take it upon myself to echo the trenchant observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. What do the Government think Parliament is? What do they think it is for? Again and again, we have these Bills—skeleton Bills, Christmas tree Bills, call them what you like, but one thing is abundantly plain: Henry VIII is sitting firmly on his throne issuing his diktats.
This is no way for a democratic Government to treat Parliament, especially the elected House. However, if the elected House will not fully protect itself, we have a duty to speak up for it. There are many who, because of the circumstance of their election recently in Parliament, perhaps feel a bit diffident, but we have a duty not to be diffident. We in this House have a duty to say, “This is no way to treat Parliament”, because we are in effect creating executive departments with dictatorial powers. That is inimical to a parliamentary democracy. It is plain wrong. I do not know how often I shall intervene in the debate on this Bill, but what I do know is that I do not like what I see.
I have enormous and genuine respect for my noble friend the Minister. He has already, very rightly, earned himself a reputation in this House as somebody who is anxious to learn about parliamentary customs and practices, and to listen and reflect. I beg him, as I look at him now, to please talk to his colleagues in the other place who have greater power within the department and say to them that there is real concern in this House—I am delighted to see my noble friend Lady Cumberlege nodding at this point—which has within it many medical experts, such as my noble friend Lord Ribeiro, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who does not seem to be here this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Kakkar and many others who know about medicine and how things should be organised and who do not see it as their prime purpose to help a Secretary of State hang his baubles on the Christmas tree.
We have a chance—we have done it before in other Bills—to try to improve on this skeleton, this Christmas tree, and to put Henry VIII back in his box, which is where he should be put. I hope that as this Bill goes through your Lordships’ House it will be probed, scrutinised and improved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, and indeed all noble Lords who have spoken thus far. I will make a general point in response to my noble friend Lord Cormack. I recognise that I am relatively new to this House and that I have much to learn. I hope to learn much, not only from noble Lords who have more experience of the procedures of this House and of holding the Government to account but from many noble Lords from across the House with medical expertise and management expertise in the health and social care sector.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for bringing this debate before the Committee. Amendment 1 would mean that we could not commence the change of legal name from the National Commissioning Board to NHS England until after an impact assessment for each of the clauses in Part 1 of the Bill is published, while Amendment 315 would mean that we could not commence Part 1 until after the publication of an impact assessment for each clause’s impact on the risks, costs and benefits to patients.
I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that my department has published the impact assessments. She acknowledged this and I accept that they were not published in the most timely way. I will endeavour to do my best to make sure that we publish these assessments with as much notice as possible. They are available for noble Lords to review on GOV.UK. I am very happy for the noble Baroness to take credit for the first impact assessment. We will endeavour to do better. We will also commit to publishing further impact assessments for secondary legislation made under the powers contained in the Bill, where those regulations will have significant impact on the health and care system or private businesses, to provide transparency and clarity to the system.
The amendment would also delay the commencement of Part 1 until at least six months after commencement regulations were laid before your Lordships’ House. This would delay the implementation of the key provisions contained in Part 1.
The NHS put forward its recommendations for legislation in 2019. It is preparing, subject to parliamentary passage, to implement the ICB provisions of the Bill from July 2022. We know that ICBs in effect exist in many areas, in whatever form of development, and it is essential that we put these on a statutory footing as soon as possible. The development of ICBs builds on years of development work in local systems to improve partnership working. Delaying the implementation risks a loss of momentum in establishing statutory integrated care boards and the benefits that they are intended to deliver. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that very gracious answer and start to our deliberations. I also thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I really was rather hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would come in, as this is absolutely what he knows about. He is quite right. I hope that noble Lords who are experts in this will look carefully at the Bill and at the two reports I referred to, because they will need to guide us in our deliberations over the next few weeks.
Let us see what the impact assessment says—whether it works or not—and see whether we need to review certain parts of the Bill with a view to looking at the Constitution Committee’s report, for example, which also was published only yesterday. With that, and with the warning that this is the beginning and not the end of the discussion, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“(1A) The Board of NHS England must be made up of—(a) a Chair appointed by the Secretary of State;(b) five other members so appointed of whom—(i) one must be appointed to represent Directors of Public Health;(ii) one must be appointed to represent the Local Government Association;(iii) one must be appointed to represent the interest of patients;(iv) one must be appointed to represent the staff employed in the NHS; (v) one must be appointed to represent the integrated care partnerships;(c) one further member appointed by the Secretary of State after being recommended by the Health Committee of the House of Commons as a person with appropriate knowledge and experience;(d) executive members as set out in Schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care Act 2012.(1B) In making the appointments in subsection (1A)(a) and (b) the Secretary of State must have due regard to—(a) the need to ensure diversity and equality of opportunity; and(b) the need to ensure that no person who could be perceived to have a conflict of interest by virtue of their current or recent employment or investment holding in any organisation with any role in the delivery of services to the NHS may be considered for appointment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires changes to the membership and composition of the Board of NHS England to reflect its new role under the Bill.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their support.
This amendment seeks to define the composition of the board of NHS England to better align it to the new requirements set out elsewhere in the Bill. There must not be any doubt as to why board members have been appointed. In other words, their appointment must be made on their ability to contribute and add strength to the board, rather than—perhaps—because of those whom they already know. Key factors in the appointment of board members need to be an independent assessment of their value and meeting a fit and proper test of freedom from conflict of interests—things that I hope we would all agree on in your Lordships’ House.
Beyond that, we must also look at what the new NHS England board will be required to do. Other parts of this Bill deal with the powers and duties of this new version of NHS England, originally the NHS Commissioning Board. This is the clearest demonstration of the reversal of the 2012 Act, as the new NHS England bears no resemblance to its original predecessor—and that is a good start. The new NHS England will of course be an amalgamation of the old NHS England, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority. It will commission some specialist services. It will be the regulator of a market that no longer exists. It will performance manage both commissioning for integrated care boards and provision of services by trusts and foundation trusts.
This is indeed a wide range of responsibilities, and how it sits with roles within the department unfortunately remains as vague as ever, with the ability of Ministers to micromanage depending on other parts of this Bill. However, the most crucial policy change is that the new NHS England will sit at the top of a system based on the integrated care boards being the major commissioners of services. The Explanatory Notes and the government pronouncements about these new integration bodies strongly assert their role as driving the reintegration of the NHS, repairing the worst of the fragmentation caused by the 2012 Act and dealing with aspects of previous legislation which had a somewhat market-centric view of our NHS.
This purpose drives what we now need from the new board members of NHS England. Those new board members must chime with this new philosophy of partnership and collaboration rather than markets and competition. In the new world, the NHS will still be bound, as it always has been, by its core principles: comprehensive, universal, free, and funded from general taxation. Board members need a demonstrable record of commitment to these principles. They should also have a commitment to the new values, which favour a stronger role for patients and the public to have influence, a view of the NHS as contributing to reducing inequalities and improving well-being, not simply being a sickness service, and greater alignment of NHS services provided through local government. The current make-up of the board is a chair and five other non-executives, all appointed by the Secretary of State and then the appropriate executive directors. Given the huge importance of the NHS, it is appropriate of course that the chair and at least some of the non-executives are appointed by the Secretary of State. This amendment deals only with the remaining non-exec members.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite him to say whether he wishes to move his amendment.
Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2)
Lord Howarth of Newport
“(vi) one must be appointed to represent providers of non-clinical services promoting health and wellbeing.”
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I fully support the objectives of my noble friend Lady Merron and her co-signatories to Amendment 2. However, as indicated in Amendment 3, in my name, I believe that it would be appropriate to add to the board’s membership a person representing a very important element of providers, who are always at risk of being overlooked when the NHS is, as is so often the case, under intense pressure.
There is a growing body of research evidence demonstrating that non-clinical approaches can be highly beneficial to health and well-being. Engagement of the creative imagination and with the arts, culture and nature has profound health-giving benefits, as well as leading to improved well-being. Other non-clinical approaches, such as engagement with sport or volunteering, are likewise beneficial. Moreover, they offer significant benefits in easing pressures on general practitioners and the wider healthcare system. Before the pandemic, it was estimated that one in five GP appointments was for non-medical reasons. A survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners in 2018 found that 59% of family doctors thought social prescribing could reduce their workload.
Non-clinical approaches can help us move away from the present state of affairs, in which we are under-doctored and over-medicated, and they will bring significant cost savings. The World Health Organization’s scoping review reported that evaluation of Arts on Prescription suggested an average return on investment of £2.30 for every £1 spent, through reductions in unnecessary prescribing and reductions in the use of health services, including emergency hospital admissions.
The potential benefits of such approaches have been recognised by the Department of Health, in the establishment of the National Academy for Social Prescribing and in the preventive strategy set out in the NHS Long Term Plan, which envisaged that:
“Within five years over 2.5 million more people will benefit from ‘social prescribing’, a personal health budget, and new support for managing their own health in partnership with patients’ groups and the voluntary sector.”
But that was under a different Secretary of State and before Covid and the huge growth in the backlog that is now absorbing so much of the energy and thinking time of the NHS.
These benefits are experienced not just by the individual; they are societal. A society in which fewer people are lonely and gloomy and more people are energised and filled with a sense of achievement, new self-esteem and optimism, and in which through shared activities they build social capital, is on the way to being what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and colleagues have characterised as a healthy and health-giving society.
We all acknowledge that to create such a society we must address the social determinants of health, as argued so compellingly by Professor Sir Michael Marmot. To do so requires not only the integration of the range of health and social care services but an integration of policy across Whitehall and between Whitehall and local, regional and devolved government, in full partnership. Place-based strategies for health are crucial. Integrated care boards, integrated care partnerships and the NHS as a whole must draw on a full range of resources and strengths.
If government fails to act across the board in addressing the societal issues that generate so much ill health and fails to develop a fully-fledged preventive strategy, we will continue to see the NHS beleaguered, insufficiently funded and struggling to cope, with endemic ill health on an enormous scale. We need to make the whole of government an integrated care system. The Department of Health cannot solve the problems of health on its own.
Meanwhile, we must give the best help we can to the board of NHS England by furnishing it with a broad membership along the lines proposed in these amendments, ensuring that, at the highest strategic level, representative voices of a wide range of contributors are heard, including those of the non-clinical providers who have such an important part to play. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which I fully support.
Schedule 1 gives a dazzling array of consequential amendments to a vast list of other legislation, which must have taken some poor civil servant weeks to compile, but it does not tell us who will be the extremely important and influential additional people on the board—those who will steer the good ship NHS England along its course. Like any other ship, it needs a captain, officers and crew with the knowledge, experience, expertise and attitudes to steer the ship in the right direction and to enable it to fulfil its functions efficiently and effectively—in whose interests? Those of the patients, of course.
It is also important that nobody on board—let us say, perhaps, the pilot who steers it into port—should have the power to steer the ship not in the direction it should go but in a direction chosen in that person’s own interests. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and those of us who support her have attempted to specify some of the kinds of people who should be at the helm of this organisation in the new world of integrated care services—and those who should not.
They should include someone to represent public health, especially given the recent experience of the pandemic and the certainty of others in future. They should include local government, given its responsibility for the crucial areas of social care and the social determinants of health outside the health service. They should ensure diversity and include people who can ensure that patient and staff interests are taken into account when decisions are made—after all, without staff there would be no service. They should include someone who can keep an informed eye on the way the ICSs are progressing. They should not include anyone with a financial or employment interest in any organisation that delivers services to the NHS.
This Government have a very poor track record in ensuring that people with a financial interest do not benefit from government contracts. We have had far too many of those scandals relating to the provision of PPE, testing kits and other products and services during the pandemic. Some of those have only recently been revealed. We must avoid that happening as we set up this new body, for which we all have such great hopes. That is why I recommend this amendment to the Minister and look forward to his response.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Walmsley. I speak in support of the principles behind the amendment, which were well articulated by both noble Baronesses. Is it wrong in principle to have board members who have experience of NHS England’s areas of work, which I agree includes finance? No, but that cannot be totally exclusive of one side of the experience and expertise required. One of the board members suggested in the amendment should be from a public health background; let me take that as an example. That could be a public health director; I do not mind whether it is a public health director or somebody with public health expertise.
The reforms in the Bill are far reaching, but they are underpinned by the integration of health services to deliver on population health. The Government’s ambition is to extend healthy life by five years by 2035 and to have a greater focus on health prevention. Public Health England has been abolished and replaced by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. It is interesting that the name has changed, but I do not mind that. The word “inequalities” has been used hitherto but, if you use the WHO definition, “disparities” has the same meaning. The aim is to address inequity. The UK Health Security Agency has now been brought into being. It is right that there is strong public health involvement at local and regional level, as defined in the Bill, although it is not clear to me at this stage how this will work at regional level—no doubt we will spend some hours debating that.
Public health directors should be involved in developing strategies for population health at the local and regional level. There is a strong argument for public health representation on all integrated care boards—again, we will discuss these in amendments to come. At national level, the Government need to be much more joined up. The Department of Health and Social Care and the triumvirate of NHS England, the UK Health Security Agency and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities needs to demonstrate an integrated model that the rest of the service is expected to deliver on. The ICBs will be in a clear accountability relationship with NHS England and NHS Improvement for delivering on all aspects of population health, yet neither will be accountable for public health, except in a limited case where NHS England will have responsibility. NHS England needs strong representation from and involvement of public health expertise, including at board level, to be able to develop indicators that assess the performance of ICBs, including for population health.
Turning to the part of the amendment that relates to public involvement, while there may be a difficulty in identifying an individual who can focus on the needs of patients, there are ways of doing this. The principle is that a board member chosen as a representative of patients’ voices knows that it is that individual’s responsibility to speak on their behalf. Of course, I am biased; I would say that the chief executive or, more appropriately, the chairman of Healthwatch England should be represented on the NHS England board. I fought the battle and lost—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, well remembers the point about Healthwatch being an important aspect, but we will come to that debate at a later stage. This time, I hope I do not lose.
I strongly support this amendment and the principle that representation on the NHS England board needs to reflect its work.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest, having very recently stepped down as the chair of NHS Improvement, which included both the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor. I am very supportive of the spirit of these amendments, and I could not agree more with the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, set out the importance of propriety in the appointment process and the skills, attitude and culture that the directors on the board of the new NHS England need to have. It is essential, as she said, to have a spirit of collaboration, integration and patient focus.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I generally support the direction of the Bill. I welcome it; I think a move towards less competition and more collaboration is the way forward. I support—[Interruption.]
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
We have a Green intervention.
I support particularly the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I pick up the points made so strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about Public Health England. The major issue where we are still lacking as we move forward is the recognition that we have to go beyond the clinical and be as inclusive and wide-ranging as we can in involving people in the health service. If we go way back, in the early days of the Labour Government, we even talked about people having shares in the National Health Service to try to get more people involved. We are not yet there.
At the other end of the scale, I take a contrary view to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I have spent a lifetime while I have been in this Chamber working on issues of addiction and with voluntary organisations that offer help free of charge. Often they make no progress, but quite often they produce remarkable results. I believe that Public Health England has not given big enough recognition to those organisations. It endeavours to work with them, but we need greater collaboration between the two. We need not just the public health element present on the board but the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, of wider involvement with what I would describe generally as the third sector. The development of the National Academy for Social Prescribing is a great movement, and it should be expanded at a faster pace. It would produce great benefits in relieving pressures in other parts of the health service.
As somebody who works on the other side—as distinct from being a director and running the organisation—I see the difficulties of trying to get influence at that end. From the noble Baroness’s viewpoint, not too many people are involved and the chair makes the decisions, but I beg to differ. I think we need wider representation there. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, provides that, and I most certainly give strong support to Amendment 3 in the name of my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who has what is accepted as huge experience at board level, on boards of different sizes. If it is right, no matter the size of the board, to have representation selected on the basis of experience, can it be wrong, no matter the size of the board, to have as board members people with experience in, let us say, public health or local authorities—because they have experience specifically in that area—as opposed to people who might have wider experience, including in finance or whatever?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I do not think that the noble Lord and I have a substantive disagreement. My concern is about prescribing in the legislation the exact recipe for the team; I am mixing my metaphors. After what we have all been through as a country and as a world, I completely agree with him about the importance of putting public health absolutely at the front and centre of our health and care system. However, legislating for the specific skills of the individuals who make up the board would be a mistake, because we want to create a team where people’s experience, background, style and cognitive approach create the magic that we are looking for. This is only one dimension of that; that is all.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I was one of the people, along with Paul Brickell, who wrote for Hazel Blears the structure for the Olympic Park Legacy Company. I was involved in that project from day one—along with Lord Rogers, who, sadly, has recently died—and for 19 years. We thought a lot about this question because, in east London, we had to engage with six different boroughs around the 248-hectare Olympic Park. We knew that if we simply brought together representatives, many of whom did not have good working relationships or the necessary practical skills, to deliver that project, we would have another Olympic failure on our hands.
The structure that we wrote for Hazel Blears at that time suggested that we needed to bring the right people together for that project: for example, Keith Edelman, who had just successfully built the Arsenal stadium might be a rather important person to have on the board because he understood the detail about stadiums and how you run them—and we were about the build a half-a-billion-pound one. Or perhaps we would need someone like Nick Bitel, who had set up the London Marathon and knew something about sport and the politics of sport; I discovered a great deal about how complicated all that actually was. Or we might need on the board the most successful Labour mayors in that area—Sir Robin Wales of Newham and the mayor of Hackney.
I am very supportive of what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is saying. We built a team of the right people to ensure that we delivered a serious legacy on that 248 hectares in east London. I suggest that noble Lords go and have a look at what happened as a result. Empowering the chairman to choose the right team with the right skill set is absolutely crucial if we are to transform the NHS and make it fit for purpose in this century.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I wonder if I may make a slight clarification; I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, will agree with me. It is not that we believe that the people who we specify should be representatives of the sectors from which they come. Rather, given the functions of NHS England, the three of us who have signed this amendment feel that those with background knowledge of the sectors that are absolutely key to the success of NHS England should be on the board. They would be there not as representatives behaving in a unitary way, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, but having the background knowledge and information that can be shared with the rest of the board to make decisions.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I declare my background as a former government Chief Nursing Officer and non-executive director of a number of healthcare trusts. I was not going to speak, but I have listened to noble Lords’ comments today and I come down with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in saying that we should not stipulate what skills are required of a board too tightly. What is in front of organisations changes over time, so the chair needs to be empowered to change. However, one caveat is that it would be wise to consider having somebody on the board with a background in patients. I speak from experience as a clinical professional: we can too easily forget the patient and to see things through their eyes. Far too often, we see things through the eyes of the clinician, which is not always in the best interest of patients.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, and particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Merron and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Howarth, for bringing these important issues before the Committee. As they made clear, these amendments seek to make changes to the membership and composition of the board of NHS England. Amendment 2 also outlines the conditions that should be met for the appointment process.
Like my noble friend Lady Harding, I am in sympathy with the spirit of these amendments. It is imperative that the membership of the board of NHS England is able to represent the diverse needs of patients and the populations they serve, as well as their twin functions of commissioning and holding commissioners and providers to account.
I was very much in sympathy with the principles and sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in speaking to his Amendment 3. Executive members of the board are selected based on their expertise and ability to manage the delivery of NHS England’s functions. It is also important that non-executive members have the right skills and backgrounds to effectively support and challenge, and hold the executive to account.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords on the existing and planned board membership arrangements. We absolutely aim to ensure that the most suitably skilled and experienced candidates are appointed to the fully merged NHS England board. The legal provisions therefore need to be flexible, and I can tell the Committee that they already are. Existing provisions setting out the membership of the NHS England board in the NHS Act 2006 already provide the flexibility required for the fully merged NHS England to lead our more integrated health and care system.
I agree that robust governance arrangements are absolutely necessary to oversee public appointments, particularly to NHS England. Unlike appointments to integrated care boards, the appointments of the chair and non-executive members of NHS England are public appointments made by the Secretary of State. As your Lordships are undoubtedly aware, as public appointments, they are managed in line with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. These appointments are made on merit in a fair, open and transparent manner. In line with the governance code, they require due regard to be given to ensuring that they properly reflect the populations they serve, including a balance of skills, expertise and backgrounds—exactly as sought by this amendment, as I understand it. We are fully committed to the importance and value of both candidate diversity and equality of opportunity.
The commissioner works with government to encourage candidates from a diverse range of backgrounds to consider applying for public appointments. All public appointees are expected to uphold the standards of conduct set out in the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s Seven Principles of Public Life, as included in the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies. The code sets out, clearly and openly, the standards expected from those who serve on the boards of UK public bodies and includes a clear process for managing any conflicts of interest.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I must call the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who is taking part remotely, to respond to the debate on Amendment 3.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much appreciate the recognition by the noble Earl of the validity of the concerns put forward by the proponents of these two amendments, and his acknowledgment that the board of NHS England must contain balance and diversity. I also recognise the force of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson: it is essential that the chair should have power to ensure that the board is cohesive. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, had reservations about the principle of representativeness which is stated in Amendment 2.
We have had a very useful debate. In light of the reflections put forward in the debate, particularly what the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, hoped that his comments would be helpful and I reassure him that he is always helpful in the comments that he offers. Today, of course, is no exception.
As my noble friend Lord Howarth said, this has been a very interesting debate and it has certainly stimulated many angles of consideration. At a minimum, that has been extremely useful because what binds us all together in this debate, whether or not we agree with the amendment, is the wish to see the new NHS England perform to the highest order in terms of not only confidence but effectiveness. I know that we all want to move in the same direction.
Clearly, we have heard differences of opinion. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for speaking further to the point about representation. I say to my noble friend Lord Howarth that I did not interpret her as having reservations; her concerns were more about clarification, and I share them. The intent of the amendment was not that people should be consulting back and be a straightforward linear representative, but that they should represent and come from the area which we were discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made a particularly strong case for the importance of influence in public health; that was echoed by my noble friend Lord Brooke. We are all keen, I am sure, to see the ability to promote good health and well-being such that the NHS, as I said in my opening remarks, should not be focused entirely on dealing with ill health, important though that obviously is.
It is important that we get the right people in place to build the right team. It is crucial that they work together. I am sure that many noble Lords who are non-executives on boards know that a successful board is one that invites challenge, dissent and the widest range of voices. I certainly hope the new NHS England board will do this.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London so clearly put it, it is too easy for patients’ voices to be forgotten—this must not be the case. I know the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will do his best to ensure that those voices are well heard. Certainly, we in this House will continue to pursue that.
The areas outlined in the amendment from which we had hoped to seek representation remain as important as ever after this debate. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister will reflect on them in the context of the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for providing challenge, as is quite right and proper. I look forward to the new board of NHS England doing the job we all want it to do. In view of our debate, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s discussions. We turn to the mandate, which noble Lords will recall is the means by which the Secretary of State principally holds NHS England to account for the delivery of its functions and responsibilities in relation to the NHS.
This becomes more important as time goes on, for two reasons: first, because NHS England will incorporate within its own activities more of the functions pertaining to the NHS, particularly the powers and responsibilities of NHS Improvement; secondly, because in the past there was a sense in which some transparency was associated with the bodies across the NHS. NHS Improvement represented the interests of NHS service providers and NHS England represented the interests of the commissioning of services—that is, the public interest and the population health interest. These are to be incorporated in one organisation; that is the essence of the integration that NHS England and NHS bodies have sought to achieve, contrary to the structures of the 2012 legislation. I wish them success with it, but it does not enhance accountability, either to Parliament or the public. Therefore, the mechanisms for accountability must be as clear as we can make them.
As it happens, since 2013 I do not think Secretaries of State or Parliament have used the mandate in the way it was intended they should. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has not used the mandate on an annual basis but has run it on, and we therefore have before us—as we will see in many places in this legislation—an acceptance of how practice has developed and that the legislation should come into line with it.
On a number of occasions, I will simply throw up my hands and say, “Fine, if that is how the NHS wants to do things, let us put the legislation into that structure to enable the NHS to do its job in the way it wishes to.” Indeed, I suspect that those outside this House who are looking at the current situation in the NHS are saying, “What is the relevance of us engaging in all this legislative activity at this moment?” Part of the answer is that legislation impacts on the day-to-day activities of people in the NHS much less than they might imagine. Secondly, one of the things we can do sensibly is to say that, even before the pandemic and the additional extreme pressures that the NHS has had to face, it had developed its own way of working, it wants the legislation to fit with that and I think it is probably helpful to the NHS to do that.
There will be other places, and we will come to them later, some of which I mentioned in my Second Reading speech, where I think the Government are looking to go beyond and to change what the NHS has done by way of practical integration, practical implementation and practical decision-making. I think we should resist some of those. I do not think it helps the NHS, at a time of such extreme pressures, for there to be some of these innovations, and maybe we need to call a halt to some of them.
One of the things, however, that the Government are not intending to do is to dispense with the mandate. The mandate is, in my view, more important for the future, for reasons of the importance of the transparency of accountability for the NHS for the performance of its functions. Since we went into recess before Christmas, NHS England and NHS Improvement have published their operational guidance for 2022-23. I think they have actually set out a pretty admirable and comprehensive set of objectives, but only a minority of those objectives are outcomes related. Many of them are, quite understandably under current circumstances, very focused on the volume of activity and the targeting therewith—in particular, for example, that the level of elective activity should rise to 110% of the pre-pandemic level and that diagnostics should increase to 120% of the pre-pandemic level. This is absolutely instrumental if we are to deliver on or get back to remotely the kind of waiting time figures we experienced in the earlier part of the last decade—I might say back to 2012-13, when we reduced waiting times to their lowest level.
The point is that there is a great danger, which we have seen in the way Secretaries of State have structured the mandate in recent years to focus on process, on targets and on volume and to devote insufficient continuing attention to the outcomes that are achieved. I gladly make clear that, while I move this amendment, I do not think it is the way the legislation should be framed. What I am looking for from my noble friend is the Government’s acknowledgement that, even as they focus on waiting times, targets, productivity, volumes and the mechanisms by which the volumes of activity in the NHS can be increased in the years ahead, we must not lose sight of outcomes.
What I mean by that is that we have seen a number of examples in the past of how the pursuit of waiting time targets led to significant problems in terms of hospital-acquired infections, which really threw the NHS off course for more than one or two years. So, in the NHS outcomes framework there is a domain relating to safe care, which I think enables us to focus on things like hospital-acquired infections and continuously to measure the outcomes we are achieving in relation to that.
The same is true in relation to preventing premature mortality. This, happily, is an area where, by focusing on outcomes, we can demonstrate that we are meeting internationally comparative high levels of performance. Of course, that does not relate only to cancer, but it is one of the reasons why we do not have a separate debate for Clause 4. I was prompted to put this amendment forward partly because of Clause 4, however. I am glad that it is in the Bill—it was part of a debate we had more than 15 years ago, when John Baron was with me on the shadow health team in another place—but the point is that we were always focused on one and five-year survival rates for outcomes in relation to cancer. What Clause 4 does is enable us to focus on outcomes in that respect.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I will make a rather simple point. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, and a lot of it makes an awful lot of sense—of course it does. He is a very experienced politician and he led the NHS in an outstanding way. I have to say that some of us very much supported what was in the 2012 Act and we are finding it quite difficult now to try to discard that—although throughout the Bill points are made that bring it back in, which is to be welcomed.
Outcomes are extremely difficult. In the National Health Service, we have two sorts of outcomes: PROMs and PREMs. PROMs are patient-reported outcome measures, and we work hard to try to achieve that. At one time we used to take soundings from people on hospital wards on how they were getting on, and it did not quite work. Now we are trying to ensure that the patient-reported outcome measures are set out quite clearly, so that people can relate to them, and they have to be patient driven—it must be the patients who say what is important to them as outcomes. PREMs—patient-reported experience measures—are equally important, and are also extremely difficult to collect.
At the moment we are trying still to implement the report First Do No Harm; I chaired the group that led it. We spent two and a half years listening to patients—that is virtually all we did. Out of that report we have set up centres to address the issue of mesh that was inserted into women, which has proved very unsatisfactory, certainly in the majority of cases that we listened to. We have said what has to happen in these centres before they are fully functioning. We now have sites and staff and are going forward on them, but they will not be any use until we have these outcome measures. This is how we will have to judge things in the NHS in the future.
Of course we have clinicians who are extremely well trained and are very good and well-motivated people. But sometimes they can miss the obvious which is transparent to patients. They are the people we should listen to, because they are the people who receive the service and who, like all of us, pay for it. It is important that these outcome measures are taken much more seriously and that we put a lot more work into ensuring that they will work for patients and for clinicians. It is important that the staff in the NHS also understand that what they are doing is valued—or not. On the whole, of course it is valued, but on occasions it is not, as we heard in our report First Do No Harm. I just wanted to make that quite simple point.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, my knee-jerk reaction was going to be, “I don’t agree with what Lord Lansley says”. However, I have put my knee hammer back in my pocket, because I do agree with him about the importance of using outcomes indicators as a measure of the performance of health in patients. In that respect the outcomes framework has always been a good development. Although Clause 4 focuses on cancer—and I hope we do not change that—it is an example of how it can be used for other conditions to improve healthcare.
The noble Lord has also identified one key omission in this Bill, which I hope we can find a way to fill: who will be responsible for making sure that there is continuous improvement and development in healthcare that measures the outcomes? That is not in the Bill. I hope we might find a way to do that, whether through the mandate or other ways. That is all I have to say.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare an interest, because a lot of the outcome measures that are now used are in place at Cardiff University. I will expand a little on and support what my noble friend Lord Patel said about outcome measures, particularly for something such as cancer. That is in part because the disease process itself is marching on all the time. It is different from many other diseases, where there might be a chronic condition and other things happen as a result of it. If you do not intervene rapidly with some cancers, you miss the boat and go from being able to cure it to a situation where you certainly will not be able to.
The other group of outcome measures that I do not think we should forget has just now been developed: family-reported outcome measures. That is the impact on the family. We know about the number of carers that there are. There are child carers and many unpaid carers. Having somebody in the family with a disease process, waiting for something to happen and seeing that disease process getting worse and worse in front of their eyes, has a major impact on the health of others and stacks up problems for the future in the health service.
That is why, when I was on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Cancer, I strongly supported John Baron in all his efforts to look at the one-year survival times in cancer. Looking at outcomes can be far more informative than looking simply at process targets, which is what we have been looking at too much to date rather than looking at the overall impact of disease.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for introducing this debate and I look forward to supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I think we are about to see harmony breaking out between the four walls of the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are I think in accord over these amendments.
Historically, the mandate is part of the attempted change—I think that is probably the right way to put it—to distance the role of government and Ministers from the sound of bedpans dropping, if I might put it like that. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, despite the mandate’s intentions, recent Ministers have still tried to micromanage and otherwise interfere with NHS managers. During the passage of the 2012 Bill, the Government had to concede that the Secretary of State remained politically responsible to Parliament for the NHS.
I think it would be fair to say that laying the mandate before Parliament in each year, as was intended, has not brought about energetic debates and wise reflections in either House of Parliament. But the mandate is not without merit. It is good that the NHS knows what is expected of it and should be free from sudden announcements and other surprises. Without something of this nature, it is wholly unclear how accountability works. So we accept that, at least until the next reorganisation happens, there has to be a mandate, and the important thing is to get this right.
For that reason, we support the two amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If anybody knows how the mandate ought to be used, it is definitely him. Trying to have clearly stated objectives in the outcomes framework, or some equivalent, and ensuring that the mandate is objective, evidence-based and publicly accountable must be correct.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am certainly with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the issue of outcomes. Like her, I am a member of the All-Party Group on Cancer, and I was right behind our former chairman John Baron’s attempt to get a clear focus on outcomes. I am delighted to see how successful that has been.
My Amendment 8 is very simple. It would prevent the Secretary of State tinkering too often with the mandate. As others have said, the mandate is the primary instrument through which the Secretary of State provides the Government’s direction to the NHS. He is right to do so, since the NHS uses the most enormous amount of our money and is of vital concern to every voter and taxpayer—those whom the Government represent.
However, the NHS is a little like the “QE2” in that it is absolutely enormous and takes quite a while to change direction. Indeed, a great many levers have to be pulled for it to do so. Chief executives, boards and professional staff need time to set new plans, targets and employment policies—to say nothing of moving the money around—to comply, as they must, with changes to these mandatory directions from on high. It is therefore highly undesirable for a Secretary of State to change the mandate too frequently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, even when it happens, adequate notice and reasons must be given.
Other amendments in this group deal with other aspects of the mandate, but I want to be fully assured that, given the difficult tasks we set our NHS, its outline instructions and targets are not unfairly changed too often. I feel justified in having this concern, because the evidence of clauses later in the Bill indicates to me a tendency by the Government to want to meddle where meddling is inappropriate and could have negative effects. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State’s attempted power grab, which we will discuss later in Committee.
Can the Minister assure me that there is already some effective measure that would prevent the mandate being changed more than once in any financial year, which would make it very difficult for the NHS to comply?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to be able to respond to these amendments relating, in their several ways, to the NHS England mandate. I will cover each in turn.
I begin with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 4. I confess that I am not in the least surprised that he, of all noble Lords, should have reminded us of the key importance of the NHS outcomes framework. Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to specify objectives that will help NHS England achieve improvements in the outcomes provided for in the NHS outcomes framework. As he and I remember clearly, the NHS outcomes framework is a set of indicators that provide for national-level accountability for the health outcomes that the NHS delivers. The first version was published in 2010 to inform the first mandate to what was then still known as the NHS Commissioning Board. In essence, it looks at long-term health trends across various domains, including quality of care and patient experience. It is a valuable resource and, as my noble friend knows, remains an important tool for measuring the NHS’s contribution to improving outcomes over the long term.
I quite agree with my noble friend that progress against outcomes is vital. That is why we have included Clause 3 in the Bill. One of the main advantages of a longer-term mandate is that it will allow us to take a longer-term view of progress against outcomes that can be measured meaningfully only across a number of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked who will be responsible for improving outcomes. The answer is that NHS England and ICBs have duties in relation to improving the quality of services. I can assure him that we will hold them to account for doing so. Having said that, we are moving now to a system-wide approach. That entails the need to measure shared outcomes across health and the wider social care and public health system. Some of these outcomes are led by the NHS but many are system-wide, so the business of measuring patient and service-user outcomes will inevitably become more sophisticated.
We want to ensure that our system is flexible and able to adapt as those system approaches develop and mature. I hope my noble friend therefore appreciates why we would not want to enshrine the NHS outcomes framework in the mandate in statute, in a way that might limit or compromise our ability to explore broader system approaches as we go forward. However, I seek to reassure him that the NHS outcomes framework will continue to be a vital tool to look at long-term trends in health outcomes and the NHS’s role in supporting health outcomes. That basic role for the NHS outcomes framework will not change.
I fully understand the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in her Amendment 7 that the mandate should not be revised unnecessarily and without good reason. I completely agree with that sentiment; again, it lies behind our desire to look at the mandate over a longer timeframe than has hitherto been possible. My concern is that her amendment goes much further than, I suspect, she intended, because it would prevent the mandate being revised at all in anything other than an urgent or unforeseen situation. That would be unhelpful, because it would wholly prevent planned changes to reflect, for example, evolving strategic priorities, emerging evidence of need or even a planned general election.
The purpose of Clause 3 is to strengthen the role of the mandate by enabling the Government, where appropriate, to set a mandate that can endure, rather than having an annual use-by date. Looking back to our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill in 2011, the noble Baroness will remember that it was always the intention that the Government should set a multiyear mandate, and Parliament agreed. In practice, that intention has been hampered by the inevitability of an annual review of the mandate to a fixed deadline—a deadline that does not neatly align to a number of events and strategic processes, including the Budget, spending reviews and general elections. Clause 3 addresses this. I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that there is no intention to revise mandates unnecessarily at the drop of a hat, as it makes no sense to do so.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for highlighting a similar set of issues to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her Amendment 8 would prevent the Government revising our mandate for NHS England more than once in the same financial year, for any reason. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I completely understand her concern that the mandate should not be revised so frequently that NHS England is unable to plan for or deliver government priorities effectively. This is why I reassure her that this will not happen, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. I hope she accepts that reassurance, because it cannot be in the interests of any Government, or of patients and service users, to set a mandate that changes NHS priorities too frequently. I expect any such revisions to be very rare. As I have indicated, though, one can imagine that they may be necessary to respond to unforeseen events, to reflect the result of a general election or to signal future shifts in priorities at a point when the NHS is planning ahead. The Government need the necessary mechanism to deal with these and other similar eventualities.
The noble Baroness will see that Clause 3 already contains an explicit safeguard in respect of reasonableness: NHS England will not be obliged to revisit a business plan that it has already published, should the Government revise the mandate within a year of its issue. The Government will also have a continuing duty to consult NHS England before making any revision. I believe that, in combination, these two safeguards work together to fully answer the point that the noble Baroness made.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that response and to all those who contributed to this short debate. It was a helpful opportunity to reinforce the desirability of the mandate itself being used positively as a mechanism for accountability, particularly where outcomes are concerned.
I entirely take my noble friend’s point that what we are looking for should not be confined to the parameters of the NHS outcomes framework. As time goes on, the possibility of developing what are effectively population health outcomes is exactly where we need to go. My worry is that, if the mandate shifts too much towards population health outcomes, we will be trying to express it in terms of outcomes which the NHS does not control the means of delivering. That goes back to the point the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made earlier about who is responsible for what. As my noble friend said, in essence, the NHS is responsible for delivering the outcomes in relation to healthcare, but the Government are responsible for delivering outcomes in relation to population health, so we cannot confine this to the NHS. The mandate certainly needs to extend into that territory but, in doing so, it should not lose track of continuous improvement in those things that are measured through the NHS outcomes framework, and its development as we go along.
I also take the point about the timeframe. We have learned that we need the NHS to be planning long term, and it is doing that—not least through its development of the 10-year long-term plan. That extends even beyond the Government’s funding commitment, which has a different timeframe. Neither of those are very easily reconciled directly with the annual funding settlement. The mandate could be developed as a very effective way to enable the NHS and the Government to show, in a way that is accountable to public and Parliament, how the plans of the NHS and the funding commitments from the Government can be reconciled into measurable changes, targets, objectives and outcomes in the lifetime of a Parliament, because that is what Ministers will inevitably be looking for. We want the NHS to feel that it has some degree of certainty for the longer term; we want Ministers to feel that they have some degree of accountability and control in the year ahead, or two or three years ahead. That is what the mandate should be used to enable them to do.
My last word on the mandate is: please could Parliament actually scrutinise it? It was always intended that there would be annual debates in this House and the other place on the mandate. There never were. I thought it was shocking that the Government did not devote a day in each House each year to looking at, understanding and scrutinising the mandate as a mechanism for us to look at our most important public service—you can always argue about that, but I think it is—and know what we are trying to achieve in the year ahead, even if the mandate extends further beyond that.
I thank my noble friend, not least for his point on Amendment 10 and his reassurance that Ministers will always explain their reasons for revisions to the mandate and, indeed, that such revisions, as we all agree, should not be too frequent or too detailed; they need to be strategic in their nature. I am glad for his reassurance on that point. With those thoughts, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, before I call Amendment 5, I advise the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will be speaking remotely.
Amendment 5
“(ba) in subsection (2) insert— “(c) whether for the period covered by the mandate NHS England must ensure that revenue expenditure on mental health services increases as a proportion of total NHS revenue expenditure.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be explicit and transparent about whether NHS England is required to ensure funding for mental health services grows as a share of total NHS revenue expenditure during the period covered by its mandate from the Government.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, these amendments all relate to mental health, and I should perhaps start by following in the wake of my former colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and declaring my former interest as an NHS chief executive.
I doubt whether anyone here needs persuading of the importance of mental health. Over the past decade, there has been a sea change in public awareness and attitudes and, at the same time, the NHS has begun to expand services to make good historic deficits, but it is not mission accomplished—far from it. The mission has just got a lot tougher. The pandemic has exacerbated and intensified mental health needs not just in this country but across the industrialised world. To take just one data point, we have seen a 69% increase in the number of young people being referred to specialist children and adolescent mental health services, including for eating disorders. At a time when, entirely appropriately, the focus is on cutting waits for surgical operations, we must make sure that mental health continues to get the focus, priority and constancy of commitment that it requires.
The purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that that occurs. Having moved Amendment 5, I shall speak to related Amendments 12 and 136 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Merron and Lady Tyler.
In a nutshell, our Amendment 5 would ensure that Government mandates to NHS England always contain explicit and transparent marching orders on mental health funding. I think it was a fellow called James Frick who said:
“Don’t tell me where your priorities are. Show me where you spend your money and I'll tell you what they are.”
That is why, in England, each year since 2015, mental health investment has been required to grow as a share of the NHS funding pie, and I am pleased to tell your Lordships that it has done so. The Minister should not take this amendment as a criticism; it is an encouragement to stay the course of putting our money where our mouth is, towards parity of esteem—or, if he prefers, levelling up between physical and mental health.
Of course, the mathematically minded among your Lordships might argue that if the share of NHS spending going on mental health keeps increasing, eventually we will have overshot what is needed. My response is twofold. First, in the real world, we are many years away from that happy state of affairs, and, in any event, the amendment does not require Governments to increase the relative share of resourcing for mental health; it simply requires them to be intentional and public about their mental health funding choices. It does not tie Ministers’ hands; it just requires them to reveal their hand. It means that the Government have to be clear about their asks of the NHS, and Amendments 12 and 136 mean that the NHS in turn has to be transparent in reporting on its delivery of them.
That is why these amendments command strong support outside this House from leading mental health charities, patients’ groups, and professions. Taken together, in practice the amendments represent spine stiffeners for the Government and accountability boosters for the NHS. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. The emphasis on prevention in her Amendment 13 is particularly important.
I will make two points. There is abundant evidence that the engagement of the creative imagination can benefit mental health through improving well-being, confidence and self-esteem. The Creative Health report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing discusses, for example, the work of Artlift, a charity founded by a GP, Dr Simon Opher, which delivers arts on prescription in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. One participant said:
“I had split up from my partner, found myself without anywhere to live and couldn’t see my children. I couldn’t work as I wasn’t physically able to do the job and wasn’t in a position mentally or financially to start a building business again after going bankrupt. Since going to Artlift I have had several exhibitions of my work around Gloucester. I find that painting in the style that I do, in a very expressionistic way, seems to help me emotionally. I no longer take any medication and, although I am not without problems, I find that as long as I can paint I can cope. It doesn’t mean that depression has gone but I no longer have to keep going back to my GP for more anti-depressants, I just lock myself away and paint until I feel slightly better. I now mentor some people who have been through Artlift themselves and they come and use my studio a couple of times a week to get together, paint, draw and chat and I can see the benefit to them”.
The World Health Organization scoping review of 2019 synthesises evidence of the efficacy of the arts in preventing stress and anxiety and building self-esteem and self-confidence. A report to DCMS in April 2020 entitled Evidence Summary for Policy: The Role of Arts in Improving Health & Wellbeing, by Dr Daisy Fancourt of UCL et al, draws attention to
“a large literature of RCTs”—
randomised controlled trials—
“on the treatment or management of mental illness through arts involvement”.
Creatively Minded, a Baring Foundation report of 2020, maps 170 examples of organisations running arts and mental health projects in the UK.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a former consultant psychiatrist and clinical academic at St George’s, University of London. I thank Mencap and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in particular for the discussions I have had with them about this group of amendments.
I will not list all my amendments and those I am supporting in this group. I say to my noble friend that this is not just a spine-stiffener; it is a reminder, because we forget about mental health. We still forget to think about it and talk about it. One of the things I often do in my career is put my hand up and say, “By the way, what about mental health?” The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will remember the debate 10 years ago; I will come back to that.
The issues covered in these amendments are not new, because the World Health Organization definition of health is about a complete state of mental, physical and social well-being. It is not just about disease and infirmity. Noble Lords may not be aware—I heard this only recently—that a psychiatrist represented the United Kingdom at the first WHO meeting, which is probably one of the reasons why mental health was included at that stage.
These amendments would require the Secretary of State and all NHS organisations to prioritise physical, mental and social well-being. The idea is simply to replicate the parity of esteem duty as introduced in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. I re-read some of my speeches on that Bill, and I can see that I was persuaded to withdraw some amendments similar to those I am speaking to today. While a significant first step, that legislation ensured only that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would promote parity of esteem. What we have seen since then is a better understanding of the importance of mental health and mental health services, but there is still a gulf between the financing and delivery of these two equally important services, with physical health continuing to dominate. Of course, they should not really be separate, because there is no health without mental health. Integration is fundamental; we debated that at length in 2011-12 too.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists referred me to data published by NHS Digital last year. In March 2021, there were more than 400,000 referrals to mental health services—the highest ever recorded in a calendar month, and 36% higher than the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. The pandemic has indeed shown us the importance of good mental health for the general population, including, of course, children and young people and health and care staff.
One of my amendments is on the duty of parity of esteem, and others insert “physical and mental” in multiple places to embed the fuller meaning of “health” in the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords who are supporting this.
I want to focus on my Amendment 99, which places the duty to ensure parity of esteem at the integrated care system level. We cannot really leave it to chance; history tells us that this would lead to a suboptimal priority for mental health services. The duty that has been in place at national level for the Secretary of State has been so valuable that we can and should replicate it at a local level. Consider a recent survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in which two-thirds of respondents said that their ICS had not worked towards parity of esteem effectively. Fewer than one in 10 thought that their local area was effectively promoting parity of esteem.
But if a population health-based approach is core to ICSs’ planning and decision-making, I suggest that we need stronger legislative levers to support them to address mental health. Mental health is a key population need across the country. We cannot presently meet demand. No population health approach is complete without the inclusion of mental health, and yet we consistently see the imbalances in place. The new ICSs, bringing together commissioning and provision, could be a huge opportunity to get it right—or, certainly, a lot better—for mental health.
At present, there is no assurance in the Bill that mental health will be given equal precedence with physical health in integrated care systems or even by NHS England. My proposed duty for ICSs would help to ensure parity and repeat the success of the duty on the Secretary of State in the 2012 Act—not only that, but such a duty also increases focus at service level and would make sure that ICBs are looking closely at how they are providing for people at risk of or with a mental illness.
The trouble is that it is not easy to determine the best way to achieve this. As it stands, the Bill does not address parity at all. There are other similar amendments. Would putting this duty at the local level ensure that the next step in the battle for parity of esteem will be closer to the everyday experience of people who have struggled for far too long to access mental health services? Developing good integrated care cannot be just about meeting a person’s physical health. We must think more holistically about people’s psychological and social well-being, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stevens, which would strengthen transparency in mental health spending, he has a unique insight into the NHS and could not be better placed to advise on what improvements are needed in funding of our mental health services, particularly in accountability and transparency. The resourcing of mental healthcare is one—admittedly, only one—indicator of whether we have a chance of meeting the need and, we hope, preventing illness developing in the first place. We know that change is needed. There have been improvements in financing mechanisms. My noble friend mentioned the mental health investment standard. This feels important in light of the most recent spending review, in which, although there was a large funding injection for the NHS, mental health seems to have lost out again.
One wonders whether anyone remembered to ask the Treasury for additional funding for mental health. Having worked in mental health for so long, perhaps I may be forgiven for suspecting that it may have been forgotten once more. Last year’s uplift for mental health due to the pressures of Covid-19 was welcome but it was non-recurrent and those pressures have not gone away. Recent estimates from different charities that I have spoken to suggest that the overall share spent on mental health could go down in the coming year. We need these amendments to the Bill to make it clear that only when the Government and the NHS genuinely have mental health at the forefront of their efforts and are truly committed to parity of esteem, even in difficult circumstances, will we make good on the purpose of the NHS when it comes to the needs of people with mental illness in our society.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments, and I associate myself very closely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I declare my interest in working for the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I speak particularly to Amendment 263, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and Amendment 138, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
All of us are touched by knowing or learning of those who suffer from mental health problems, and I express my disappointment as well to see that there has been no parity of esteem or parity of funding between physical and mental health. I urge my noble friend the Minister, when responding, to give a commitment, in the context of the Bill, to ensure that the role of the ICS and the other bodies under the Bill will make this happen for the first time in reality.
There are particular issues, as I have seen closely, primarily as an MP but also previously as a shadow Minister. In rural areas, particularly in isolation and where there are pockets of poverty, poor mental health is suffered particularly by those on low incomes and pensioners. The farming community, especially in times of hardship, has great difficulty in communicating anxiety and mental stress. Undoubtedly, the current pandemic has taken its toll, not just in terms of self-isolation quarantine but because many businesses, particularly small businesses, have collapsed, often through no fault of those who set them up.
The background to Amendments 138 and 263 is very closely associated with that of the others in this group. I thank and pay tribute to the excellent work of Anne Marie Morris, who moved these in the other place and is chair of the All-Party Group on Rural Health. I commend her work in this regard. As has been indicated, Governments of all persuasions over recent years have spoken regularly about their desire to achieve parity of esteem between mental and physical health, including in the NHS 10-year plan. However, for this to be meaningful, there must be a legal obligation in the Bill to that effect, supported by reporting mechanisms on inputs to the mental health system, in terms of money, people trained and training places, as well as outputs resulting, including the number of mental health appointments or services made available, uptake of those appointments and the outcomes—namely, the number of patients discharged from care.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise as a member of the general public who can barely tell the difference between paracetamol and ibuprofen but does know, after all my years observing people, that people in good mental health often exhibit much better physical health as well, because they have more resilience, they are more aware of their physical health and they take measures to make themselves healthier. Parity of esteem is a beautiful concept because it does not sound competitive and the more we spend on mental health, the less we might have to spend on physical health. Therefore, it is a no-brainer. I am astonished that the Government did not put it in the Bill when it is such a well-known concept. I very much hope that the Minister will—[Interruption.] That was a Tory intervention and now there is a Labour intervention.
I understand that this is a huge challenge, but it is just smart, quite honestly. It offers us a chance to make a real positive change—a societal change for people. I also very much support Amendment 5 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and all the subsequent changes through the Bill, and Amendment 138, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which my noble friend Lady Bennett has also signed. I look forward to subsequent discussion with the Minister on this issue.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the rather large list of amendments in this group—15 at the last count—to which my name is attached. I declare my interests as laid out in the register, particularly my new registered interest as a non-executive director of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
Before turning to specific amendments, I have a couple of general points which apply across the board. The first concerns the scale of demand. Despite welcome investment and greater focus in recent years on mental health, there are now an estimated 1.6 million people waiting to access mental health services and so on a waiting list, and prevalence data suggests that some 8 million people with emerging mental health issues would benefit from services if they were able to meet the thresholds to access them.
Frankly, there are still too many instances of mental health services not being prioritised, such as the lack of investment in the mental health estate, which has a real impact on the trust’s ability to ensure both a safe and, particularly, a therapeutic environment. Also, the Prime Minister’s announcement on investment in new hospitals almost entirely overlooked the needs of mental health trusts.
The second general point is that the need to replicate the parity of esteem duty in the 2012 Bill throughout this Bill is more important than ever at a time when there is growing unmet need across multiple areas of health and care. Local health systems therefore face difficult choices around the allocation of resources. The full mental health impact of the pandemic is still emerging but mental health trust leaders report extraordinary pressures; in particular, a high proportion of children and young people not previously known to services are coming forward for treatment, often more unwell and with more complex problems.
The various amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley to which I have attached my name, and which I strongly support, recognise the important role that NHS England, ICBs, NHS trusts and foundation trusts will each have in advancing parity of esteem between mental and physical health. It will be important that amendments to the Bill that explicitly require the prioritisation of both physical and mental health are made at each level of the system. Simply put, trusts’ ability to prioritise both physical and mental health is crucially dependent on the extent to which integrated care boards and NHS England do the same. Ultimately, of course, each level in the system’s ability to meet this requirement is reliant on the Government prioritising both physical and mental health.
I will turn briefly to various sets of amendments. As I have said, a lot of these amendments are about explicitly including mental health on the face of the Bill, at each level and relating specifically to the NHS triple aim. I want to explain why that is important. As I said, Section 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 enshrined in law a duty for the Secretary of State to secure parity of esteem between mental and physical health services. While the new Bill does not remove the duty from the Secretary of State, it fails to replicate it in the triple aim, and this sends out an unhelpful message. I fully accept that culture change needs far more than legislation but legislation can and does send an important signal, which is why we need parity of esteem strengthened throughout the Bill.
We know that the burden of mental illness in the UK far outstrips spend and that referrals to mental health services were at a peak during the pandemic. Thus, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley which explicitly reference mental health in parts of the Bill setting out how the triple aim applies to trusts, foundation trusts, integrated care boards, NHS England and the licensing of healthcare providers. This would ensure that the whole of the NHS is aware of its duties around parity of esteem.
I turn briefly now to what is happening at the local level. A recent survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists found that almost two-thirds of responding psychiatrists considered that their local area had been ineffective in working towards parity of esteem, and fewer than one in 10 said that their local area was effectively promoting parity. That is why each ICB should be required to promote parity; it should be included in their forward plans and they should be required to report on it as part of their annual reports. This would help transparency and help to hold the system to account; that is why I have added my name to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and strongly support a separate amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which calls for a duty on ICBs to promote and seek parity of esteem between physical and mental health and, critically, to annually report on their efforts to do so.
I come now to the Secretary of State’s responsibilities in all this. Having the parity of esteem in the 2012 Act has helped to secure welcome and important initiatives, such as the five-year forward view for mental health and the review of the Mental Health Act. Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which my name is attached, builds on this duty and requires the Secretary of State to outline to Parliament how the resourcing of mental health services and prevention efforts have ultimately improved care for people with mental illness and those at risk of developing poor mental health. This will bring further and much needed parliamentary scrutiny to this issue, and help us understand how we can build on current efforts to improve care and, most importantly, improve outcomes.
I turn finally to Amendments 5, 12 and 136, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, regarding the funding of mental health. Of course, financing is one of the most important indicators of parity of esteem—if it is real—and legal teeth to ensure clarity on it are absolutely critical. As I highlighted earlier, even with recent efforts, spending on mental health is not commensurate with the burden of mental illness in this country. Indeed, a King’s Fund analysis recently found that mental health outcomes accounted for 23% of the burden of ill health in the UK but received only 11% of spend for both prevention and treatment.
The Government’s recent spending review did not specifically allocate any additional funding for mental health services, despite over £44 billion being pumped into the NHS over the course of the spending review and services facing increased and sustained pressure. The mental health sector has made it clear that it will need to cut services from April 2022 if additional funding is not received. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is very well placed to know the right mechanisms and levers to pull to ensure improvements in how we fund mental health services, and how different parts of the system are held accountable for their efforts to do so.
These three amendments, which build on the mental health investment standard—something I very much welcomed at the time—at a local level for ICBs, adding an additional legislative lever and helping to increase overall transparency on how local areas fund mental health services, are extremely important. Finally, at national level, I strongly support the need for greater transparency for both the Government’s intentions on mental health spending and NHS England’s response to, and meeting of, these intentions.
While we often hear encouraging and warm words of support on mental health from the Government—and they are welcome—these amendments would make clear where those words have been put into action. As the old saying goes, what gets measured gets done.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollins. I have put my name to several of her amendments and I will speak to them all but, before I do so, I pay a very special tribute to her. For decades now, she has fought hard to improve the care of people with mental health and learning disabilities. Any progress that has been made has been to her credit, and any progress that we may help to make will not be ours but hers. We should try to help her.
On 8 February 2012, this House voted to put into legislation that mental health should be given parity of esteem with physical health. It was the only amendment of the 2012 Act that was carried, by a very narrow margin, as the then coalition Government had a big enough majority in both Houses. I remember apologising to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was the Minister taking the Bill through the House, for moving the amendment—I do not know why. He looked pretty confident, as he should have been because I was not confident; but I had moved the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollins because it was her amendment. It just so happened that she was not able to be here; she was advising the Vatican at the time. Despite that, and to give credit to initiatives by NHS England and other NHS bodies, progress has been made—but it has been slow.
I declare an interest. I hold an honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which I am very proud of. In my time as a high-risk obstetrician, unfortunately, I had to look after women who suffered from severe puerperal depression and I can testify to how serious a mental condition it is.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have tabled the amendments in this group. I am very aware of the expertise that exists within this Chamber. As we have heard, mental health has not always been funded in the same way as physical health. However, we have seen improvements, not least in the way we speak about our own mental well-being. We have seen a reduction in stigma and an improvement in services, but the pandemic has taught us that there is a huge unmet need around mental health, and I suspect we will not know the full impact of the pandemic for a number of years. Clearly, those groups of people requiring support around their mental health will include us and our children as well as our health and social care workers.
I am aware that in our churches, we do a lot, like other faith communities and other community groups, to support people’s mental health and enable their mental well-being to flourish, not least through our faith activities and our worship. Churches put on many activities, such as dementia cafés; we make available our outdoor spaces for people to undertake gardening to improve their mental well-being; we do walking; we reduce loneliness and isolation, to name just a few. But we are aware that we are not mental health professionals. We walk with people, often in the early stages of mental illness or while they are waiting for referral, and what those within our churches know is that the length of waiting is getting longer. The wait for access to mental health services, particularly talking therapies, has got much longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned the figures; we see the personal impact of that, as people’s lives are put into great crisis and they struggle. Not least, it brings stress to their family and friends, and it impacts on their ability to earn. As has already been said, it impacts on their physical health as well. I recognise that we have increased our determination to ensure that there is parity between physical and mental health funding but I believe we require legislative levers to make this happen. Therefore, I support particularly Amendments 5, 12 and 136 as well as Amendment 99. As we have already said, we need legislative levers at every level to address this parity. My belief is that this will contribute to not just the mental well-being of the community but its physical well-being.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, a former esteemed colleague, and I had better follow her and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in declaring an interest as a former chief executive of the NHS in England—as opposed to NHS England—as Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I support most of the amendments in this group and shall speak particularly about Amendments 5, 12 and 136, about expenditure, and Amendments 91, 92 and 99, about parity of esteem and ICSs.
The most telling comment, I think, from my noble friend Lady Hollins was when she said that mental health is too often forgotten. It is a really sad point. I am struck, when I look through the amendments we are considering today, how the legislation is trying to catch up with where we have got to as a society and how we think about health. It is obvious with mental health. I thought the great speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, emphasising the role of the nonclinical—the people outside the health system and their role in health—and of salutogenesis, the creation of health, not just pathogenesis, the dealing with disease, was really impressive. The other area where this is very obvious is where we are going to come to in a bit, talking about inequalities in a later group.
This is very much part of the new agenda, but it is interesting that we still have the overhang of what I think of as the 20th-century model of healthcare, which is about the acute sector, not the primary sector; it is an NHS focus; it is about doing things to people, rather than with people; and it is about illness. This Bill is, in a way, the first health Bill of the 21st century and it is really important that it sends out some very clear messages and that so many of these amendments can be picked up to make sure those messages are sent out very clearly.
I will pick up the detail very briefly. Amendments 5, 12 and 136 from my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham on measuring and increasing expenditure on mental health—or at least showing the Government’s hand and revealing what they are expecting—and, later, the monitoring of it are fundamental. However, let me put in a caveat: they are pretty blunt. They are imperfect, because they are about inputs rather than outcomes and outputs, thinking of some of the things we talked about earlier. They can also be gamed.
Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, physical and mental health are not distinct; actually, most people in civil society treat mental and physical health at the same time, so there will be some arbitrary distinctions. I remind noble Lords, as we all know very well, that there is a major problem for many patients with mental health problems in trying to access help with their physical health. As Professor Sir Graham Thornicroft has said, mental health diseases are killer diseases, because people die earlier—sometimes because of that impact on physical health.
These are imperfect measures. However, I support them as a blunt instrument for offering steering and pushing the system the right way. They are a real measure that will help bring about change and they should be supported at the macro level.
Amendments 91, 92 and 99 are about achieving parity of esteem within the integrated care systems, and it is right that they are broader based, because people have to make choices at a local level about what they are doing. It is really important that the planners on those boards take full account of mental health and achieve parity of esteem across the whole spectrum, from levels of investment right the way through to ensuring that people with mental health problems can access physical healthcare when they need it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us, in 1948 the first meeting of the World Health Assembly defined health as being about
“physical, mental and social well-being”.
It is time we got back to that.
I applaud these amendments and very much hope that the Minister will indicate the Government’s support for a much bigger emphasis on mental health in supporting these and other amendments.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, particularly Amendments 5, 12 and 136, so powerfully spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham.
As a kind of self-appointed historian to this Committee, I will take us back to 2005-06. There was a massive public consultation, leading to the White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say. A thousand people of diverse socioeconomic and age backgrounds gathered in Birmingham to vote on what the public thought were the top priorities for the NHS. Much to the shock of the six members of the ministerial team—including me—who attended that event, and the top management of what was then the Department of Health, led by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the public were several decades ahead of the political, managerial and clinical decision-makers of our revered NHS.
It has taken us a really long time to catch up. We have moved since then through a period in which, with great rhetoric, we have inserted into legislation a desire for parity of esteem between physical and mental health. However, no one of any political party has had the temerity to do what the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has done in suggesting we should actually put our money where our mouth is. It simply has not been done.
The NHS, in my experience, is quite strong on doing things if you give it money. If we do not start putting into the allocations some requirements to at least level up, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, says, we will make no progress whatever with our rhetoric. I strongly support these amendments and hope the Government will listen very carefully to this House. I, for one, will be quite happy to march into any Lobby in support of amendments which give some financial equality of recognition to the needs of those with mental health problems.
While I am on my feet, I mention a group which is neglected even within the mental health set-up—those with autism. It is one of the great disgraces of this country that we have such poor arrangements for diagnosing young people, particularly girls, with autism. We need to do a better job of putting our money where our mouth is on that subject.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the majority of these amendments. I declare my interests as president of the Florence Nightingale Foundation and chair of the HEE review of mental health nursing.
A lot of noble Lords have spoken about mental health in the most glowing terms in the last hour. I am extremely supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and our new Member, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I have put my name to Amendment 138 on keeping proper data and information on waiting lists for people not with mental health issues but mental illness problems. There are people in our country with severe, enduring mental illness who fail to get early diagnosis because they do not even get on to a waiting list to see a consultant.
I see many of these people in my work with the charitable social enterprise I chair, Look Ahead, which provides housing to people who have suffered homelessness, people with mental health problems and learning disabilities and those discharged from prison—having completed their sentence, I should say. So many of those people have had better mental health care in prison than they ever had in society, because we do not list the number of people trying to access these services. We know that the life expectancy of people with long-term mental health problems is so much lower than that of the majority of people with physical health problems, because of things such as drug-induced psychosis, if it is not treated quickly. Professor Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry has been talking about this since I did my PhD there, 30 years ago, and we have still not resolved it.
I emphasise, as an ordinary person who works and has spent nearly 40 years working on a day-to-day basis either training mental health nurses or working with people with severe enduring mental illness, that these amendments are essential if we are to provide good health services for tomorrow’s population.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too support this group of amendments, both the parity of esteem words and the funding actions that make it up. I will briefly address the possible objections to it: first, it is not necessary because the Secretary of State already has a duty to maintain parity of esteem; secondly, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned, this is culture change and legislation cannot drive that. In this case, actions speak louder than words. Being clear on the financial actions, as the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, are, is a hugely important step on our culture journey.
Even though actions speak louder than words, the words matter too. They particularly matter when, as so many noble Lords have said so eloquently, mental health is so easily forgotten. It is all too easy to forget the hidden pain, anguish and need. I fear it is still far too easy to forget the hidden waiting lists. The words in this group of amendments are just as important as the actions, to make sure that we do not forget and build on the ground-breaking work that many, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, have led for decades. We are on that journey, but we are definitely not there. I urge my noble friend to consider and accept these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, a duty to establish parity of esteem between physical and mental health was, of course, inserted into the Health and Social Care Act 2012 at the instigation of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—if I remember rightly, we on these Benches were right behind her. That is not reflected in this Bill, as she said, despite the fact that the importance of addressing mental health issues has been so amply demonstrated by the rise of these problems during the Covid pandemic. The shortage of services to address them is of great concern—services which were already under stress before the pandemic started because of underfunding over many years.
Although the insertion of parity of esteem into the 2012 Act was welcome and significant, no legislation is enough without the resources in cash and people to make it happen. They have not been forthcoming in the amounts needed to match the growing demand. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Tyler, I too have heard concerns in the sector that the share of resources that are currently available might be cut over the next three years under the Government’s plans.
The situation is not good. Waiting lists, particularly for children and young people, have been growing. I understand that the average waiting time for a young person for a first appointment is something like 13 weeks and 18 weeks to get to a referral for treatment. It is a bit of a postcode lottery, because some young people get there quite quickly and some wait a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is absolutely right that it takes a great deal longer for those waiting for a diagnosis of autism.
According to research from the Resolution Foundation, in 2000, 24% of 18 to 24 year-olds had a common mental disorder. That was the lowest rate of any age group at that time. By 2018-19, that figure had grown to 30% and, astonishingly, by April 2020 it was up to 51%. So, as we set up the new integrated care system, it is essential that we restate the equivalence of mental and physical health. We know, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so eloquently reminded us, that each affects the other, but it is not enough to assume that that is understood in this legislation. It must be clearly stated in both Clause 16 and Clause 20, where the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, seeks to add it to the duty of the ICSs to secure improvement in the quality of services. We support her, of course.
Perhaps at this point I will mention my little amendments in this group. Amendments 48 and 49 are two of those little amendments that would insert the words “physical or mental” illness into Clause 16, which specifies a list of health provision that the ICB must make for its population. Other noble Lords would insert similar amendments into other places in the Bill. I support all of them.
Amendment 76 would also insert parity of esteem into new Section 14Z38 in Clause 20, which refers to the duty to obtain appropriate advice. We put it there to emphasise the fact that mental health is a very specialised area, and often very good advice can be obtained from small community or not-for-profit social enterprises that deliver mental health services in the community where people work and live, often to very marginalised groups. Large organisations such as an ICS might very easily overlook such good advice about what is needed and where to put it. I support the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lady Tyler that the triple aim must become a quadruple aim. Mental health needs to go right at the core of what we are trying to achieve.
There is an enormous and growing number of people in the country with poor mental health. The NHS cannot just treat its way out of the problem. There needs to be more focus on public mental health, much of which is addressed by the small community groups I just mentioned, the role of which we will deal with later with Amendment 148 and others. But without the specific acceptance of the parity of esteem duty in the Bill, there is a danger that the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of mental ill-health will continue to take a back seat. It must be in the statute.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support the objectives of this group of very important amendments. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my interests as chairman of the King’s Fund and of King’s Health Partners. I have seen this work directly in King’s Health Partners through a programme defined as Mind & Body, which proposes to promote pathways of care across the entirety of our health economy that look in equal measure at physical and mental health for all patients, irrespective of their principal clinical presentation. Initiatives such as that important programme could be brought to fruition only because of the emphasis in the 2012 Act regarding parity for physical and mental health. It demonstrates very clearly that legislative intervention can have a profound impact. I very much join in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hollins on her relentless commitment to these issues in your Lordships’ House over the past 10 years, which have had and will continue to have a profound impact.
It therefore seems counterintuitive for Her Majesty’s Government, in bringing forward this important legislation, to move away from the opportunity to emphasise the importance of this parity. Is it sensible to move away from this position? Why not use the opportunity afforded by this important legislation to emphasise once again the importance of parity between mental and physical health in every respect—not only funding but the organisation and supervision of services and the construction of organisations within the NHS—so that, step by step, we can achieve what every Member of your Lordships’ Committee who has spoken in this debate has emphasised?
Will the Minister, in replying to the debate, reassure your Lordships that not proceeding with these amendments does not undermine what has been achieved so far and that what is proposed in the Bill can without the amendments achieve the continued momentum and concentration of focus on this vital issue, to ensure that we continue not only to develop mental health services but to ensure that they can be integrated more broadly into physical health, and that physical health services can be developed to ensure that the mental health consequences of physical conditions can also be appropriately addressed? In taking this holistic approach, we will achieve the objectives of better well-being and health for all our fellow citizens—one of the most important aspects of the triple aim.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I should declare my interests as having worked with liaison psychiatry extensively in the cancer centre in Cardiff, and as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum for England and Wales.
One group that has not been mentioned yet—I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioning some—is those with impaired capacity and learning difficulties. We should not underestimate the importance of access to psychiatry for those people who develop mental health problems as a result of their physical health problems. To view the two as separate is a fallacy because they are completely integrated in many people. Many people present initially with a physical illness but develop mental health problems which, if ignored, become really major. The opposite also occurs, of course. Those people with learning difficulties and impaired capacity at different levels often have a raft of quite serious physical medical conditions that might be particularly difficult to diagnose because their mental health problems get in the way of their ability to express themselves.
If we are really to drive up the health of the nation at all, we would be completely misguided to ignore the importance of this group of amendments. Like others, I urge the Government to grasp this nettle, put this in the Bill and make sure we finally address this severe imbalance, which has left so many people never accessing the care they need. That applies both to mental health care and to those with mental health difficulties who then fail to access the physical healthcare support they need because they just cannot express their needs properly.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I feel that today’s debate on this important group of amendments should carry much weight because, at its core, this is about treating people as whole people and seeing them as physical, mental and social beings. Our welfare on each of those fronts is absolutely key to the others. It is not possible simply to treat one without regard to the others, and it is crucial that we enhance people’s well-being across our whole complexity as human beings.
I am glad to speak to this group of amendments because, as we have heard across all sides of the Committee throughout today’s debate, the reality is that, despite the best efforts encapsulated in the mandate, and many times in policy, we find that competing priorities, an avalanche of guidance and instructions, and events—the pandemic has been referred to several times, of course—mean that mental health services can be, and indeed have been, relatively left behind. As the Centre for Mental Health reports:
“Mental health problems account for 28% of the burden of disease but only 13% of NHS spending.”
In the debate today we have also asked ourselves: where is the accountability? For example, we know that in many clinical commissioning groups the actual spend on mental health was below what it was supposed to be, yet there have been no consequences. We need to address not just the finances but the mechanisms around it and the impact on individuals.
The founding National Health Service Act 1946 rightly spoke of a comprehensive health service that secured the improvement of both physical and mental health, and subsequent Acts, quite rightly, have confirmed this. In operational terms, the Government require NHS England to work for parity of esteem for mental and physical health through this NHS mandate, but we know, and have heard again today, that this requirement falls down when we go to a local level.
One way or another, we will all be familiar with a whole range of stories of people who have not been able to access treatment in a timely manner or who find that they are pushed around a system with very little effect and discharged from care before it is appropriate, with consequences that are all too clear to see. It is difficult to overestimate just how challenging this is, not just for the individuals but for local commissioners, because they face competing pressures in trying to deal with this.
As has been emphasised, this group of amendments is about not just getting on the road to financial parity, important though that is, but changing the culture and the whole means of monitoring and implementation, so that disparities can be addressed—indeed, if possible, so that difficulties can be headed off at the pass. It is a well-worn phrase, but it sometimes seems that mental health is a Cinderella service—the one that can be cut first, to the benefit of the more visible services. Some of the recent statistics show that one in four mental health beds has been cut in the last decade, while just last year 37% of children referred by a professional to mental health services were turned away. That is a shocking statistic that we need to move away from.
I thank noble Lords for promoting these amendments and for their contributions illustrating what they mean and the reason we need them today. The noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Patel, made timely points about the impact of the pandemic. If this is not a moment for focusing more on mental health, I do not know what is. The challenge we have and the difficulty presented by the pandemic is that while there is a focus on cutting waits for operations—and we know that is important—this could be a reason for mental health services to get somewhat lost, when in fact the pandemic reminds us of the importance of mental health and the need for the NHS to meet the needs that there now are.
The amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, encourages and directs the actions necessary for transparency on expenditure. I recall that they were referred to in the debate as legislative levers, and that is indeed what they can be. For me, they encourage not just accountability and transparency but actual action and change—the change we need to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to parity of esteem having to be applied locally, not just at a higher level. That is the only way we will see a difference in mental health services and improve the mental health of people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, made reference to the fact that legislation is trying to catch up with where we are as a society, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referring back to the meeting he attended, said that the public are well ahead of the game. I believe that is true. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said, we have to prepare for tomorrow. It is not satisfactory that we stay stuck in today, or indeed in the past.
In my view, these amendments move us on. They bring mental health services into real parity with physical health services, but they also connect mental and physical together. I hope they will find favour from the Minister.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking all your Lordships for the wide-ranging debate. I want to say how much more I learn, listening to the contributions in each of these debates, before I stand up to speak. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, says, this debate carries some weight for our understanding that social, mental and physical well-being are equally important. We should not seek to suggest that one takes precedence over another. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for kicking off this debate with his encouraging and not critical amendments; I take them in that spirit.
Following on from that, and before I go to some of the specific amendments, I will just reflect on some of the contributions made thus far. I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for raising social prescribing. I know we have discussed this a number of times since I became the Minister, with particular contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the importance of art and music in helping to unlock the mind and touch the soul.
As has been made clear, social prescribing is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care, and I know that, crucially, this can work well for those who are socially isolated or whose well-being is impacted by non-medical issues. The NHS has mechanisms to ensure that social prescribing is embedded across England: for example, the primary care network directed at enhanced services specification outlines that all PCNs must provide access to a social prescribing service.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for raising the importance of the mental health of children and for making sure that we do not forget, even within mental health, that many sections of our society can quite easily be forgotten.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London: we have come a long way. I remember as a child in the 1970s going to visit my uncle who was a psychiatric nurse at Claybury Hospital and looking at the patients, with the innocence of a child, and thinking, “These people don’t look ill to me.” We have come far since then. I remember the Rampton hospital scandal in the late 1970s, where the patients were treated appallingly, almost not as humans, and with a lack of dignity. The fact that today we are discussing the parity of mental with physical health shows how far we have come as a society.
We also spoke about loneliness and isolation. The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and I have had conversations about loneliness and some of the civil society projects that, for example, bring together lonely older people with children from broken homes so that both can benefit and learn from each other. I remember a story that I have mentioned in the past: in one of the projects I visited, a rather old man said, “I lost my wife five years ago and I had almost given up on life. The fact that I am now working with children from broken families and am almost being a mentor to them gives me a purpose to live—a reason to get up in the morning. I have no longer given up on life.” There are so many of these civil society projects, and no matter how we legislate, sometimes those local projects get to the nub of the problem in their local communities.
I have to pay attention when not only two former NHS chief executive officers but the former Chief Nursing Officer speak in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the focus on outcomes, not inputs and how it is important to make sure that we are not gaming the system, mentioning mental illness and mental health but not doing anything effective about it.
Autism was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, a former Health Minister. We are fully committed to improving access to and provision of health and care services for autistic people and people with a learning disability. I know that we have had at least one debate on the treatment of patients with autism and sometimes the terrible conditions they experience. That just shows how important this is.
I am trying to say that in many ways that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting everyone’s mental health and well-being and to ensuring that the right support is in place for all who need it. I therefore welcome the amendments which look to ensure parity of esteem across physical and mental health. I assure noble Lords that we support the sentiments behind these amendments and take mental health seriously.
Indeed, one of the considerations in weighing up the many arguments for further measures in response to Covid—from those who were asking for lockdown, for example—is that we also had to recognise that there was a mental health impact to lockdown. As a Government, we had to look not only at the societal and economic impacts but the mental health impacts within health considerations.
On the amendments, I will first address those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins—I add my voice to those of the many noble Lords who have paid tribute to her work over many years in promoting this issue and ensuring that we take it seriously. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for making sure that we are informed about this. These amendments would explicitly reference both mental and physical health and illness in certain provisions of the Bill. I understand that the intention is to ensure that due attention is given to both “mental and physical health” and “mental and physical illness”. Indeed, you cannot separate mental and physical illness, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said. We have moved way beyond “Pull yourself together, man” or a stiff upper lip attitude. We see how mental health plays a role, for example, in terrorism, with those who are recruited to be terrorists, or in those with eating disorders, or the number of people in prison who suffer from mental health issues. It is important that we fully recognise that.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I thank the Minister for that careful response. Across the Committee, we have all obviously heard the breadth and depth of concern for the issues surfaced through these amendments. It is obviously for other noble Lords to infer this for themselves, but my sense is that these were not simply explanatory or probing amendments but, significantly, amendments with a view towards testing the view of the House on whether we can change the wording in the Bill itself. That is obviously not a matter for tonight, but I anticipate that we will return to some of these issues, perhaps on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 5.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I would just like to make a comment about my amendments. I want to accept the Minister’s offer to meet and to think about the best legislative levers. I think the mood of the House is that there should be some progress on this.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 11th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (11 Jan 2022)
Baroness Wheeler
“(ba) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State must specify in the mandate maximum waiting times for access to NHS services, including—(a) a maximum waiting time standard of 18 weeks from GP referral to first treatment;(b) a waiting time standard for the time it takes to diagnose rare and less common conditions following a GP referral.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to deliver the existing 18 week waiting time target and ensure a maximum waiting time standard for the diagnosis of rare and less common conditions is introduced.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, with 6 million people in England waiting for operations and routine procedures, many of whom are in pain, I make no apology for moving my amendment at the start of this grouping, which seeks to ensure that the 18-week waiting time target is maintained as a key part of the NHS mandate. This group also covers key amendments on the commissioning role of integrated care boards in relation to specialised healthcare services, and on the duty of ICBs to share best practice on innovation and the quality of services.
On waiting lists, the pandemic has resulted in a huge backlog of care and treatment, compounding pre-existing challenges. The 18-week waiting time standard has not been met by the NHS since 2016. Instead, we have a situation where the NHS’s latest planning guidance sets out plans to eliminate only waits of 104 weeks, to reduce waits of 78 weeks and to support an overall reduction in 52-week waits. Even as a temporary measure this should be unacceptable, and at best we should have a commitment and a plan to restore performance.
Last week’s report from the Health and Social Care Select Committee described the unquantifiable challenge faced by the NHS in addressing the backlog, with 300,000 people now waiting for more than a year for treatment for surgery, such as hip or knee replacements. We know the devastating suffering that the long delays in diagnosing cancer and other diseases such as heart conditions or stroke are causing. The Secretary of State himself said that the waiting list might grow to 13 million, and that was before the current omicron wave, which has only exacerbated this challenge. His promise in November to publish the Government’s plans to meet the workforce requirements needed to address staff shortages and the record waiting lists has yet to materialise.
Of course, this is not just about elective care. In emergency departments, waiting lines in October 2021 were the worst since records began, with one in four patients waiting longer than four hours to be admitted, transferred or discharged, and with trolley waits at a record high. October last year saw the highest number of 999 calls on record. There is a serious risk that the ongoing crisis in emergency care could derail the elective recovery programme.
Although the problems are manifold, prioritisation of the elective backlog is understandable. However, a focus on those areas most amenable to numerical task risk effectively deprioritises other equally important areas such as primary care, community services and mental health services, which all play a crucial role in keeping people healthy and out of hospital. It would be helpful if the plans around recovery in other aspects of care, with some sort of target or at least objective spelled out, were also made known—access to GPs being a primary example.
We know that workforce shortages are the key limiting factor on success in tackling the backlog. Without better short and long-term workforce planning, the 9 million additional checks, tests and treatments will not be deliverable. NHS England’s chief executive, Amanda Pritchard, told the Select Committee that the NHS currently has 93,000 vacancies for NHS positions and shortages in nearly every speciality. The social care workforce has, at present, 105,000 vacancies and a turnover rate of 28.5%, rising to 38.2% for nurses working in social care. Changing the way the cap is calculated will not help this, and of course discussions on both the cap and the need for a credible and systematic workforce plan in the light of the current chronic staff shortages will follow later in the Bill.
The waiting times focus of my amendment, which seeks to insert a new paragraph into Clause 3(2), is tangible and measurable, as are the constitutional targets. In the context of the huge challenges the NHS faces, the 18-week waiting time target remains vital. The discipline it imposes helps focus the entire system on the needs of patients. It drives behaviour and focuses funding, and it facilitates the organisation of seamless care for the patient, from the GP practice through diagnostic tests, out-patient care and, ultimately, if needed, to in-patient treatment. It gives leaders at local level in particular the leverage they need to unblock barriers to speedy care, such as delayed discharges from the hospital—another key issue on which we will focus later in the Bill.
The second part of my amendment reinforces the importance of the target for care for people with rare conditions and mental health conditions, which can all too often be Cinderella areas—overlooked in favour of more common conditions. I have a personal interest, which I declare, as vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, a coalition of more than 100 patient-related charities, groups and corporate supporters campaigning for improvements to care for patients with rare and specialised conditions, and for greater awareness of their needs, treatment and support.
The amendment also underlines the need for speedy diagnosis for this key group of patients. The SHCA chair, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has added his name to my amendment and will speak on the importance of this in his contribution. He will also speak to Amendment 19 in this group, to which I have also added my name, which would ensure that ICBs
“commission specialised services in line with national standards”,
that their performance in this regard is published and monitored, and that there are safeguards that will operate if this commissioning role is removed from an ICB.
On treatment standards, can the Minister reaffirm that despite the current situation, every patient legally retains the right to treatment within 18 weeks? If so, what steps can patients take if the NHS does not deliver in line with this requirement? Can he assure the House that the Government have no plans to weaken this legal right and are fully committed to returning the NHS to an 18-week standard?
I am also speaking to Amendment 60 from my noble friend Lady Thornton, which would insert a new subsection, within the proposed new sections in Clause 20 on ICBs, to ensure that innovation and best practice on the quality of services
“is shared … openly and prevents individual trusts and foundation trusts from refusing to share beneficial developments or improvements through any issues around competition between organisations.”
This is crucial in helping to overcome any obstacles linked to the autonomy or independence of the organisations evolved.
We also support Amendment 215 from my noble friend Lady Merron, which would insert an important new clause after Clause 80, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an annual report to Parliament
“on waiting times for treatment in England, including disparities”
across the country. It is vital that this report also details the steps taken to ensure that patients, in line with their rights under the NHS constitution, are able to access services within minimum waiting times.
We also note Amendment 21 from my noble friend Lord Davies. He will be fully aware of Labour’s support in commissioning from the NHS as the preferred provider. His amendment is borne out of the right motivations but, I am afraid, misses the point that there are many social enterprises, charities and community organisations whose delivery of healthcare is vital to the functioning of the NHS and social care—for example, in end-of-life care—and we fully support the key role that they play.
The situation facing the NHS as it struggles to address waiting times and lists is dire, yet the recent NAO report on waiting times recovery pointed to some reasonable projections indicating that, far from improving on the current trajectory, the position will be even worse in March 2025 and beyond. That takes into account all the Government’s promised funding. The situation has echoes of the 1990s; Labour was able to address the challenges then, under different circumstances, but the current challenges are even harder. By 2010, the situation had improved to such an extent that demand for private healthcare had dropped. Now we see the opposite, with people having to pay to jump the queues.
Targets were an important part of how improvement was achieved through Labour’s three terms, backed by greater investment and a genuine commitment to public service solutions. The NHS responded to the confidence placed in it but today, there is no plan and no commitment, and totally inadequate funding to address the waiting times issue—the issue that patients are usually most concerned about. The NHS Mandate and the NHS constitution contain crucial rights and standards of care for patients and stakeholders, ensuring that the NHS has basic stability, knows what is expected of it and can be judged on its performance. We must keep the 18-week target and make sure that it is not fudged away. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. I will speak to Amendment 6 and 19. I added my name to Amendment 6 and I wholeheartedly support the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, in her eloquent opening remarks. I will make a few brief supplementary points on rare and less common diseases.
Proposed new subsection (2A)(b) in Amendment 6 refers to waiting times for a rare disease diagnosis and is intended to probe the Government’s ambitions in this area. The Government’s rare disease framework noted that it can take years to receive a final and definitive diagnosis of a rare disease and that some people living with a rare condition may never receive one at all.
In 2019, the Government’s national conversation on rare diseases found, perhaps not entirely surprisingly, that getting the diagnosis right was the number one challenge in rare disease care. But the process of getting this diagnosis has been called, entirely understandably, an odyssey—many journeys, many ports of call, and many difficulties. This odyssey frequently involves multiple referrals, inconclusive tests and even incorrect diagnoses before a final definitive diagnosis is arrived at.
The rare disease framework makes a very welcome commitment to making improvements in this journey. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what concrete steps are being taken to bring about the desired improvements to arrive at Ithaca much earlier and in better shape. For example, the rare disease framework talks of a need to improve diagnosis rates. How is this to be measured and what is the baseline to be? Is there a target that the Government are working towards? If there is, when is it expected to be reached? The framework also commits to making use of advanced diagnostics to improve the speed of diagnosis. Can the Minister say what new technologies are being deployed and which are under active consideration? Finally, the spending review announced funds for a new newborn genetic screening programme. What might we expect in terms of a timeline for the piloting of this programme and its wider implementation if the benefits are proven?
I turn to Amendment 19, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for whose support I am grateful. We have around 3.5 million people with rare or less common diseases or complex conditions. This number grows as our population ages. Many of these people require specialised treatment of one kind or another. Currently, these treatments are provided by the specialised commissioning team of NHS England. In total, there are 149 specialised services directly commissioned by NHS England, and in 2018-19 £18 billion or so was spent on these services.
There are some problematical aspects to the large-scale direct national commissioning of this very large range of specialised services. The NHS points to these in its paper of last January, Integrating Care: Next Steps to Building Strong and Effective Integrated Care Systems across England. It said that
“these national commissioning arrangements can sometimes mean fragmented care pathways, misaligned incentives and missed opportunities for upstream investment and preventative intervention.”
The paper goes on to propose a new model whereby the provision of some specialised services can be delegated to be more responsive to place-based needs and local collaborations.
The NHS proposes that there will be four principles underlying this new approach to the delivery of specialised services. The first is that all specialised services will continue to be subject to consistent national service specifications and evidence-based policies determining treatment eligibility. The second is that strategic commissioning, decision-making and accountability for specialised services will be led and integrated at the appropriate population level. The third is that clinical networks and provider collaborations will drive improvement, service change and transformation across specialised and non-specialised services. The fourth is that funding of specialised services will shift from provider-based allocations to population-based budgets, supporting the connection of services back to base.
Amendment 19 is a probing amendment to allow us to ask a few detailed questions about how these principles will operate in practice. The first is to do with the ability of ICBs to commission specialised services in line with ongoing national standards. How will this ability be assessed, and by whom? Can the Minister confirm that being judged to have the appropriate ability will be a transparent decision and an absolute condition of delegation? Following this, can the Minister also confirm that there will be at least an annual published review of ICBs’ performance in the commissioning of these specialised services? Can the Minister tell us what the circumstances are in which such a delegation of specialised commissioning may be withdrawn? What is the legal mechanism for doing that? Finally, there is the question of money. How can we be sure that the appropriate funds are spent by ICBs on specialised commissioning? Is a ring-fencing of funds being considered, for example?
I close by noting the many successes of the NHS specialised commissioning group and its frequent and very welcome engagement with patient groups and the Specialised Healthcare Alliance.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 21, and I support the other amendments in this group. Before I reach the meat of my remarks, it seems a long time ago, but two hours ago we were discussing mental health. I did not intervene in that debate, although the issue is very close to my heart. I totally support everything that was said in that debate, but I was gearing myself up for this contribution, not knowing that I would have a two-hour interlude.
This Bill in general is not the answer to the immediate and long-term crisis in the NHS and social care sector, but the particular concern I raise through my amendment is the widespread fear that the new arrangements being proposed will lead to the growth of the private provision of healthcare, with multi-million-pound private sector service contracts leading to the loss of the public service ethos of the NHS. I have no doubt that the Minister is well aware of these concerns. It is no secret; they have been widely discussed in the columns of the national press and professional journals. For example, Jan Shortt, the general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, has said:
“This Bill truly represents a creeping backdoor privatisation of health care services, which despite government claims, will badly impact on the patient care across the UK.”
So I do not think that there is any question that these concerns exist.
The Government have promised that there are no plans to privatise the National Health Service, but that is quite different and distinct from the privatisation of healthcare services, shown specifically, or most starkly, by the increasing number of US-owned private companies which already provide them for the NHS and obviously seek an expanded share of the market. It is worth noting the not sufficiently reported or commented on fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, was unable to attend a meeting with our hard-pressed services sector because he was busy in discussion—according to a report in the Financial Times—with US healthcare providers when he was in California recently. The Government should not insult us by suggesting that there is not an issue here of the growth in the provision of healthcare by commercial interests.
Even with the amendments to limit private companies being represented on integrated care boards, there is absolutely nothing here to stop private companies playing a part in other ways—for instance, clearly at the sub-system level via place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives. There is this whole word salad of different ways of describing these organisations operating at that level below, for or with the integrated care boards in providing services. This is the Trojan horse that will bring private provision within the walls of our publicly provided NHS.
NHS England states clearly in guidance:
“Independent sector providers can be members of a provider collaborative, but the extent of their participation may depend on the specific form and governance arrangements and the nature of a particular decision being taken by the collaborative.”
Dig through these words and they mean that we just do not know what arrangements will actually be established in this new world of provision. Guidance from NHS England also states:
“The Health and Care Bill, if enacted, will enable ICBs to delegate functions to providers including, for example, devolving budgets to provider collaboratives.”
It is this uncertain nature of the exact administrative arrangements that will apply under the new scheme that leads to the level of concern. As place-based partnerships and provider collaboratives are allowed to include private companies, the Government’s rhetoric about protecting the independence of ICBs is hollow. For all the talk from the Minister in the House of Commons of recognising that
“the involvement of the private sector, in all its forms, in ICBs is a matter of significant concern to Members in the House”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 14/9/21; col. 258.]
the Government have not taken the action needed to stop private companies exerting excessive influence in decision-making in the health service.
The defence against such developments will be in the hands of the ICBs, hence the concerns expressed today about their membership. This is the Minister’s opportunity to assure me, your Lordships and the many bodies outside this House which have expressed concerns that our concerns are misplaced. Simply dismissing them will not work. I note the remarks of my noble friend and maybe my amendment is not the best way of achieving my objective of getting the Government to put boundaries on commercial development within the health service, but I hope that the point of principle will be addressed and will not hide behind the limitations of my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to intervene on this group, in particular to support Amendment 19. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for tabling it. As the noble Lord said, it gives us an opportunity to probe the arrangements for the commissioning of specialised services in the future. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify that tonight and perhaps add further clarity as we go on.
I want to talk about this because I remember that a decade or more ago, even though the NHS was a single organisation with a single responsibility for specialised commissioning, most of this was in fact delegated to strategic health authorities. My experience was that, with the separate budgetary responsibilities of strategic health authorities and their ability to commission those services themselves, we ended up with considerable disparities and inconsistencies in the commissioning of specialised services. We know this must be the case because, after NHS England took over the responsibility in 2013, one of its most challenging tasks, not least in financial terms, was to secure a common specification and common service standards. The objective was of course not to level down, but level up, in the finest traditions of the present Government, and that levelling up was expensive. As we will all discover as time goes on, levelling up is expensive by nature. It was challenging to NHS England at a point when resources were highly constrained.
That having been achieved, we are all very clear that we do not want to go back to the bad old days but—I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, was very fair about this—there is a counterargument. Many patients, even if they have a less common condition, actually receive much of their healthcare locally, from local providers through local commissioning arrangements. They need to be integrated, and things such as access to chemotherapy for common cancers or diagnostics through the community diagnostic centres, as they are created, may be more appropriately commissioned for those patients by a local integrated care board rather than NHS England directly.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to, there is the principle of setting commissioning at appropriate population levels. As I know from experience, the NHS can consume endless time and energy trying to work out the geography of these things and what population is right for what purpose. If nothing else, even if they multiply the tiers from place-based to ICSs to regional teams to NHS England, the present arrangements at least give specialised services a chance to be commissioned and led at an appropriate population level. For many specialised services, that is not at the level of an integrated care board, as the population may be too small for them.
We know that highly specialised services will be retained by NHS England. If some services that need to be integrated locally, for the benefit of patients, are with the ICSs, there is none the less a question, about which we need to hear more, on the extent to which NHS England will manage the commissioning by using regional teams to try to maintain national specifications and service standards through their own responsibilities.
An opportunity that has not been referred to and is not in the Bill, but may be useful in practice, is to learn from the experience and, I hope, capability of the specialised commissioning team at NHS England and have a specialised commissioning support unit. It could stand behind the regional teams or even the ICSs, if appropriate, to help them have the capability to commission effectively. Amendment 19 asks the right question: this responsibility should not be delegated to individual integrated care boards unless NHS England is clear that the capability subsists at that level. We have to accept at the start that it probably does not.
I referred earlier to outcomes which, for providers in the NHS, are often at their highest in specialist hospitals. We have a dozen or more specialist hospitals, of which the majority of services—up to 80% in one or more cases—are commissioned as specialised services. We want them to have a more coherent structure of commission; we do not want them to have dozens of contracts with integrated care boards, all over the country. I hope that NHS England, in the regime that puts commissioners and providers close to one another, at least looks out for specialist hospitals and says, “We should have a lead commissioner of these services”. It may well be that the lead commissioner is in NHS England and sets up the contract there.
My final point is on the very reasonable question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about budgets. Why were strategic health authorities differentiating in the way they did? Their budgets forced them into different decisions in different places and, over time, that increased the degree of divergence and inconsistency. The same will happen with ICSs, unless some very clear countermeasures are taken. They could be ring-fenced budgets or some other such mechanism, but the budgets might have to be held not locally but centrally, even if some of the functions are delegated more locally. We have to be aware that, when you start to shift and delegate budgets, it is very hard then to maintain national service standards. That should be done only when it is very clear that the safeguards are in place. I hope we can use the debates on the Bill as a mechanism to give those who rely on specialist services and the providers of them greater clarity and assurance about how they will go about that in the future.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton on the need for ICBs to share innovations and good practice widely, in the spirit of collaboration. The NHS has for many years been rather poor at sharing and adopting innovations compared with, for example, local government, where several effective networks exist for the sharing of good practice and there is a real culture of such sharing.
The Science and Technology Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, reporting on its inquiry into the life sciences, found that the NHS ought to be a unique opportunity for the spread of innovation across the system—that is what the “N” in NHS is all about—but that it was a long way from realising that aspiration. The evidence from NHS England’s director of innovation was lacklustre in the extreme, and progress from NHS Improvement was slow. The Select Committee report said that the current structure of the NHS “stifles innovation”.
When I was chief executive of Diabetes UK, I discovered how even getting innovations and improvements that would save the NHS substantial money was like pulling teeth. In frustration, I wrote to the then Chancellor—slightly tongue in cheek—to tell him how to save a billion quid by implementing the best practice patient pathways for diabetes patients. I am still waiting for a response.
In an effort to see how other countries’ health systems handled improvement and innovation in diabetes care, I went to Canada and the USA, and came to the conclusion that collaborative health systems such as Canada’s were better at sharing and then adopting improvement and innovation than competitive ones like the United States. My noble friend Lady Thornton’s amendment is highly necessary and sets the tone for a collaborative rather than a competitive approach, which should be at the heart of the NHS for the future.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words about specialised services on the basis of a committee that I chaired about five or six years ago at those services’ request. It followed the demise of strategic health authorities under the 2012 Act. The one thing that this committee demonstrated very clearly was that population was significant and that, if you ignored population, you were not likely to get good outcomes. There was no magic figure on population but it was of a size common in the territories of most of the SHAs. That is not to say that the SHAs did a crackingly good job, but they were the organisations with the size of population necessary for good commissioning of many of these specialised services.
The trouble was—and it is the same trouble mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Sharkey—that if you have a regional system, by definition you give it some degree of control over its priorities. It follows almost as night follows day that different regions will take different views about the significance of specialised services in their particular region. We have struggled with this issue for many decades and not found it easy to come up with a solution.
You can go the whole hog and put it on NHS England, but that poses the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, honestly owned up to: many of the people with these conditions are getting a range of services outside that specialised commissioning service. I came to the conclusion that you have to have something that is of the size of, or of a similar size to, the former SHAs, but you do need a role at the centre trying to ensure a level of consistency of approach in those larger areas. I think we are still fumbling our way towards the right mix of that and I cannot see that we will be able to put in this legislation a definitive answer to that particular set of conundrums.
While I am on my feet, I shall speak to Amendment 215, to which I have added my name. To some extent, I reinforce the seriousness of the situation that Ministers and the public face with the enormous backlog of patients awaiting treatment that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, drew attention to. I refer the Committee’s attention to the excellent report by the National Audit Office published about six weeks ago. This report made it absolutely clear that in September 2021 there were nearly 6 million people on the waiting list for elective care and that one-third of these people had been waiting longer than the waiting standard of 18 weeks. Some 300,000 rather unlucky people had been waiting in pain and discomfort for more than a year. The NAO made it clear that even before Covid-19, many parts of the NHS were not meeting the waiting time standard and that about one in five cancer patients was not meeting the waiting standard for urgent referrals by GPs—that is a pre-Covid situation that has simply got worse as time has progressed.
I recognise that the Government have promised to provide an additional £8 billion between 2022-23 and 2024-25, some of which they expect the NHS to use to increase elective capacity by 2024-25 by 10% more than its pre-pandemic plans. I have to say, as a former Minister responsible for reducing waiting times and implementing the original 18-week maximum wait, that Ministers need to realise that announcing the extra money is the easy bit; putting in place a system for ensuring that the NHS leviathan actually uses the money for its intended purpose and can demonstrate delivery of the promised outcome is an entirely different matter. It took the Blair-Brown Governments from late 2004 to early 2008 to deliver the 18-week maximum wait and the cancer targets, using a lot of different tools in the ministerial toolbox.
There is not one simple solution to delivering these changes. The regimes that were implemented by those two Governments used a lot of extra money; a relentless, transparent measurement; and a great deal of clinical and political management pressure. They used expanded patient choice, so that patients could drive change, and I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that they also used the private healthcare system to increase diagnostic and surgical capacity by about 10% to 12%, but they did so at NHS prices. So, there is not a single solution; there are a lot of solutions that have to be applied and measured.
A critical factor in this is keeping everybody honest through transparent information about how progress is being made. If that is lacking, you are probably doomed to fail. The strength of Amendment 215 is that it puts in place a system for regular reporting of progress being made—or not being made, in some cases. It is important, as my own experience has shown, to know which parts of the country are doing well and which are not doing so well, so you can actually ensure that some action is taken on the slowest ships, as they say, in the convoy.
It should come as no surprise from what I have said that I strongly support Amendments 6 and 19 and do not support Amendment 21. I recognise, as we were discussing earlier this afternoon—time flies; I mean this evening—the whole issue of health outcomes and outcomes frameworks. Those are very important. However, at the end of the day, you cannot secure good outcomes without speedy access to clinical services. You do not get them. Waiting times of the length we currently have can lead only to poor outcomes. We must put in place systems that measure the progress being made in driving these waiting lists down. Given the seriousness of the situation, we need something about this in primary legislation to ensure that people across the country and the NHS are moving in the same direction in driving waiting times down.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a brief word in support of the amendment on innovation in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Having just been the Minister for Innovation, I can tell noble Lords that they could fill their entire diary travelling the country and seeing fantastic innovation in the NHS up and down the country. Noble Lords could fill their Zoom calls speaking to countries around the world that look to the NHS for some of the best innovation and partner with it on innovative programmes. However, that innovation is often extremely isolated and rarely spread evenly across the whole country. In fact, I often thought that my job title should have been not Minister for Innovation but Minister for Adoption because my role should have been to take the best that the NHS does and spread it across the country more evenly. That is the objective of the Government’s health policy at the moment: to see a much more even spread of best practice right across the country.
Although we cannot legislate for culture, we can give signals to the system about what we think is important. I therefore think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is on to something in suggesting this amendment. It should be given careful thought by the Minister.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer Green support for all the amendments in this group. I will split them into two groups internally. First, I will speak to Amendments 6, 19, 60 and 215; I will then deal with Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, separately.
All these amendments are about transparency and targets. When we look back to when targets were a particular focus—when the NHS was under the control of the party on these Benches—there were concerns that targets could sway provision and medical judgments. There was a concern that this was about the management of targets rather than the outcome for the patient. However, if we think of targets as foundations and basic standards that need to be met, it is really important that we ensure that there is enough funding for local priorities and concerns to be addressed to reach a higher level.
Amendment 215, which refers to an annual report, is particularly interesting; I know that it has full cross-party support. This is about people knowing what the NHS is achieving and, importantly, whether there is enough provision in it. Of course, your Lordships’ House is not in a position to demand that more money goes into the NHS; by constitutional norms, we cannot deal with spending. However, I think that we should frame this debate—this is my first contribution in Committee—by looking at the pre-Covid figures. The UK was spending £2,989 per person on healthcare; this was the second-lowest in the G7. France was spending £3,737; Germany, £4,432.
Of course, the great outlier in this is the US, spending £7,736 a year. It is worth noting that we seem to be chasing so much after the US healthcare model, which is so absolutely disastrous. Most of the amendments in this group are a way for your Lordships’ House to give the public the tools to say that we need to improve the resources of our NHS.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, these are important amendments and I am grateful to all the noble Lords who tabled them. Perhaps I could start with the amendments relating to waiting times, before going on to those about ICB functions.
Beginning at the end, as it were, Amendment 215 would legislate for an additional duty for the Secretary of State to publish a report annually on waiting times for treatment in England, disparities in waiting times for treatment and the steps being taken to ensure that patients can access services within maximum waiting times, in accordance with their rights in the NHS constitution.
I entirely understand the intention behind the proposed new clause. It is important that patients can access healthcare within reasonable waiting times and it is important for all of us to have visibility of the waiting list size, as well as waiting times, in England. Your Lordships will understand that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented strain on the NHS, bring about significant disruption. It has shone a light on disparities and led to the largest NHS waiting list on record. It is a priority of this Government to reduce waiting times, tackle disparities and provide access to healthcare as quickly as possible to patients.
Although the situation is difficult, I think I can give reassurance on three grounds. First, the NHS already has waiting time standards. Some are enshrined in legislation and some are operational standards, but all are described in the NHS constitution and the accompanying handbook. Since March 2007 the NHS has published monthly official statistics on waiting times. This includes consultant-led referral-to-treatment waiting times, which monitor the length of time from referral through to elective treatment. It also includes the number of patients who began cancer treatment and waited longer than 62 days for cancer treatment. NHS England also publishes monthly management data on the number of people currently waiting longer than 62 days for diagnosis or treatment.
Secondly, the department already submits information on waiting times to Parliament as part of its annual report. Much of this data is very similar to that asked for in this amendment.
Thirdly, as I speak, extensive work is already being undertaken by the NHS so that patients can access services within maximum waiting times. The funding we have announced for elective recovery, including cancer services—with £2 billion this year through the elective recovery fund and £8 billion over the next three years through the health and social care levy—will increase activity, reduce waiting times and deliver millions more checks, scans, procedures and treatments. We also announced £5.9 billion of capital funding at the October 2021 spending review to support elective recovery, diagnostics and technology over the next three years, which will further reduce patient waiting times.
Fourthly and finally, we will set out in the elective recovery delivery plan how the NHS will deliver increased elective capacity and reduced patient waiting times for elective services, including for cancer patients. I hope that provides a degree of reassurance that we approach reducing waiting times seriously and that the data is available to hold us and the NHS to account for progress.
I now turn to Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which would require the mandate to specify maximum waiting times that NHS England should ensure the NHS meets. This would include the current 18-week referral-to-treatment waiting time standard as well as waiting times for diagnosis of rare and less common diseases.
The Government should always consider whether the mandate to NHS England should set expectations on waiting times. I do not think the mandate has ever been silent on waiting time standards, and nor would I expect it to be. I firmly believe, though, in the principle that the Government of the day should be free to set a mandate based on the priorities that they have been democratically elected to deliver. These will inevitably change over time in light of improvements in services and technology, as well as evolving patient need.
However, requiring the mandate to continuously include waiting time standards is unnecessary because important waiting times set out in legislation or NHS operating standards are reflected in the NHS constitution, as I mentioned. NHS England and other organisations that commission or provide NHS services have a long-standing duty to have regard to the constitution, in addition to NHS England’s duties in respect of the mandate.
I now turn to the amendments relating to ICB functions. I again thank noble Lords for bringing these matters to the Committee today. Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seeks to amend Clause 8, which ensures that NHS England is able to direct integrated care boards to take on responsibility for the commissioning of specialised services on its behalf. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked me a series of detailed questions on that theme. If he will allow, I will write to him on those that I am unable to deal with in the remarks that follow.
The first thing to say here is that NHS England does not propose to use Clause 8 initially. The intention is that any delegation is agreed with ICBs. Delegating some direct and specialised commissioning to ICBs makes sense, because it is likely to be an enabler for integrating care and improving population health. It gives the flexibility to join up key pathways of care, leading to better outcomes and experiences for patients and less bureaucracy and duplication for clinicians and other staff.
My concern about the amendment is that it would add to the bureaucratic burden rather than reduce it. It would create an unnecessary set of regulations as well as duplicative reporting mechanisms, as regulations made under Section 13YB(3) can already be used to impose conditions, which could include creating national standards. Furthermore, Section 14Z50(7) already puts a duty on NHS England to undertake yearly performance assessments of each ICB. These are focused on how each ICB has performed its function through the year, including the commissioning of specialised services that may have been delegated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that we fully recognise that Covid has significantly impacted on waiting lists, including for specialised services. The investment that we have announced to reduce waiting times should also impact on waiting times for specialised services. NHS England is keen to see progress in that area as much as in any other. We will hold it to account for that progress.
My noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, expressed concerns about the risk of growing disparities and inconsistency in the quality of specialised healthcare around the country. The key point that I would emphasise is that NHS England will retain responsibility for setting national standards as well as service specifications and access policies. These will apply to all prescribed specialised services, whether they are retained for commissioning by NHS England or become the responsibility of ICBs to commission. It may be a single ICB, but it may be a group of ICBs commissioning; it will depend on the type of service and the size of the ICB.
NHS England will therefore remain the accountable commissioner for all specialised services and will ensure that the appropriate safeguards are put in place for those services that may be delegated to ICBs or groups of ICBs. Only services that are considered appropriate for more integrated commissioning would be delegated; that is, those services that are suitable and ready. There will be services that are not appropriate, and these will be retained for commissioning by NHS England. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Warner, well knows, we need to remember that the list of prescribed specialised services contains very highly specialised services such as hand transplants and much more routine services such as dialysis. Whereas those on the upper end of the scale will always need to be commissioned nationally —I cannot see any alternative there—it is right that those more common services can be commissioned more locally.
I turn next to Amendment 21, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for bringing forward. I do not in the least dismiss the issues that he has raised. I understand the spirit in which the amendment was brought and hope that I can give some reassurance on two counts: first, that it is not our intention for ICB functions to be delegated to private entities, and, secondly, that safeguards are already in place.
It is perhaps also worth drawing the Committee’s attention to the narrowness that this amendment would impose on the delegation of functions. It would prevent delegation of functions to other statutory public bodies such as local authorities. As the noble Lord will appreciate, this would run counter to our desire to support further integration and to allow the pooling of budgets and functions between the NHS and local authorities. This has been a fairly long established practice and has worked well to support joint commissioning, service improvements and more seamless services for patients.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response; I very much appreciated it. I listened carefully to what he said about waiting lists; I did not exactly hear his commitment to the 18 weeks, but I understand the reasons that he set out for the Government’s current position on that. I just stress the importance of retaining the 18-week waiting time standard: it must remain a key part of the NHS mandate. Without this target, this discipline—particularly the importance of organising around patients’ needs—will be lost.
I am particularly grateful for the Minister’s detailed explanation on specialised services. I know he has a background in this, as do I and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Commissioning specialised services is very complex and detailed. I was pleased with the way that the Minister described the different roles there would be at national and ICB level. We need to look carefully at what he said to see whether we need to come back to anything, but I hope the Minister will commit to having a full discussion and consultation with charities, patient groups and noble Lords on these complex issues. A number of noble Lords spoke very deeply and movingly about specialised services and their importance, and that is important to the House. Continued discussions, particularly on how the relationship between national standards and ICBs will work, are also important.
I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her support for Amendment 60 and her salutary comments on how difficult it can be to make sure best practice is achieved and followed. That was very helpful. On the Minister’s comments about the reporting to Parliament role, I need to look carefully at what he said about what exists and takes place. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that it needs to be much more coherent, and we will look carefully at that to see if there is anything we need to come back to. Meanwhile, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 13th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (13 Jan 2022)
Baroness Thornton
“(3A) In section 13G (duty as to reducing inequalities), at end insert—“(2) NHS England must publish guidance about the collection, analysis, reporting and publication of performance data by relevant NHS bodies with respect to factors or indicators relevant to health inequalities.(3) Relevant NHS bodies must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under this section.(4) In this section “relevant NHS bodies” means—(a) NHS England,(b) integrated care boards,(c) integrated care partnerships established under section 116ZA of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007,(d) NHS trusts established under section 25, and(e) NHS foundation trusts.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give NHS England a statutory duty to publish guidance on how NHS bodies should collect, analyse, report and publish performance data on factors and/or indicators related to health inequalities.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the issue of health inequalities. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have gone through the Bill to ensure that addressing health inequalities is absolutely central. Unless the Bill deals with the kind of inequalities that the pandemic, for example, has brought into sharp relief, it will have failed. Many amendments in this group directly and indirectly address the issue, and I look forward to the many contributions we will hear. This is one area where our NHS may not be among the best in the world. In fact, inequality is often entrenched. Some might argue that, through the famous inverse care law, it even makes things worse. As with other public services, the better-off, with better connections and sharper elbows, get more out of a service than those with less social capital who are already disadvantaged by other factors.
A report published today by the Northern Health Science Alliance, a health and life sciences partnership between the leading NHS trusts, universities and academic health science networks in northern England, says that
“people in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods are 46 per cent more likely to have died from the virus than those in the rest of England, and 7 per cent more likely to have died of the virus than those living in other deprived areas”
that are not left behind. In left-behind neighbourhoods,
“Men live 3.7 years fewer and women 3 years fewer than the national average,”
and
“men and women can expect to live 7.5 fewer years in good health than their counterparts in the rest of England.”
Tackling the health inequalities facing local authorities of left-behind neighbourhoods and bringing them up to England’s average could add an extra £29.8 billion to the country’s economy each year. The co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for “Left Behind” Neighbourhoods, the right honourable Dame Diana Johnson, said that:
“Every person in the country deserves to live a long life in good health”,
but this new research demonstrates that this is not currently a reality.
We are all aware of the work of Sir Michael Marmot. In his review, which explored the changes since 2010, he highlighted five policy areas:
“—Give every child the best start in life —Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives —Create fair employment and good work for all —Ensure a healthy standard of living for all —Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities”.
The key messages from that review make stark reading. This is one of the strongest:
“The amount of time people spend in poor health has increased across England since 2010. As we reported in 2010, inequalities in poor health harm individuals, families, communities and are expensive to the public purse. They are also unnecessary and can be reduced with the right policies.”
In a note that I think all noble Lords will have received from Crisis and other voluntary organisations, they point out that, as it stands, people who experience the most extreme health inequalities, such as those who are homeless, sex workers, Gypsy, Roma, Travellers, vulnerable non-UK nationals and people with substance misuse issues, encounter significant barriers to accessing and receiving the healthcare that meets their needs. These barriers can include stigma, the lack of a fixed address or ID, fragmented services, the lack of continuity of care because of unstable accommodation, and lack of awareness from healthcare professionals of specific needs.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely in these proceedings and I now call him to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s work, to which my noble friend just alluded, has shown that health inequalities have widened across England in the last 10 years. The impact of these inequalities has been both exemplified and amplified by Covid-19. I support Amendments 11, 14 and others that address this massively important problem and I fully agree with my noble friend’s analysis.
Health is powerfully influenced by the social, economic and environmental conditions in which people live and work. Place-based and whole systems are therefore vital to improving health and reducing inequalities. This is recognised in the NHS Long Term Plan and the move towards integrated care.
Sir Michael endorsed the findings of the Creative Health report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Well-being, which in 2017 documented over 100 studies on how the arts and creative activities have supported health. In 2019, the World Health Organization’s scoping review of the role of the arts in improving health and well-being provided evidence that creative activities could mitigate the detrimental impact of stressful environments and the negative health impacts of growing up in disadvantaged conditions. Engaging with the arts, the evidence shows, can improve social cohesion and lead to a reduction in social inequalities in deprived areas. It can build skills and mutual support, which can improve social mobility. The positive effects of the arts can make a particular impact on early years development, as is demonstrated in the evidence provided to DCMS by Dr Daisy Fancourt et al in 2020.
Social prescribing, through bringing people together in shared creative activity and voluntary work, helps to build social capital and better health and well-being in deprived communities.
Research by the MARCH network, a UKRI-funded research programme, has shown that the health benefits of engaging with cultural and other community activities are felt by all, regardless of socioeconomic status. We know that there is a social gradient in participation in cultural and community activities and that those living in areas of higher deprivation are less likely to engage in them. However, the MARCH research indicates that when individuals in areas of high deprivation do engage, the mental health and well-being benefits may be particularly great for them, even greater than for those who live in more affluent areas. Therefore, targeted investment in cultural and community opportunities in areas where people are likely to benefit most can help to reduce health inequalities.
For instance, in Manchester, the Natural Cultural Health Service of the Whitworth art gallery is encouraging activities by local residents from diverse backgrounds that promote physical and mental well-being. Contact, a theatre company, supported by the Wellcome Trust, offers a health and well-being space for use by local community groups. Manchester Camerata has moved its base to Pugin’s wonderful Gorton abbey, in a deprived part of the city. Its musicians are working to support people with dementia and the Camerata is providing a resident composer and musician for local schools. Evaluation has shown that encouraging children to express themselves through music-making has raised their confidence and self-esteem, with a positive impact on their schoolwork and all the implications for them and their community that can follow from that.
The Big Noise project, run by Sistema Scotland in Govanhill since 2008, provides free orchestral training to young people. Evaluation has shown positive health outcomes as a result of improved confidence, social and other skills and emotional well-being. Similarly, the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic has run its In Harmony project to improve the life chances of children through music, and since 2009 has benefited 2,500 children in the Everton and Anfield areas of Liverpool.
The cultural and VCSE sectors have a key role to play in reducing health inequalities and should be fully embedded at systems level and in the health decision-making process. Integrated care partnerships provide the gateway to making this happen.
The National Centre for Creative Health, a charity of which I am chair, is currently working in partnership with NHS England in pilot programmes with four ICSs with a specific focus on mitigating health inequalities. We are looking to establish how best to embed creative health into healthcare strategies. We are also hosting a further AHRC-funded research project called Mobilising Cultural and Natural Assets to Combat Health Inequalities. The outputs will support ICSs to maximise the potential of the arts and natural assets in improving health and reducing inequalities.
I hope the Minister will assure us that the Government recognise the indispensable role of the arts and culture, as well as engagement with nature, in mitigating health inequalities, and that the system created by the Bill—designed, I hope, with an unambiguous purpose to reduce health inequalities—will fully embrace such non- clinical approaches.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing this group of amendments. My name is attached to her amendments, and I have some amendments in my name; I thank noble Lords who have added their names. I will speak in particular to Amendments 11 and 14 but what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said applies to other amendments, and I agree with them and have added my name to them.
Covid-19 has exposed and exacerbated existing health inequalities in England, and the Government have committed to “levelling up” the country. Progress on national NHS commitments related to reducing health inequalities has been slow in recent years, and NHS England has urged local systems to accelerate action to tackle health inequalities after the pandemic. A step change is clearly needed, yet the Bill’s current provisions on health inequalities amount to no more than the same: transposing existing inequality duties from CCGs to the new NHS ICBs.
One area where there is clearly scope for improvement is strengthening reporting on health inequalities. There is currently no explicit requirement for NHS England to publish national guidance about which performance data and indicators relevant to health inequalities should be collected, analysed and reported on by NHS bodies. The NHS’s current system oversight framework, as a means to define national priorities and monitor the overall performance of local systems, also includes little in the way of concrete measures on health inequalities, with those that are included being focused primarily on shorter-term Covid-19-related equity impacts.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, addresses this. It would require NHS England to publish guidance on collecting, analysing, reporting and publishing data on all factors or indicators relevant to health inequalities. I hope the Government will commit to considering this amendment in order to drive more action on inequalities and enable better tracking of progress across different areas.
The only thing I would add to this is the NHS Priorities and Operational Planning Guidance that was published by NHS England just before Christmas—in fact, on 24 December; it could not be much nearer to Christmas. On page 6 of this, as one of the priorities for 2022-23, NHS England asks local health systems to:
“Continue to develop our approach to population health management, prevent ill-health and address health inequalities—using data and analytics to redesign care pathways and measure outcomes with a focus on improving access and health equity for underserved communities.”
It also states that in delivering all the NHS’s priorities, it intends to maintain the
“focus on … tackling health inequalities by redoubling our efforts on the five priority areas”—
already mentioned by the noble Baroness—
“set out in guidance in March 2021.”
It reiterates that ICSs will take a lead role in tackling health inequalities and notes:
“Improved data collection and reporting will drive a better understanding of local health inequalities in access to, experience of and outcomes from healthcare services, by informing the development of action plans to narrow the health inequalities gap. ICBs, once established, and trust board performance packs are therefore expected to be disaggregated by deprivation and ethnicity.”
On page 29 onwards there are further details about this.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, this is my first contribution to the debate on the Bill and, listening to earlier exchanges, it struck me how many were being made by those who had either run the NHS as administrators or, indeed, as Ministers. I can join that happy band. I was a Health Minister in 1979 and put on the statute book the Health Services Act 1980, abolishing area health authorities. Nostalgia has overcome me, as phrases I used 40 years ago about streamlining the structure and making it more efficient have been recycled in debates on this Bill.
My first piece of health legislation followed the appointment of commissioners to run the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Area Health Authority which was breaking its cash limits and behaving illegally. Unfortunately, our suspension was also illegal, and I had to pilot through the other place the National Health Service (Invalid Direction) Bill, with much hilarity at my expense from the Opposition. So, more than 40 years later, it is good to join in another debate about NHS reorganisation. Today’s debate about inequality was actually raised 40 years ago: noble Lords may remember the Black report on inequalities in health. I was rereading it last night and it struck me how many of the 37 recommendations made 40 years ago are still relevant today.
Mine is the lead name on four amendments, but I plan to say very little on Amendment 66 and leave it to the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Faulkner, to make the case for a specific reference to smoking as a key factor in reducing health inequalities.
As we have heard, the Bill gives integrated care boards a responsibility to reduce inequalities in access to health services and in health service outcomes. The biggest cause of inequalities are factors such as smoking, obesity and alcohol, particularly smoking, which is responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in society—an issue that was raised an hour ago during Oral Questions. Others will say more about the imperatives of tackling these hazards to health.
I will focus instead on Amendment 152 in my name and will also speak briefly to Amendments 156 and 157. These amendments are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who will focus on housing and why legislation is necessary, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Watkins. I am grateful to Crisis, the homeless charity, for its briefing.
I commend the Government’s welcome commitment to tackle health inequalities and hope the forthcoming White Paper on levelling up will have a strong section on this, following the recent report of the Public Services Select Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. I hope that will put flesh on the bone of what risks becoming more of a slogan rather than a policy, meaning different things to different people. I hope the levelling up White Paper will directly address inequalities in health.
As the Secretary of State for Health has said recently, we must tackle the “disease of disparity”, and these amendments highlight the experiences of those groups who are undoubtedly at the worst end of that disease. In current NHS policy and documents, these groups are referred to as “inclusion health populations”—a term used to highlight the need for health services to overcome the social exclusion and marginalisation that many people face, resulting in dire consequences for their health. That group includes rough sleepers, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, vulnerable non-UK nationals and people with substance misuse issues.
These people develop health conditions usually seen in people in their 70s and 80s up to 40 years earlier, and often die from them. Tragically, the average age of death among people experiencing homelessness is 46 for men and 42 for women. Clearly, these are not health outcomes we should accept for anyone. The solutions exist, and chime very well with what the Health and Care Bill seeks to do. However, it currently does not go far enough.
The Bill places a welcome emphasis on integrated services. To tackle the health injustices for people who are socially excluded, we need holistic, integrated health services to meet their needs, and we need them everywhere. They do exist in some places; they are also referred to as “inclusion health services” and they have a significantly positive impact. For example, Pathway, the leading health charity for inclusion health, has helped 11 hospitals in the UK create multidisciplinary teams of doctors, nurses, social care professionals and housing workers. These teams support over 4,000 patients every year who are homeless, with very positive outcomes. An audit of Pathway’s services in 2017 showed a 37% reduction in A&E attendances, a 66% reduction in hospital admissions and an 11% reduction in bed days. However, despite these successful services, inclusion health services are not currently commissioned at the scale required, and access to them is a postcode lottery. King’s College London found that 56.5% of homelessness projects in England do not have a specialist GP inclusion health service in their area—hence the amendments on best practice.
During my time as a Housing Minister, I saw the impact of social exclusion on people, including how not having a stable home to live in is devastating for people’s physical and mental health. Therefore, working closely with expert organisations across these sectors including Crisis, Pathway, St Mungo’s and many others, we want to amend the Bill to ensure a strategic focus in the new systems being set up to help the most socially excluded in our society.
The amendments introduce two important and necessary changes. The first would place a duty on integrated care partnerships to have due regard to the need to improve health outcomes for inclusion health populations when they create their healthcare strategies. Placing a duty on partnerships will make it clear that inclusion health is a strategic focus, and that should follow through and be reflected in the resourcing and commissioning decisions of integrated care boards. I do not regard the requirement to “have regard to” as an onerous imposition.
The second change would make clear the importance on health outcomes of having a stable home. It would mean that, in addition to the partnership having to consider health and social care in its strategic integration arrangements, it would also need to consider housing. This possible change would make clear that housing is on a par with health and social care services. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will say more about this.
With the advent of the Everyone In scheme in March last year, which sought to provide safe accommodation for those who without it would have continued to sleep rough, we saw how critical it is for people to have a place of their own. We need to build on that success and prevent rough sleepers drifting back on to our streets. My amendment legislates to ensure that health, social care and housing services continue to work more closely together to consistently support people who too often fall through the gaps between these services.
These amendments are firmly within the scope of the Bill. They will complement and strengthen its welcome aims to integrate health services across the whole system and tackle health inequalities. The amendments are neither overly prescriptive nor bureaucratic; their aims are simple. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, in October last year, during the debate on the Ageing: Science, Technology and Healthy Living report, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, confirmed that the Government maintain their commitment to ensuring that people live at least five extra healthy and independent years of life. A practical first step towards achieving that goal would be to ensure that tackling health inequalities is a priority in this legislation, and the amendments in this group seek to achieve that. We know that health inequality is a problem that has been getting worse, and we need to tackle it as an emergency. I support the amendments in the group calling for NHS England, NHS trusts and the integrated care strategy to collect relevant information and data, as well as to take the necessary action to prevent health inequalities and improve healthy living.
In 2010, as we know, Sir Michael Marmot published his report on health equity, finding that social position determined people’s health outcomes and that people at the lower end of the social gradient had worse health. At the time, the report recommended that the focus on improving this should not be targeted just at those from the most disadvantaged parts of the country but should take a universal approach to improving health outcomes, which is very much needed. The report highlighted the economic benefits of addressing health inequalities. In particular, it raised the issue of lost productivity, increased spending on welfare and lost tax revenues due to people having to leave work as a result of poor health.
Just before the pandemic, in 2020, Sir Michael Marmot did his 10-year review, and we know how alarming the findings of that report were. For the first time, life expectancy had stalled in the UK. In the poorest 10% in England, the life expectancy of women actually declined between 2010 and 2012 and between 2016 and 2018. Mortality rates for people between 45 and 49 years old increased, and in many cases those were deaths of despair, due to suicide or substance abuse. That is terrible news. The level of child poverty has also increased in the UK to 22%—compare that with Norway, for example, where child poverty is 10%. That is also alarming. The number of years lived in poor health across England has increased and continues to be worse in the poorest parts of the country.
We hear much about the so-called levelling-up agenda from the Government. One finds it hard not to dismiss it as little more than a glib and somewhat trite slogan, because there is little to back it up in real policy to try to address issues such as health inequality. However, I am an optimist and I see the Bill as a step towards trying to address these challenges. But to do this effectively we must have a better understanding of the drivers of health inequality. We must have plans at a local and national level to address those drivers. This group of amendments offers some solutions to start addressing health inequalities through this legislation. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response to these amendments and to hearing his view on how the Bill is going to achieve the Government’s goal of people living at least five extra healthy and independent years of life.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to six amendments in this extremely important group. I should like first to turn to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which my name is attached. Other noble Lords have expressed support for amending the triple aim to explicitly include health inequalities, and I add my voice to that call. The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others about the real-life causes and impacts of health inequalities show just how important it is that we strengthen the Bill.
I would like briefly to highlight the specific impact of mental health inequalities, which are pervasive and deeply embedded. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said in our debate on Tuesday, mental illness itself causes inequality. People with severe mental illness live, on average, between 15 and 20 years less than the general population. Black people are more than four times as likely as white people to be detained under the Mental Health Act. There are higher rates of suicide in the LGBT community, yet many in that community do not, or feel that they cannot, seek healthcare because of fear of discrimination. People with a learning disability often suffer with significantly worse physical and mental health than the general population.
The Centre for Mental Health Research has shown that it is often groups of people with the poorest mental health who have the greatest difficulty accessing healthcare that meets their needs and produces good outcomes for them. Unless an ICB is focused on which groups of people have the poorest health in the first place and understands why that is the case, it will, frankly, struggle to reduce the inequalities flowing from that.
Amendment 14 would amend the triple aim duties specifically for NHS England. Amendments 94, 185 and 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to which I have attached my name, would replicate that explicit inclusion in the triple aim for integrated care boards, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, has said on health inequalities, regarding them as implied in the first element of the triple aim—to consider the impact of decisions on the health and well-being of the population—does not, in my view, get us any further than where we are today. Given the statistics that I have outlined and the fact, as we have heard, that the pandemic has made things a lot worse, we clearly need to go further.
I turn now to Amendment 65, regarding the role of local health systems. It seeks to strengthen the health inequality duty placed on integrated care boards by giving them a requirement to
“implement systems to identify and monitor inequalities in physical and mental health between different groups of people within the population”
of their area. As things stand, the provisions in the Bill will ensure that NHS organisations are required to address inequalities in a similar way to how CCGs currently do it. But we need to see more ambition. The provisions would be strengthened and not merely transferred. The current requirement to “have regard to” is not enough. Local health systems have a central role to play in addressing health inequalities. They are ideally positioned to understand the challenges in their areas and, to use the jargon—for which I apologise —co-produce local solutions with communities. The development of integrated care systems gives us a new opportunity for local areas to take population health and place-based approaches, so that the vulnerable groups who have been referred to do not fall through gaps.
There is a lot about health inequalities that we do not know; we suspect, but we just do not have the data. Amendment 65 proposes that the Bill includes clearer and more direct requirements for integrated care boards to focus efforts on identifying and monitoring those inequalities. Currently, the quantity and quality of data collected is inadequate for it to be fully disaggregated against the different protected characteristics and provide a real insight into the inequalities that exist. That is why I have attached my name to Amendment 61 in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I strongly support.
Robust information and data are prerequisites for any action. Improved data collection—both on health services and on wider inequalities in the area—will lead to a far better assessment of what needs to be done, particularly in areas such as public mental health and the local NHS workforce. I will quote one statistic about GPs. A GP working in a practice serving the most deprived patients will, on average, be responsible for the care of almost 10% more patients than a GP serving a more affluent area. This simply cannot be right.
I will end by quoting from work we have already heard about—the work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot. It needs no introduction. He has demonstrated that efforts to address health inequalities will benefit society as a whole. The NHS Long Term Plan states:
“While we cannot treat our way out of inequalities, the NHS can ensure that action to drive down health inequalities is central to everything we do.”
I urge the Government to ensure that the Bill does just that.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as an NHS patient but not an expert, I will say one small thing about inequalities. Given the way in which the NHS is structured, with no money paid up front and with excess demand and inadequate supplies because of budget shortages, it is forced to allocate treatment by queuing—and queuing, obviously, means that people have to wait.
There is a fallacy that somehow the poor have more time than the rich. In my experience it would improve matters immensely if, when appointments are given, there was less delay in the patient seeing the person whom they are supposed to see. I know that, right now, there are standard regulations that cover these matters, so that people end up waiting three hours. I have done that. But my time is not as valuable as that of someone poorer. You do not measure the value of your time by your income. So it would improve matters if the allocation of services were made using communication devices. This would waste less of patients’ time and help them better access services.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I will speak on behalf of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. She has added her name to Amendment 65, and we on these Benches support the other amendments in this group that seek to reduce health inequalities. As we have heard, these amendments would help to ensure that the Bill does not forget the underserved and disadvantaged in our society, many of whom have been mentioned already.
In the Christian and Jewish faiths, there is a Biblical concept—shalom—which embodies a sense of flourishing, generosity and abundance. Shalom can be summarised as experiencing wholeness, or a state of being without gaps. This is reflected in the World Health Organization’s definition of health, which is about not only the absence of disease but mental, physical and social well-being. It is a vision for individuals and for the whole of society. Our efforts to design a more holistic health service are, in effect, aimed at achieving that sort of shalom. We see this clearly in the decision made to place 42 integrated care systems across the country. What is not yet apparent is the relationship of these systems and boards to the wider community.
This Bill must seek to involve local communities—and not just professionals—in the reduction of health inequalities. These amendments highlight the monitoring of both physical and mental inequalities, take account of the experiences of young people and children and place more emphasis on the strength of local interventions to help reduce and prevent health inequalities. I commend them wholeheartedly to your Lordships’ House and to the Minister.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I rise in support of these amendments, in particular Amendment 66 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
This amendment would expand the duties of integrated care boards. We want them to exercise their functions with respect to reducing inequalities relating to
“modifiable risk factors, such as smoking.”
Our aim is to help the Government achieve their manifesto commitments to reduce health inequality, level up and increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. This amendment would mean that integrated care boards would have a responsibility to reduce inequalities in access to health services and the outcomes achieved. They would also be responsible, in consultation with partners such as local health and well-being boards, for drafting joint five-year plans to explain how they would discharge their responsibilities, including those to reduce inequalities.
At present, there are significant inequalities in both patient access to health services and in the outcomes achieved. The biggest causes of inequalities in health outcomes are behavioural risk factors, such as smoking, obesity and alcohol. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, smoking alone is responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest in society. It is a greater source of health inequality than social position and it remains the leading cause of premature death in this country.
We all hope that the integrated care systems will contribute significantly to reducing inequalities in smoking and other behavioural issues, but they are likely to succeed only if addressing such modifiable risk factors becomes a core function of the NHS, working in collaboration with local authorities. Amendment 66 would ensure this.
The difference in healthy life expectancy between those living in the most and least deprived areas of England is around 19 years for both men and women—in other words, almost two decades. Let us look at one place in particular. As measured by the index of multiple deprivation, Blackpool is, sadly, top of the table of the most deprived local districts in the country. Over the last decade it has consistently had one of the highest smoking rates in the country, at over 20%. Most distressingly, more than 20% of mothers in Blackpool are smokers at the time they give birth. So our amendment is needed because the recently published NHS inequalities strategy—which is impressive in parts—does not address the behavioural causes of health inequalities. In fact, it says nothing about them at all.
The Government’s inequality strategy sets out five clinical areas that are crucial to improving health outcomes for the poorest 20% in society. They are chronic respiratory disease, serious mental illness, early cancer diagnosis, maternity and—last but not least—identifying people with high blood pressure who need to be pre-treated to prevent heart attacks and strokes. In all these areas, behavioural factors such as smoking, obesity and alcohol very significantly increase the dangers to health. If appropriate action is taken, it can greatly improve patient outcomes and, at the same time, reduce pressure on our NHS.
To take just one example, chronic respiratory disease is caused primarily by smoking. It is estimated that smoking is responsible for 90% of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but one-third of patients diagnosed with COPD carry on smoking. There is nothing in the NHS England inequalities strategy about this, and no target for reducing smoking rates among those with chronic respiratory disease. Yet stopping smoking is the most effective and cost-effective treatment. Only by quitting smoking can those with COPD prevent further decline in lung function.
Smoking, obesity and alcohol are also causally linked to cancer and hypertension. People with mental health conditions die on average 10 to 20 years earlier than the general population. Smoking is the single largest factor in this shocking difference. The question we must therefore ask today is this: given that modifiable behaviour risk factors are core to all five identified clinical focus areas, why are they not included in the NHS England inequality strategy? Perhaps it is because the Government do not see addressing these population-level health risk factors as a core responsibility of the NHS.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments, which I support; I am particularly delighted to speak to Amendment 156, as one of its co-sponsors. I very much support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has highlighted the appalling health disparities faced by people who are the most socially excluded. I, too, ask the Government to recognise how amending the Bill in the way proposed would help them to realise their ambitions in this area.
We know that the level of ill health among people who would be considered under inclusion health is significant. We have heard the shamefully low average age of death for people experiencing homelessness in England and Wales. We also know that the life expectancy of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities is around 10 to 12 years fewer than that of the general population, although one study has found that this gap can be as high as 28 years. This disparity in life expectancy clearly demonstrates the devastating impact of extreme social exclusion.
It is clear to me that the health and social care system has a significant role to play in tackling the health inequalities experienced by these groups. These amendments would facilitate crucial progress towards that and encourage social enterprise involvement to reach the most socially excluded individuals. We have seen examples of this at the relatively new Plymouth dentistry school, where the training clinic has been set up as a social enterprise to serve some of the poorest people in Plymouth.
In relation to Amendment 156 in particular, we know that NHS services must be integrated with wider services to reflect how people’s lives work. A main aim of the Bill is integration, yet integration could not be more important for the groups that experience the most complex needs and require very effective, co-ordinated care. As I know from my time in nursing, there has been a historic lack of integration between housing, health and social care, yet housing is fundamental to reducing health inequalities. Without integration across these different systems, people will continue to develop acutely poor health.
People who experience social exclusion, and extreme health inequalities as a result, often fall through the gaps in the provision of primary and secondary care, mental health and substance misuse services, health and social care, and even health and wider systems, such as housing. For example, we know that people experiencing homelessness attend A&E six times as often as people with a home, are admitted to hospital four times as often, and stay three times as long. One study has found that homeless people attend A&E 60 times more than the general population. This has tragic results for the individual and also places incredible strain on our healthcare system.
We must act to alleviate the pressures on the NHS where we can. Severe and multiple disadvantage is conservatively estimated to cost society more than £10 billion a year. It is clear that the cost of doing nothing is too high, both to the individual suffering severe health inequalities and to the NHS. This amendment would help address these issues by ensuring that housing is considered by integrated care partnerships. It is non-mandatory, therefore speaking to the Government’s aims of enabling local decision-making and flexibility, but would ensure that partnerships think of the important role that housing plays by providing a stable place from which people can then engage with wider health services. A wide range of expert organisations are supportive of this amendment and related Amendments 152 and 157, including Crisis, Social Enterprise UK, Doctors of the World, and Friends, Families and Travellers.
The NHS must work effectively for all who are entitled to use it, including those who need it most. If we get access and outcomes right for the most marginalised in our society—those who experience the poorest health —we will likely get access and outcomes right for everyone. That is why I call on the Government to support the amendments in this group.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, Amendments 68 and 95 are in my name. I declare my role as president of the Rural Coalition. I support the broad drift of these amendments, which engage with the important issue of reducing inequalities.
Rural health and social care has often presented challenges in terms of proximity to services, the types of services available within a local area and the demographics of rural areas. It is complicated. Rural areas have a higher proportion of older residents, which is always a greater burden on healthcare services compared with areas with younger populations.
Furthermore, a variety of issues that feed into rural health and social care are beyond the remit of the Bill. In March 2017, Defra produced its Rural Proofing practical guidance to help policymakers assess the impact of policies on rural areas. At the time, this was a welcome initiative to ensure that rural interests were being adequately considered and, to quote the report, that
“these areas receive fair and equitable policy outcomes.”
Unfortunately, concerns have since grown among rural groups that this guidance has become a sort of bureaucratic box-ticking exercise in Whitehall that does not take into account the complexities of rural life.
Funding allocations are often the result of specific metrics or formulas, many of which disadvantage rural communities. For example, a 2021 report by the Rural Services Network, Towards the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, highlighted how many of the post-Brexit levelling-up funds disadvantaged poor rural areas due to way in which they measured poverty. The Department for Transport’s own 2017 statistics showed that, on average, travel from rural areas to either a GP or hospital was 40% longer by car and 94% longer via public transport when compared with travel in urban locations.
Further, 2017 figures from Rural England highlighted the higher rates of delayed transfer of care from hospitals in rural areas: 19.2 cases per 100,000 compared with 13 per 100,000 in urban locations. Analysis by the RSN has shown that, when compared with predominately urban areas, rural local authorities received significantly less grant funding per head to pay for services such as social care and public health responsibilities, in spite of the fact that they generally deal with older populations. Other problems include limited intensive care capacity in rural areas, the loss of local services through amalgamations, the relatively few specialist medical staff in rural areas, and the general staff shortage and retention issues facing rurality.
It is commendable that the Government have legislated in this Bill to introduce a duty on integrated care boards to reduce inequalities between patients with respect to their ability to access health services. My amendments would extend this principle and reduce those health inequalities with respect to where someone lives, whether it is an urban or rural area, and place a duty on ICBs to co-operate with each other for the purpose of reducing healthcare access inequalities. In effect, this is a statutory rural-proofing requirement.
This duty to consider rural access when reducing inequalities extends to co-operation between ICBs because rural areas often exist on the periphery of a large geographical region where patients in one area may reside closer to crucial services in a neighbouring board. Naturally, rural areas lack the economies of scale of urban areas, and greater cross-ICB co-operation will be required to utilise joint resources most effectively when delivering different services to rural areas that fall within border zones of ICBs.
One area where a collaborative approach between ICBs will be crucial for rural areas in the near future is the current reorganisation of non-emergency patient transport by NHS England, which will shift to ICBs shortly. Although rural areas undoubtedly are being considered as part of this re-organisation, patient transport is already a rural inequality that needs addressing. Putting rural proofing with respect to health care on a statutory footing presents a more concrete way to implement the existing rural-proofing guidance. The need for co-operation between administrative areas and for overall plans to be rural proofed will become more essential, particularly for secondary health services, if teams of specialist clinicians become increasingly consolidated in ever fewer locations.
Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to reduce the inequalities in healthcare access and funding that many rural areas face, and how they will effectively ensure that ICBs adequately rural proof their plans in line with the Government’s own guidance?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow all noble Lords in supporting all the amendments in this group. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Thornton on the way in which she introduced the debate when moving Amendment 11. I will speak briefly to Amendment 66, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and me.
It was enjoyable listening to the noble Lord, Lord Young, taking a voyage down memory lane to more than 40 years ago, when he was a Health Minister. He could perhaps have added that we would have become a smoke-free country rather earlier, had his advice and proposals for tobacco control been accepted at the time, and had he not been removed from health on the instruction of Sir Denis Thatcher and given another role in government. He is and remains a pioneer, and I am delighted to be behind him with his amendments; we shall come to other smoking amendments later.
Amendment 66 would require integrated care boards to address the leading preventable causes of sickness and death, particularly smoking. The Bill as drafted fails to get to the root causes of health inequalities and will have only a limited effect. Our amendment would correct this oversight as far as smoking is concerned. In 2019, there were 5.7 million smokers in England, one in seven of the adult population. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, in England smoking is the leading cause of premature death, killing over 70,000 people a year and leaving 30 times as many suffering from serious smoking-related disease and disability.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we are in Committee, I remind the House of my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I rise to speak to Amendments 152, 156 and 157, to which I am a signatory. I will not repeat all the excellent points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, but I hope the Government will accept that what is being proposed is central to the success of this Bill, and that is because the NHS does not exist in a vacuum.
We know that prevention and early treatment of people’s ill-health will help them, reduce demand for hospital beds and lead to a more efficient use of public resources. We know well enough that poor housing contributes to poor health. These amendments to Clause 21 present an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate their commitment to truly tackling health inequalities and, in particular, to ending rough sleeping, by the end of this Parliament in 2024. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others have clearly laid out, the beneficial impact on a range of groups experiencing social exclusion and poor health outcomes would be significant. That means that there must be integrated approaches between housing, health and social care at the point when integrated care partnerships create their healthcare strategies.
Research shows that an average local authority might have around 1,400 people a year experiencing multiple disadvantage, including support needs around mental and physical health, homelessness and contact with the criminal justice system. Around 58,000 people a year experience the most severe disadvantage. It is therefore essential that local integrated care partnerships consider all the ways in which health intersects with housing.
I was concerned to read recently that in July last year 77% of women leaving our largest women’s prison became homeless. Homelessness inevitably leads to poor health. As Professor Dame Carol Black’s recent review of drugs highlighted, unless housing and housing support needs are addressed, the health service will fail to improve people’s health consistently, regardless of how effective the commissioned health services may be.
We know this approach works. The Government’s welcome effort to vaccinate people who were homeless went alongside a push for not only GP registration but provision of emergency accommodation. This acknowledged the need to bring together support into housing alongside access to basic health services. Indeed, we have seen the Government revisit this approach just before Christmas, with the Protect and Vaccinate scheme. Since the Government have recognised the need for this integrated approach, I cannot see why they would object to these amendments that would help continue it.
Amendments 152, 156, 157 and others seek to make our NHS systems more effective in the delivery of services to the most excluded and marginalised in our society. As it stands, people are forced to attempt to navigate a siloed and fragmented health service that does not adequately address their complex health needs. For example, one patient with alcohol and other addictions, supported by Changing Lives, could not access mental health services until after his alcohol addiction was addressed. However, with the right support from Changing Lives’ inclusion health approach, this patient is now managing abstinence from alcohol and engaging with mental health support. Crucially, his experiences highlight the challenges in addressing substance misuse in isolation, without making support available to address mental ill-health at the same time.
The Government may argue that it will be sufficient to address these concerns in guidance, but I hope they do not. I acknowledge that guidance would be beneficial in ensuring that approaches to inclusion health populations are considered within integrated care systems. However, without legislation, tackling inclusion health would become nice to do rather than something that must be done.
A recent example of this is Covid-19 vaccine uptake among people who were homeless. We know that where inclusion health services existed, there was a concerted effort to ensure good vaccine uptake, but without these specialist services we simply do not know how effective vaccination programmes have been. The only data available from July 2021 show vaccination rates to be substantially lower among people who were homeless compared to the general population.
I am aware that commissioning strategies and services for inclusion health populations is already on the agenda of some integrated care systems, but we need all integrated care systems to play their part. Guidance will not be effective enough to ensure the provision of specialist support everywhere, not just in some places.
In conclusion, the level of complexity of the marginalised and excluded experience can be met only by embedding inclusion health throughout the health and care system at the highest levels. Legislation is the most secure way to achieve this. Otherwise, there will continue to be a postcode lottery in access to the right healthcare services for these groups, resulting in that “disease of disparity” the Secretary of State wants to address.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I first join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the thoughtful way in which she introduced this group of amendments. I support Amendment 14, in the noble Baroness’s name, and Amendments 65, 94, 186 and 195 in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel. This is a vital group of amendments, as your Lordships have already heard, because it is focused on inequalities. Clearly, no society, Government or Parliament can tolerate the inequalities that we see in both clinical outcomes and access to healthcare that have remained despite our remarkable healthcare system and the NHS. It is for that reason that it is absolutely right that, in the opportunity afforded by this Bill, inequalities are properly addressed.
More worrying is that, despite this country’s substantial investment in healthcare and the development of health systems over the past 70 years, these disparities in outcomes and access to healthcare described geographically and across different ethnicities and socioeconomic groups have continued to grow. That is despite all the success we have seen more broadly in delivering healthcare, addressing prevention and improving treatments.
It is also right to recognise that inequalities in outcomes and access to healthcare are best addressed at the local level. Through a focus on integration in not only the capacity of services but the capacity to integrate the development of policy and its execution across healthcare and through local government and the other elements of the state—education, employment, housing and so on—we will have the greatest opportunity to address social determinants of health. There has probably been no other health Bill presented to this Parliament since the creation of the NHS that provides the greatest opportunity to take that combined and collective approach.
It is therefore quite right that one turns attention to the triple aim. This is a laudable addition to the Bill, with an absolutely appropriate focus on promoting health and well-being, ensuring access to quality care for all citizens and ensuring the appropriate and effective utilisation of healthcare resources. Why not add to that triple aim a fourth clear objective to address issues of inequality? The triple aim does not mandate action, but it provides the context in which a framework should be developed locally, cognisant of the healthcare needs of the local population. An ideal framework would ensure that we drive collaboration and co-operation as required to focus activity and the allocation of resource and establish a local vision and determination to address health inequalities.
To fail to take this opportunity would be disappointing and, quite frankly, unacceptable. As we have heard in this excellent debate, if we fail to address these inequalities not only will they have a continuing and profound impact on health outcomes and access to healthcare for large numbers of our fellow citizens, but there are broader societal and economic consequences of continuing to accept inequalities in healthcare. I hope that, in answering this debate, the Minister will be able to confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to consider this issue and will put inequalities the heart of this Bill in the triple aim—becoming a quadruple aim—and will ensure that, at a local level, data collection and reporting become a primary focus of healthcare systems.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as the recently departed chair of NHS Improvement. I support these amendments, especially those that seek to extend the triple aim, such as Amendments 14, 65 and 94, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, just set out so eloquently. It seems there is no disagreement in the Committee about the importance of addressing health inequalities. Anyone who has lived through the past two years can see that plainly and clearly, as Covid has so cruelly highlighted the health inequalities in this country. The question is how we make sure this Bill genuinely tackles the issue that we all agree about so passionately. Why is it important, as just set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, to put the duty to address health inequalities in the Bill?
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in his group but particularly Amendment 68, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, about health inequalities faced by those living in rural areas. When you live in a rural area, it is often difficult physically to access a GP practice—if you do not have a car, try getting a bus in a rural area whose timetable coincides with the opening hours of your surgery—and to access health information if your internet is not up to scratch. There are many rural areas where connectivity still leaves a great deal to be desired. Pharmacies, too, can be difficult to access; although some run outreach services, they are by no means universal.
In rural areas, the important non-clinical services mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howarth are largely dependent on the voluntary sector. During the pandemic, when village halls, with their plethora of exercise, dance, art and social support services, were closed, many older people in rural areas were cut off completely, with disastrous effects on their mental health.
The problems of delivering social care in rural areas are also well known. When care workers are paid for home visits only for the time when they are in the home and not for travelling time—time that will of course be extended by the spread-out nature of those visits—it is no wonder that many private and voluntary agencies are handing back social care contracts to local authorities because they simply cannot deliver them.
Poverty, the underlying cause of inequality, is more widespread in rural areas than is often acknowledged. Escaping to the country is a nice idea, but unless you recognise the particular inequalities faced by country residents, it is not as you see it on the television. Moving as a couple approaching retirement is a different picture when one—usually the husband, both the gardener and the driver—dies, leaving an isolated widow in declining health. The cost of fuel is also more acute in rural areas, and you will find many older people who may own a nice-looking cottage having to choose between heating and eating, with consequential effects on their health and future dependency.
I very much hope that when the Minister replies, he will emphasise that when integrated care boards are considering the provision of services for the purposes of achieving equality of access for patients, they will consider those living in all parts of the board’s area.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this is my first intervention on the Bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to my relevant interests in the register, namely as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a non-executive director of Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
I support this suite of amendments—particularly Amendments 11, 14, 65, 94, 186 and 195—which explicitly puts the issue of health inequalities in the Bill and makes it central to the aims of the NHS. It also deals with reporting and holding people to account for helping to reduce health inequalities.
The reason for my support is simple. I speak as a former NHS manager who, as a rookie many years ago, in the very early 1980s, was on the general management trainee scheme. For the first three months, our aim was just to go around. I remember asking the very naive question: “Who’s responsible for quality?” I expected the person who was showing me around to say, “Everyone”, but he said, “Follow me.” We went in his car for five miles outside the hospital to the health authority. We then went into a lift, down into the basement and through lots of corridors, and finally came to a door at the end of the corridor. The door was opened and in a dimly lit room was a middle-aged woman, surrounded by piles of paper. I said, “Who’s this?” I was told, “This is Gladys. Gladys is responsible for quality.” It was seen as someone else’s job.
That is why I have cringed a little when the Minister has said, in previous debates and Answers on health inequalities, that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is being established. That is well and good, but that office is not responsible for reducing health inequalities; everyone in the healthcare system and its partners must work together to reduce health inequalities. That is why it is really important that this is explicit. It is not just about health issues; it is about people’s income, work, environment, green space and transport. It should be explicit in the Bill as part of the triple aims—which will become four aims—and become part of monitoring. This issue must become central because something that I have learned about the health service is that unless the centre asks for it, and asks for it to be monitored, it just does not get done because it is not seen as important. That is why monitoring this at both local and national level will hold people to account so it does not become Gladys’s responsibility.
The Bill gives us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not just to put health inequalities centrally in the Bill but to make them explicit in the way that the NHS and its partners work. With a little extra legal push to the mill, so to speak, as well as the monitoring, the data and holding people to account, I believe that we can finally start to deal with these issues in a systematic way that shows improvement and will allow the NHS and its partners to know where to push a bit harder to get this done. That is why I support the amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this debate has shown clearly that attacking health inequalities must go beyond the bounds of the NHS as the impact of external factors is massive. I remind the Government that in 2015 poor housing alone was estimated to cost over £10 billion. That was in part because of the poor housing but it was compounded by inactivity and, as a result, obesity.
We should look at the antecedents of complex problems. Marie Curie’s report Dying in the Cold revealed failures in healthcare, bereavement and grief and the challenges of providing care for those with complex needs. Learning difficulties and autism, for which we often do not know the underlying causes, are disproportionately prevalent among people who are socially excluded and at high risk of homelessness, yet for them managing homelessness alone is particularly difficult because of their overall vulnerability. It has been estimated that autism alone has a twelvefold prevalence in those who are homeless compared to the general population.
The antecedents of many of the problems go back to childhood. They carry a life sentence of their trauma, which feeds into worsening health inequalities, aggravating factors such as alcohol and drugs consumption and other behaviours. Unless we strengthen the wording in the Bill to monitor and do something about the data that comes forward, the proposal of my noble friend Lord Kakkar—it is essential that we address this as a core problem to be tackled—will not be realised. I hope that when the Minister replies he will provide some assurance that the Government will consider strengthening the wording in the Bill in the light of this debate.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if I might be allowed to speak at this point for the simple reason that I am shortly due to take over from the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in the Chair and if I do not contribute now, I will not be able to at all. I have no special expertise to bring to the scrutiny of the Bill, therefore this is the first time I have spoken on it and it may be the last. I want to speak in support of the contribution of my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, right at the beginning of what has been a very long and extremely interesting debate but which, until recently, when my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley mentioned it, did not refer back to the points he raised.
In making my brief remarks, I draw attention to my own interests, which are mostly to do with the arts. I am thinking about what my noble friend Lord Howarth said about the arts sector and what it can contribute. I ask the Minister, when he comes to reply, if he would look to one side of his department—particularly towards the Department for Education and to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—for further evidence, in addition to the very strong evidence my noble friend Lord Howarth put forward, of the impact of engagement with the arts, particularly on people suffering from often multiple disadvantages.
It is very clear that the data emerging in relation to education points to a strong impact on the health, particularly the mental health and well-being, of young people in education settings when they are able to engage creatively with the arts and arts practitioners. It would be very easy, in thinking about the huge diversity of issues that have been raised here which bear on health inequality, to see engagement with the arts as a “nice to have” extra—something that, if we get everything else right, we can perhaps add in. But it is more important than that, as the evidence is now strongly beginning to show. I therefore ask the Minister not to forget what my noble friend Lord Howarth said at the beginning of the debate in his reply, and to consider very seriously how health inequalities can be properly and creatively addressed by further engagement with the arts sector.
I will say one last thing, which perhaps seems not quite at the heart of it, but it is important. My noble friend Lord Howarth, in giving his examples, spoke about arts organisations, many of which are trying to contribute to this area. To be able to do that, they need people with skills who can deliver the work. Nearly all the people who can deliver the work and have those skills are freelancers. As we all know, they have suffered hugely in the last two years as a result of the crisis that we have all been through. Freelance workers in all sectors, but particularly the cultural sector, have had a very bad time and quite a lot of them have left. I add that as an additional thing to remember when we look at the expectations we can reasonably—and should—have of the arts sector. It needs to be able to properly support the people it has to engage to deliver the work that it can do.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I did not want to speak in this part of the discussion but I will make a few comments. I absolutely support what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, have been saying.
When I first arrived in Bromley-by-Bow 37 years ago this year, I found on my doorstep the largest artistic community outside New York and none of the systems had even noticed or understood its significance. Over the last 37 years, we have been exploring the whole arts and health agenda and the massive impact it can have on local people’s lives.
When we began to put the Olympic project together —as I said on Tuesday, I was involved in it from day one for 19 years—we took that really seriously and engaged with that large artistic and creative community in health, jobs and skills, education et cetera. That £1.2 billion development going on at the moment in the middle of the Olympic park, bringing together University College London, the London College of Fashion, Sadler’s Wells, the V&A, the BBC orchestra and others, is all about this innovation agenda. It is moving it to scale. If this is to happen, we need the systems of the state and the public sector to learn from this entrepreneurial behaviour, which is happening on the ground, in real places and now to scale, and to understand the detail of what it means for the macro systems of the NHS.
I will say more about place later today, but I thank the noble Baroness for making those points, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, because this is fundamental. It relates to the fundamental question: what is a human being? A human being is fundamentally a creative being. Health and creativity and, I suggest, entrepreneurship and doing things, are fundamentally connected.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I came face to face with the nation’s health inequalities every morning in the departmental Covid response group, the COBRA meetings and the COBRA gold, when we went through the hospitalisation details and ICU data and heard stories from the front line of how people who had comorbidities particularly associated with obesity were filling up our hospitals as the virus spread through the country in wave after wave. That health inequality hit this country hard in very real terms. It cost a lot of lives, caused a lot of misery and cost our health system an enormous amount of money. It cost this country and its economy a huge amount of money and it is time that we came to terms with that challenge and solved the problem.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, the NHS must step up to its responsibilities in this area. There are complex reasons for these inequalities; some are environmental, some are behavioural and some are to do with access. But the NHS and whole healthcare system must realise that it needs to be involved in all aspects of those, and prioritise and be funded accordingly. The Bill already does an enormous amount to change the healthcare system’s priorities. Putting population at the heart of the ICSs is one really good example of that.
To anticipate some of his remarks, I know that the Minister will point to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. As the noble Lord pointed out, however, it has a tiny budget and cannot take responsibility for the nation’s health. Our councils are stony broke, as I found in my experience of dealing with them over the last two years. There is no one else to do this; this is not someone else’s problem. This is to do with the British healthcare system, and it needs to stand up to that responsibility. Zero progress has been made in the round over the last few years and we have gone backwards in the last two years in a big way. We need to make this a massive priority.
This is a fantastic Bill; I am really supportive of it. It came from the healthcare system originally. In this one area, however, there is a graphic lacuna that needs to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, put it so well in his inimitable way. The prioritisation of inequality must be put in the Bill and it needs to be heard throughout the healthcare system that this is the new, central priority that needs to be added to everyone’s job description.
If, for some reason, we do not do that there will be huge consequences. The healthcare system is unsustainable in its current form. We cannot continue to have a large part of the population carrying grievous comorbidities or disease and afflictions which are undiagnosed or not properly mended turning up in our hospitals at a very late stage and costing a fortune to mend. These health inequalities, whether they relate to disease, injury or behavioural issues such as obesity, are costing us a fortune. Only by putting tackling inequality on the face of the Bill can we really give it the priority it deserves.
I also say to the Minister that there is a sense of political jeopardy about this as well. We went into the last election committed to levelling up on health. We have gone backwards in the last two years through no fault of the Government, but if the Government do not step up to their responsibilities in this area, and if the NHS and the healthcare system do not change their priorities, the voters will judge us extremely harshly. For that reason, I urge the Minister to listen to this debate and look very carefully at ways of amending the Bill.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I want to pay tribute, as other noble Lords have, to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her very thoughtful introduction. It is remarkable and absolutely wonderful to see consensus breaking out across the Committee. I will speak specifically to Amendments 152, 156 and 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, whose words on the need to make this really serious by stating it on the face of the Bill I echo.
I am a former chief executive of the King’s Fund and am currently chair of University College London Hospitals and Whittington Health. These issues are very dear to my heart and the hearts of those institutions. I also want to say thank you to Crisis for its briefing and add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in praise of Pathway, which has done the most extraordinary work in this area over very many years.
I want to talk particularly about the NHS-funded Find & Treat service, which was set up 13 years ago and is run by UCLH, which I chair. This service was set up in response to a TB outbreak in London and aimed to provide care for people experiencing homelessness and people facing other forms of social exclusion. The service did exactly what it says on the tin: it went out and found people—and still does—who were at risk of contracting TB, wherever they were sleeping, and offered them diagnosis and treatment. Back in 2011, a study concluded that this service had been not only effective in helping to treat people with TB who were experiencing homelessness but cost effective in doing so, both in terms of costs saved to the health service and improved quality and length of life for the people receiving care. Fast-forward a decade and the evolution of this service meant it could be similarly mobilised at the beginning of the Covid pandemic. It provided urgent and necessary care to people who continue to experience the poorest health outcomes.
The King’s Fund published a report in 2020 on delivering health and care for people sleeping rough. It supported the need for inclusion health services to be provided much more broadly than at present. Importantly, it also concluded that local leadership is absolutely vital in crafting that approach and said that local leaders should model effective partnership working across a range of different organisations.
Embedding inclusion health—I cannot say I really like the term, but everybody knows what it means—at the level of integrated care partnerships will help ensure that our healthcare system can no longer ignore, forget or overlook people who are all too often considered “hard to treat”, despite proven interventions showing the opposite. It will ensure that integrated care partnerships and systems take that vital first step towards closing the gap of the most significant health inequalities in our society by having to recognise and consider people facing extreme social exclusion and poor health outcomes in their local areas.
We all know that there will be considerable discussion during the course of this Bill on the need not to be overly prescriptive and burdensome to ICSs and ICPs by way of legal duties. But ICSs and ICPs know all too well the realities of failing to support people with complex and overlapping needs. I know that the chair of my own North Central London ICS, Mike Cooke, is sympathetic to the spirit of these amendments and believes it is important that extra steps are taken to meet the health needs of the most excluded, such as street homeless people. The chief executive of UCLH, David Probert, and the chief executive of Whittington Health, Siobhan Harrington, concur in thinking that if we extend the aspiration to reach out to excluded groups to something that all ICSs, ICPs and systems must focus on, it would be hugely beneficial for planning and joining up systems to avoid inappropriate or unnecessary admissions and poor care planning. Plenty of people want to do this within our health system.
I support Amendments 152, 156 and 157 and look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House and within the NHS to ensure their success in achieving a critical and long-needed systemic change to our health and care system. Addressing the needs of the most excluded has to be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will make three very practical points about the impact of some of these amendments. First, on tobacco, we have heard from at least two noble Lords that half the difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor in society is due to tobacco. It seems a no-brainer that work on this has to be continued. I also make the point that it took something like 50 years after the evidence was first available for the control of tobacco to be put into legislation, despite the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. It is not a quick win; we need to persevere, keep the pressure on and keep this very firmly in NHS plans at all levels.
Secondly, I want to pick up on the vital point that housing needs to be much more integrated with health and care. Let me take us back in history to 1919 and the first Ministry of Health, which had responsibilities covering health, housing and planning for many years, understanding the very important links there. Covid has shown that a house and home is an absolute foundation for health and well-being in all kinds of ways. I will not labour that point at this stage in proceedings, but will pick up another that has not come up, which is how important housing is to the provision of NHS services.
Seven years ago, the Royal College of Psychiatrists asked me to look at the reasons for the pressure on admissions to mental health acute wards. I did so; I think it expected me to say that those wards needed more beds, but I came out saying that we needed more housing. I found that something like one-third of the patients in mental health acute wards in adult hospitals either had been admitted because there was nowhere else for them to go or were staying there because there was nowhere for them to live to be discharged to. Housing was the biggest issue. Of the 25 NHS trusts around the country, only about three had specific, strong links with their local housing associations. There is a really big pressure for integration there.
Thirdly and finally, I come to Amendments 152 and 157 about the so-called inclusion health services. I agree with my noble friend on the nomenclature and that the naming is rather awkward, but these are extraordinary vital. We have heard examples of services that work; the issue here is how we can make sure that those services are spread and used elsewhere. I remind the House that, when we talk about inequalities, we all, including me, talk in fairly general terms. If you have a quantum of money and invest it in the health of the well-educated middle classes, you will get a small gain. If you invested that same quantum of money in the needs of this group, you would have a massive gain. That should inspire us to keep the pressure on the Government to make sure that we put tackling inequalities absolutely at the heart of the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak more briefly than I had intended, because this has been a very long debate, absolutely full of expertise, about a suite of amendments all of which have considerable merit. I know that both Ministers on the Front Bench have been listening very carefully and have noted the consensus across the Committee that this Bill will not succeed unless it addresses very clearly the disgraceful health inequalities in this country at the moment.
Health inequality affects quality of life, life expectancy and, in particular, healthy life expectancy, which has now stalled across certain demographic groups. As we have heard, it has been analysed brilliantly by Professor Sir Michael Marmot. It affects the well-being of the patient and their family. The really sad thing is that much of it is preventable. These things are particularly rife in the poorer parts of the country, because that is where the social determinants of health such as housing, referred to by my noble friend Lord Shipley and others, have most effect. We have heard a number of statistics about health inequalities, but I shall give your Lordships just one. People living in the most deprived areas of the UK spend almost a third of their lives in poor health, compared to only about a sixth of those living in the least deprived areas. That says it all.
Unfortunately, inequalities were not at the forefront of the Government’s response to the pandemic. They suspended equality impact assessments for legislation, resisted publication of evidence of the impact of the virus on BAME individuals—as pointed out to them eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—and failed to provide adequate isolation support for those on low incomes, forcing them to go to work. The Covid pandemic has therefore seen the biggest shift in life expectancy in the UK since World War 2: a fall of 1.2 years in males and 0.9 years in females. It is therefore essential to heed Sir Michael Marmot’s words and “build back fairer” and not just “better”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, kindly mentioned the report of the Science and Technology Committee on healthy ageing. I was a member of that committee under the capable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It became very clear from our witnesses that unhealthy ageing happens years before the person is old and depends enormously on their demographic and their lifestyle. For their sake and for the sake of the future of the NHS, for which no Government will ever be able to provide enough funding unless something is done on prevention, we must do something to level up the health outcomes of the nation. This Bill is a very good place to start all over again on that agenda.
I have added my name to Amendment 11, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, whom I must congratulate on the way she analysed these issues at the beginning of this debate. I thank her for that. Also crucial is Amendment 14, so ably promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Tyler. Amendment 11 is an attempt to ensure that NHS England produces guidance about the collection, analysis, reporting and publication of the data which makes transparent the performance of various NHS bodies on health inequalities. Without collecting that, we cannot judge the performance of those organisations. If it is not done consistently, we cannot assess an organisation’s performance in comparison to other similar bodies. That is why such guidance must come from the top. I know that the Government want each ICS to do its own thing in a way which it considers most appropriate for its area. However, for the important objective of levelling up health outcomes across the population, judgment of performance can be made only if the data is comparable between one ICS and another or one trust and another, so we cannot leave it to them to collect the data in any way they like.
Of course, there are big issues about the resources available for the collection and analysis of data, but such information is essential if improvements are to be made. Therefore, a duty to “have regard” to guidance published by NHSE would put pressure on the organisations to so arrange their finances as to ensure adequate resources for this, and, of course, it would be cost-effective.
I also have Amendments 61 and 63 in this group. They would insert “assess and” into new Section 14Z35 inserted by Clause 20, which covers the duty of an integrated care board to reduce inequalities in access to health services across its population and in the health outcomes achieved. Although it is well known that, in general, the lower the demographic the greater the health inequalities, this is by no means uniform, even across a single local authority, let alone across a large ICS area. Indeed, even within a single local government ward, which may be fairly affluent in general, there are often pockets of deprivation. Every local councillor knows where they are. In order to devise policies and deploy services geographically in a way that improves access and outcomes for those deprived communities, the ICS needs to drill down and do the detailed work to identify where they are and what factors are damaging health. It may be poor or overcrowded housing. It may be lack of access to shops selling healthy food. It may be lack of access to leisure and sports facilities in which to take exercise. It may be poorly performing schools or overstretched primary care services. It may simply be poverty, preventing people heating their homes adequately or buying nutritious food. In rural areas, it may be lack of access to pretty well everything, as the right reverend Prelate reminded us. Whatever it is, you cannot fix it until you know what and where it is.
That is one of the reasons why we reject the new power of the Secretary of State to meddle in the reconfiguration of health services locally, but that is a debate for another time. In cases such as this, an overview will not do, and local knowledge is key. That is why we believe it is essential to mandate an ICB to do the detailed research on which to base its commissioning decisions, so that it can fulfil the duty to reduce health inequality put on it by this Bill—once it has been amended by a lot of these amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
You have not heard what I am going to say yet.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate; it has been fascinating. It has touched on a number of things that I feel strongly about personally. Before we go further, and given my background and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I want to assure noble Lords that we both feel very strongly about inequalities. I say that as someone who grew up in a working-class immigrant community. I was born at Whittington Hospital; I also accessed North Middlesex hospital and Chase Farm Hospital, with which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is associated, though I am not sure I will get any more points for that, to be honest.
One thing I feel strongly about, and saw in many areas when I was an MEP for London, is where the state has failed, whichever Government was in power. I have worked with non-state, local community, bottom-up projects which understood the issues in their communities far better than any national or local politician—there was sometimes even a distance between them and their local ward councillor, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and I were discussing the other day.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, not only for the thoughtful way in which she opened the debate and introduced the amendments but for pointing out some of the people who are often forgotten; for example, the homeless. I have worked with a number of local community homeless projects, such as the Hope Foundation in Acton and Vision Care for Homeless People. Perhaps I may also do a quick advert for the Take One, Leave One project, which is based outside Vauxhall station on Fridays, between 12 pm and 3 pm —people can leave excess clothes and homeless people can pick them up. I urge any noble Lords passing through Vauxhall station on a Friday to support this.
Sex workers, the Traveller community and drug users have been mentioned. Sometimes we think that these issues are remote from us and will not affect us—but everyone is only one of two steps away from homelessness. A broken family, mental health issues, your friends saying, after a while, “Actually, you can’t stay on my sofa any more”—where do you go? When I have met homeless people, they have quite often come from a very different place, not the stereotype that we often hear. They have come from quite a stable family, a good relationship, a good job: but two or three things have gone wrong in their life and suddenly they are homeless. It happens to many people who resort to such desperate measures.
Another thing I am slightly concerned about, if I am honest, is that when I was a young child growing up in immigrant communities, there was a distrust of authority. We see the difficulty, for example with the vaccine schemes, in trying to reach some of those communities. It was not only authority that we were quite suspicious of and concerned about but—I hope noble Lords will forgive me for using this phrase—white, middle-class do-gooders who thought they knew best what was best for us as working-class immigrant people and could tell us what was best for us, rather than listening to us and our real concerns. Quite often we felt that they had captured the agenda, and that was why the money and resources which were supposed to be helping us did not reach the people who needed help: it got captured by the white, middle-class do-gooders.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for the emphasis on the arts and creative industries. Sometimes, music and the arts are a way of overcoming this distrust, learning about the culture of those communities and also aligning the culture and the issues with some of the very real problems and tensions we face. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, talked about prevention being better than cure. It is an issue we talk about constantly in the department, and the NHS also talks about it. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, as an economist, will acknowledge that economics is often simply about the allocation of scarce resources and finding the most efficient way of achieving that.
My late father once told me, “Never forget where you came from and what you were”, and this is one of the reasons I feel very strongly, as do many noble Lords across the Committee, about the issue of inequalities. How do we tackle this, what is the best way to do it? Will putting it in the Bill solve all the problems? Actually, it will not, but we can discuss how we can make it more effective, and not just feel, “Great, we’ve got it in the Bill, job done”. It has to be more than that. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, it cannot just be an institutionalised Gladys; it has to be more than that. So, I am deeply grateful that we gave this issue the time it deserves. It is really important for me personally. We want to tackle health inequalities and ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to enjoy a long and healthy life, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their background or social circumstances.
I hope I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, with whom I have had a number of conversations about music and dementia. I have volunteered, perhaps rather rashly, to organise a fundraiser with my band and other bands for that. I hope that does not give me an excuse to lay the YouTube link to my band in the Library: I shall try to avoid that temptation.
However, to deliver on the commitment on 1 October, we launched the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities within the Department of Health and Social Care—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, anticipated that I would say this—and we also set up a cross-government ministerial group to identify and tackle the wider determinants of poor health and health disparities. It is important that this cannot be top-down; we have to go to some of the social enterprises and local communities, but also we must not prejudge, prevent or duplicate the work of the integrated care systems in this. NHS England is already tackling health disparities through the NHS long-term plan. That sets out a clear intention to set measurable goals and to make differential allocations targeted at reducing health inequalities and disparities. This has resulted in funding increases to some of the most deprived parts of the country.
As we know, making sure that these deprived areas get the most funding does not mean it will trickle down to those who really need it; it could well be captured by some of the do-gooders I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talked about those targeted interventions. NHS England and NHS Improvement is also taking forward the Core20PLUS5 initiative as an approach to addressing health inequalities. This will focus on improving outcomes in the poorest 20% of the population, along with inclusion health groups and five priority clinical focus areas.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very able response, but I have to say that I am very disappointed by it. He appears to be sticking to his brief and resisting all of our amendments. I suppose this is not surprising because his brief was written before this very powerful debate. Now that he has heard the debate, I hope he will go back to the department, discuss with his colleagues, and reflect on the need to put something in the Bill to ensure that the new world of integrated care systems really addresses health inequalities.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Hear, hear to that. As I stand in your Lordships’ House, I know that I am between noble Lords and their lunch, so I will do my best to be as quick as I can. I also feel that I need to declare an interest, as I am a non-executive director of the Whittington Trust, so my boss—the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—is in the corner over there.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 13th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (13 Jan 2022)
Baroness Hayman
“(d) how the decision is likely to contribute to—(i) compliance with the duty imposed by section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target),(ii) adaptation to climate change, and(iii) meeting other environmental goals (such as restoration or enhancement of the natural environment).”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to include, as part of NHS England’s duties, a requirement that when making a decision about the exercise of its functions, it must have regard to how any decision is likely to contribute to the UK’s climate change and environmental goals.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15 I will speak also to Amendments 43, 101 and 153 in my name. I also support Amendments 201 and 210 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham. I am grateful to him, the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for adding their names to my amendments. I should declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet, and my regret that I was not able to be present at Second Reading of the Bill.
I doubt that this debate will mirror the length and enthusiasm of so many participants around the Committee in the outstanding earlier debate. However, I should say that the issues that prompt these amendments are equally serious. The Government spent much of last year in preparation for the COP 26 climate meeting and all year, before and since, they stressed the gravity of the climate crisis that the country and the world face, the importance of making progress internationally and on our own domestic targets, which are statutory, and the importance of taking action across all departments and all sectors of the economy and the country’s activities.
The aim of these amendments is to embed consideration of the UK’s climate change and environmental goals throughout the Bill, in much the same way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, described how earlier amendments attempted to integrate throughout the Bill the issue of inequalities. I am disturbed, despite the Government’s commitments and despite the experience with other Bills—I look at the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who knows well that we have had similar debates on the Financial Services Bill. Those ended happily, and I hope that we can do the same on this Bill. But it is disturbing that we are still getting legislation through the House as if we were not in the midst of a climate crisis and as if we did not have the most challenging targets on net zero, biodiversity and environmental change.
We turn to the NHS. I suggest to the Committee that the NHS has a vital role to play if the Government are to achieve their key strategic priority of net zero by 2050. The NHS is responsible for approximately 5% of the UK’s carbon emissions and around 40% of all public sector emissions. Recognising that, and with the outstanding leadership of my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham, the NHS has committed to an ambitious net-zero plan. It was the first national health service to make net-zero commitments, and at COP 26 last year 14 other countries followed the NHS’s lead and set net-zero emissions targets for their own health services, illustrating how important domestic action can be on the global stage.
My amendments seek to integrate that overarching NHS plan into the new structures set up in this Bill and to join the dots between high-level policy and the new integrated care boards and care partnerships. They seek to embed climate and environmental considerations into the responsibilities and activities of NHS England, ICBs and ICPs, so that, throughout the NHS, climate action, environmental goals and climate adaptation are taken into account.
I should make clear that contributing to the achievement of net zero is important for the NHS not only in contributing to national targets for reducing the volume of emissions; it is also an important element in improving public and individual health. Rising global temperatures and air pollution, for example, directly contribute to rates of major diseases, including asthma, heart disease and cancer. Again, the link to the earlier debate about inequalities is very clear.
The Government themselves have recognised the link between reducing emissions and improving health, talking in their own net-zero strategy of the
“physical and mental health benefits”
of that strategy. The Climate Change Committee, in its progress report to Parliament last year, spoke of
“significant, tangible improvements to public health”
from reaching net zero. These views were echoed in the report from the Academy of Medical Sciences and the Royal Society, A Healthy Future: Tackling Climate Change Mitigation and Human Health Together, which was published last year. It is in the interests of the health of the country, as well as of the Government achieving their targets, to ensure that the NHS plays its part.
As I said earlier, the NHS itself has recognised the importance of this issue on both those counts and is committed to taking action, but we need to embed that commitment throughout the structures of the service. If my amendments are agreed to, this Bill can contribute by providing strategic direction and a clear policy framework at all levels of the NHS.
Amendment 15 adds to the list of the wider effects that NHS England has a duty to have regard to when making a decision about the exercise of its functions. Having heard the Minister respond to the earlier debate, I know that this will not necessarily be an attractive proposition to him, but I think it is important. If Amendment 15 is agreed, in addition to the matters set out in Clause 5, NHS England would have a duty to have regard to how its decisions are likely to contribute to the UK’s climate change and environmental targets.
Noble Lords will recognise that the wording is broader than simply the achievement of our statutory net-zero commitments, but it may reassure noble Lords, and Ministers in particular, to know that it mirrors the terms of an amendment the Government introduced after a similar debate on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. Importantly, the wording includes the “adaptation to climate change” necessary to build resilience within the healthcare sector and protect the health of our current and future populations. This reflects the recognition in the NHS’s own net-zero strategy and adaptation report that climate breakdown may affect the healthcare system with increasingly adverse environmental conditions. It is sobering to note that, over the last 15 years, at least 15 hospitals have experienced major flooding incidents, causing disruption to patient services or hospital support services. Attention to vulnerability in this area needs to be an important focus for NHS England.
Amendment 101 would impose a similar new duty on integrated care boards to contribute to the same three objectives set out in Amendment 15, ensuring that trickle-down of policy objectives through the system.
Amendment 43 also deals with integrated care boards, mandating that their constitutions must provide for a member to be designated—not appointed, I should make clear, but for an appointed member to be designated—as having responsibility for climate change and the environment. This would reflect the NHS’s net-zero plan, which highlights the importance of
“ensuring that every NHS organisation has a board-level net-zero lead”.
This amendment implements that part of the plan in relation to the new framework of ICBs, created in the Bill, and having a board-level lead is an approach which has proved successful in other sectors.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and support all the amendments in this group in her name. I speak particularly to Amendments 201 and 210 which, as she said, refer specifically to using the purchasing power of the NHS to drive this agenda. Given how brilliantly she has set out the case, I shall be extremely concise.
There are two evidence-based reasons why these amendments are important. The first, as the noble Baroness said, is because the health consequences of the environmental crisis are increasingly clear. The Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences laid all of those out. Whether on heat-related deaths, the disruption to care through climate emergencies, the increased risk of vector-borne infectious diseases, or the fact that up to a third of preventable asthma cases may be linked to the consequences of air pollution, the health case for action is clear. The second evidence-based reason, again as we have just heard, is that unfortunately healthcare itself is not blameless. It is part of the problem as well as part of a solution. By one estimate, if all the health systems in the world were their own country, they would be the fifth-largest greenhouse gas emitter on the planet. Therefore, the NHS must get its act together, given that it contributes 4% to 5% of our country’s emissions.
Those are the two evidence-based reasons. The NHS has stepped up in the way that the noble Baroness has set out. An expert panel led by the brilliant Dr Nick Watts made it the first health service in the world to charter a practical blueprint to net zero, but to do that, we must recognise that only about 28% of the carbon footprint of the NHS arises directly from care being provided. Another 10 percentage points are associated with travel on the part of patients, staff and visitors, but 62% of the carbon footprint arises from the supply chain—the medicines, the devices, the anaesthetic gases, the asthma inhalers, that the NHS uses, which it procures from 80,000-plus suppliers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prior of Brampton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hayman, for their support of my Amendments 201 and 210. Their purpose is simply to harness the £150 billion of purchasing power that will flow through either the new NHS payment system or the procurement rules to achieve the two evidence-based rationales that we have been discussing.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is my first foray into this Bill. I have a sense of déjà vu, having deputised for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the 2012 Bill. Despite our absolute confidence at the time, it seems that some things need to be tweaked and rectified, though I now find myself on this side and the noble Earl on the other.
From these Benches, I support these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, put it very effectively. Climate change needs to run through to the very foundations of the Bill, as does addressing the health inequalities which were the subject of the previous debate. We have had such a long-standing debate about them over the years.
As the noble Baroness has said, at the moment, the UK is taking the lead internationally on combatting climate change through COP 26 and in the year after. We have been urging the world to take urgent, deep-rooted action if the enormously damaging effects of climate change are to be tackled and reversed. We know that the poorest will be hardest hit and can already see that effect, but no part of the globe will be spared. We can already see this as well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, we also know the effects on human health worldwide. We can see them already in developed countries: we saw the effect of that heat dome in Canada and the deaths that resulted from it. We know that climate change might have played a part in seeding the pandemic from which we have suffered during the last two years. We know all that. We also know that we cannot lead internationally without addressing climate change nationally. I pay tribute to the staff supporting Peers for the Planet, a group of which I am a member, for making sure that we address climate change at every stage, in every Bill.
We are rightly proud of the NHS. It is the major employer in the United Kingdom. The health and social care of our ageing population will play an ever more important role in our lives. It is therefore right that, in the Bill, as in every other area of life, tackling climate change must run as a thread through all we do. The Climate Change Committee makes this clear. It is not something for only Defra or the COP team. It requires fundamental change in everything we do and the scrutiny of every area of life.
The NHS has already made strides forward. Here, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in making sure that that was the case. At COP 26, the NHS made a commitment to net zero. As we have heard, 14 other countries followed the NHS’s lead. More than 50 countries, representing more than a third of global healthcare emissions, have committed to developing sustainable, low-carbon health systems. This is incredibly encouraging. It is also encouraging that, at COP 26, a new international platform was set up—to be hosted in partnership with NHS England and the WHO—to bring together those in the healthcare systems, so that people can learn from each other.
Why does this matter? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has said, the healthcare sector is responsible for almost 5% of global emissions. Of course, public health is assisted by tackling climate change. Although we pay tribute to what the NHS has managed to do so far—and it is ahead of its requirements under the Climate Change Act—we need to make sure that this is built in and sustained for the future. This is what these amendments are about. Progress is being made, but we need to ensure that it is locked in and does not necessarily depend simply on who is leading these organisations at any particular time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has explained how her first amendment affects the overarching structure within NHS England. The other amendments put in place the necessary pragmatic steps to make sure that this is addressed. Thus, we have identified individuals for these particular responsibilities. This is obviously of key importance.
It is fundamental that, in addressing climate change, we do not just see this as hosting a major meeting or siloed in one department—whether Defra or BEIS. I am a member of the Select Committee on the Environment and Climate Change. When our committee asked the different departments to report on what they were doing in advance of COP what came back to us, in many regards, was a kind of surprise that they were relevant to it. They felt that it was something for Defra, for BEIS in particular, or for the COP unit. They did not see it as their responsibility. Some of the responses were superficial in the extreme. That is why it is important to make sure that we mainstream this issue, and this is another opportunity to do so. I strongly support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others have tabled.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it may not surprise your Lordships’ House that as a Green Peer, I rise to offer my full support to all these amendments. I also declare my involvement with Peers for the Planet.
In introducing this group so comprehensively and, I would say, brilliantly, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said it was just important as the group that we were discussing previously, which addressed inequalities in issues such as smoking and alcohol and their impacts on health. I would actually go further and say that the two groups are intimately related, in that when someone arrives at the NHS needing treatment for an illness or a disease, at a point where their environment and society, often, has failed and has created or amplified that disease, the NHS then has to deal with the problems created by society and that environment. We need a systems-thinking approach to health—not just “Here’s a disease” or “Here’s a limb or an organ with a problem” —that considers the whole person. I say in passing that I regret that I was not able to take part in that earlier group due to my being unable to be here at the start.
I am not going to run through all the amendments, which have been very well covered, but they go all the way from the duty of the NHS to have regard to climate and the environment, right down to the detail of procurement. I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. We would like to see the Government take control of procurement more broadly to improve our society. The Preston model comes to mind here.
I want to address the climate side of this issue, and then I am mostly going to talk about the environmental side, which has not been discussed much yet; I want to add something different rather than repeat. However, I have to highlight the fact that we are talking about 5% of UK climate emissions and 40% of public service emissions.
We really have to think about the interrelationship of environment and health. We know that heatwaves have huge impacts, particularly on the health of older people. They can be a significant cause of death among older people, and as long as the NHS contributes to climate change, there is a disastrous cycle there. Also, some 10% of London hospitals are at risk of river flooding. I have not been able to find figures for the country as a whole, but I am sure that will be true for many other hospitals too.
While preparing for today’s debate, I looked at the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, which we debated last year. It is a little unfortunate that, as I look around the Chamber today, practically no one is present who attended those debates. That Act was a huge missed opportunity. It requires that when the appropriate authorities are approving veterinary medicines, they must have regard to their environmental impacts. I moved an amendment—but lost the vote—that would have applied the same judgment to human medicines. This point applies particularly to antibiotic resistance. I am not going to repeat everything I said in Committee on 26 October, but it is all there. The management of antibiotic resistance is a huge issue that the NHS needs to do a great deal more on, as do all global health systems.
I want to focus on some other aspects of the environmental impacts of the NHS today, particularly in light of the report by the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place on the state of our rivers. The Bloomberg Green newsletter going around the world today has the following headline:
“English Rivers Join Europe’s Most Noxious with Chemical Cocktail”.
That report notes, as have many others, that:
“No river … received a clean bill of health for chemical contamination.”
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I support these amendments and in particular the words of my noble friend Lady Northover. I too am a member of Peers for the Planet and, as a biologist, I have been devoted to trying to address climate change ever since I knew anything at all about it. I particularly support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in her determination to mainstream the issue. It is not the responsibility of just Defra but every department of government and every single individual in this country.
From my work on the Science and Technology Committee, I was aware of the health service’s 5% contribution to our emissions, but also of what the NHS has already done and pledged to do under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens. I confess I was a little surprised when I saw these amendments; I thought, given all that, “Why does the noble Lord think more needs to be done?” The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, knows more than I or any of us do about the health service, so if he thinks more needs to be done, I am with him. We absolutely should support these amendments.
I would like to ask the Minister one particular question. The NHS has a very large portfolio of property and the Prime Minister has promised 40 new hospitals in a certain period of time. Leaving aside the fact that some of the buildings promised are not hospitals and are not new, if we are building new buildings, I would like to be assured that all of them will be zero-carbon. That can be done and there is no excuse not to do it.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the four noble Lords who have produced this excellent suite of amendments across the Bill to ensure that ICBs procuring or commissioning goods and services on behalf of the NHS are firmly focused on their responsibility for NHS England’s commitment to reaching net zero by 2040. It has been an excellent and informed debate, and one with much enthusiasm to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
We fully support the amendments and have little to add from these Benches following the expert contributions of those proposing the amendments and the other noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry my noble friend Lady Young, who put her name to the amendments, cannot be here. She was a key member of our team during the recent passage of the Environment Bill, and her expertise and wisdom always guides and reflects our approach. The House is clearly interested in this vital matter, as we saw this week in an important Oral Question on the Prime Minister’s promise for a new, overarching net-zero test for new policies. Assuming the Government fully support the key commitment from NHS England, I hope that, in his response, the Minister will accept the need for the amendments and will not argue that the proposed new clause is unnecessary as NHS England already has a commitment that will percolate down to ICBs.
As we have heard, the power of public sector procurement is a massive issue and there is no bigger part of the public sector than the NHS. The NHS has such an important impact on other environment issues, such as waste, pollution and resource consumption, especially for plastics, paper and water. We should ensure we are on the front foot in using that impact to deliver the net-zero commitment.
The NHS has made a start, but there is much more to do. These amendments would reinforce the importance of action in these areas for the new bodies and processes that the Bill creates. The NHS is a big player and, as noble Lords have stressed, it can play a big role in tackling all of these climate change and environmental challenges. Procurement is a strong lever that the NHS can utilise in key markets, particularly in those areas where it is the sole purchaser. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, was very eloquent on this issue and I look forward to the Minister’s response in the light of his contribution.
Like other speakers today, my noble friend Lady Young wanted to stress that action so far is only the beginning. In the light of the importance of climate change and other environmental challenges, we strongly support such a duty being in place for all the public and private bodies with significant impacts when future legislation comes through Parliament. We did that when inserting a sustainable development duty into the remit of every possible public body from the late 1990s onwards, but this time it has to be not only enacted but managed, delivered, tracked and reported.
As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, told the House this week, every sector of government needs to do its bit, and we need to hold them to that. These amendments are vital, since every public body will have to take further action this decade if we are to restrain temperature rises to two degrees—far less, 1.5 degrees.
Finally, I too thank Peers for the Planet both for its work and, especially for me, its excellent briefing. As noble Lords have stressed, the NHS has committed to net zero and aims to be the world’s first net-zero national health service. It is responsible for around 5% of the UK’s carbon emissions. That is why the NHS’s role and contribution to net-zero targets should be fully integrated into the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response and his detailing of how the NHS is to achieve its ambitions. I hope that he will acknowledge that its commitment must be in the Bill. These amendments present a vital opportunity to enshrine in law a commitment that I think most, if not all, would want to see delivered.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for the amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her opening remarks. I also thank the noble Baroness for her suggestion yesterday that it might make my life a lot easier if I just accepted amendments. I understand that advice, having just gone through a two-hour debate on the previous group.
A number of noble Lords referred to how these amendments relate to our previous debate on inequalities. I point out that that is sometimes not quite in the way that we would expect. We might think there is a direct connection, but sometimes the green agenda can be seen to be for those who can afford it—as I explained before, for the white, middle-class, patronising people who tell immigrant working-class communities what to do and push up their costs. Anti-car policies push up costs for those in rural areas, and there are higher fuel costs as we replace gas boilers with potentially more expensive heat pumps. We have to be aware of those issues. In the long term, I am optimistic. I look forward to the day when we have solar power and wind power, with storage capacity, which will reduce costs.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Will the Minister look at this globally and recognise that the poorest are affected the worst? When he talks about those in poverty, he should think globally.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I accept that point, but I also accept that, sometimes, one can be patronised, and I do not accept being patronised as I was in the earlier debate. One day, there will be cheaper fuel, and we can look forward to it, but we have to make sure that the transition along the way is not seen to push up costs for working people, because we all feel passionately about this green agenda.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister was talking about the impact of policies on the poor. Does he agree that many of the products—the fabrics, the chemicals—are manufactured in the poorest areas of the world, producing pollution that has disastrous impacts on some of the poorest people?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I was going to come to the noble Baroness’s points, and I am grateful to her for raising these issues directly with me previously.
Turning to the amendments, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Prior, for bringing this debate before the Committee. There is no doubt that the NHS has a significant carbon footprint. There is no doubt that a poor environment has direct and immediate consequence for our patients, the public and the NHS. There is no doubt that it has an impact on the health of the nation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, pointed out, the NHS accounts for around 4% to 5% of UK emissions. If we go further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that is 40% of public service emissions. Noble Lords are right to highlight the critical role that the NHS has to play in achieving net zero.
To support that work, NHS England—thanks in part to work already started by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who I know has had conversations with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—is leading the way through a dedicated programme of work, as many noble Lords acknowledged. This includes ambitious targets for achieving net zero for the NHS carbon footprint by 2045 and for its direct emissions by 2040. This is ahead of the target set by Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; we welcome that ambition and will continue to support the NHS in that.
Lord Mawson (CB)
I thank the Minister. Can I just give an illustration about the local on this issue? I am certainly not an expert on climate change, but I am a practical person who worries a lot about granularity and the gap between a lot of talk I have heard over many years on all sides of this Chamber—with very large amounts of money cited, et cetera—and the realities in this building.
I am trying to buy an electric car at the moment, as a responsible citizen. When I went to have a look at the multi-storey car park below this building—the local—and wondered where I am going to plug it in when it arrives here, I ended up talking to one of the facilities managers, who was a very nice man. I asked him how many plug-in points there were underneath this building—again, the local. He said, “I don’t know, Lord Mawson, but I will look into this”.
He was diligent and came back to me. We started to have a conversation about it, and he began to suggest that I need to carry a cable in my car with a three-pin plug. I pointed out that my office is across St Margaret Street, in Old Palace Yard, on the third floor, so maybe I should run it across there with a carpet over it and up to the third floor to plug it in there. We had this amusing conversation. I said, “Well, go on then, tell me: how many are there in this building, where all this chatter and talk is taking place?” His answer was that there are two. I suggest that the gap between reality and rhetoric is very large indeed. If we are really going to deal with these issues—as we must—we must now become intensely interested in the NHS and in all the systems of government about practicality and the procurement machinery, which I suggest is not working.
I talked to one of the facilities people yesterday about my office, which has a light switch with a notice over the top of it telling you how to use it. It is completely ludicrous. She told me that that system is going to be different to all the systems here in the Palace of Westminster; none of it is joined up.
I think the Minister is right. The clue is in the local, but all our systems and our civil servants must now become interested in practicality and the local if we are really going to get serious about these matters. It is absolutely crucial to get procurement right, because without that, we will never deliver this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for that intervention, and I completely agree. There are some incredibly inspirational projects going on in our local communities, tackling and addressing the green agenda, and sometimes, top-down, we may feel good about it in this place, but it really affects working people and those who face higher costs and we have to be very careful.
On the specific question of procurement, the NHS is already publicly committed to purchasing only from suppliers which are aligned with its net-zero ambitions by 2030, and last year, NHS England set out its roadmap giving further details to suppliers to 2030. This is supported by a broad range of further action on NHS net zero and we hope that by pushing this through at NHS England level, but also with ICSs, we can see some of that local innovation as local trusts and local care systems and even health and well-being boards respond to those local challenges—others could learn nationally. To respond to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, NHS England will publish the world’s first net-zero healthcare building standard; this will apply to all projects being taken forward through the Government’s new hospital programme, which will see 48 new hospital facilities built across England by 2030.
There is political consensus on green issues. and we should pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the Green Party for making sure, over the years, that the green agenda has been put at the centre of British politics. We find green policies in all the election manifestos of the mainstream parties: that is in no small part due to the noble Baroness’s party and to the noble Baroness herself. So, even while we may disagree on how to achieve some of these things, there is no doubt that we are not going to reverse on our commitment. Whatever Governments are elected in future, all are committed to a carbon net-zero strategy and a cleaner environment. So, I must gently disagree with her that these amendments are necessary.
I would like to have further conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, given his experience, on why he feels that, despite all the great work that the NHS has been doing, these amendments are still necessary. I would like to have further conversations with him and others, but at this stage, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. Across the political spectrum, we must make sure that we are pushing the NHS to deliver, not only at the national level but at the ICS level and even lower, at the place level that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, speaks so eloquently about.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he respond to the question, of which I gave him prior notice, about the document?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness—I am so sorry, but I am trying to juggle 300 devices. That is a slight exaggeration, if I am honest. We recognise the importance of ensuring that all chemicals in the NHS supply chain are appropriate and properly managed as part of the net-zero strategy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, even touched upon some of the chemicals that were used and some of the issues he looked at during his time at the NHS when it comes to chemicals. The NHS must also comply fully with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, the CoSHH regulations.
More broadly, although Defra is the lead department for harmful chemicals, the UK Health Security Agency feeds in its expertise in relation to restricting and banning chemicals, and we are grateful to it for that work. The UKHSA is also looking at each of those chemicals, which we hope in future can be replaced by less harmful materials and chemicals. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness in more detail than the short answer I have given her at this stage.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all Members who contributed to this debate, which got slightly more feisty than I expected it to do in some areas. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful if I do not respond on the issue of electric charging points in your Lordships’ House, which has concerned me for four years, but there are one or two important things to be said here. There are two dangers. One danger—I fear the Minister nearly got there—is to suggest that those who are concerned about climate are not concerned about fairness or inequality and do not realise the dangers, on everything from heating to electric vehicles or whatever. However, there is not that layer of people who are concerned only with the climate in theory. Most of us who are active in this area are extremely concerned about a fair transition and the implications of individual policies.
The other false dichotomy is that either you work on the absolutely granular local stuff or you make highfalutin legislation that is not relevant to anyone. We need both. We need to go throughout the system. We are legislators. Legislation matters and words matter. Sometimes legislation matters because Governments and policies change but legislation is there in statute—the words are on the page.
Of course I will seek to withdraw my amendment and of course I will have conversations with the Minister, but it is essential that we tackle this, the most serious of issues facing the world. Covid is the crisis of our time but the climate is the crisis of our age and we absolutely need to address it at all the levels that we can—and there are many. As I say, we are legislators and we can start some of that trickle-down. We have a responsibility to monitor and ensure that we end up with exactly the level of granularity that we need—and that we learn from the local. I am happy to delay conversations with the Minister for a later date. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Duty to consider residents of other parts of UK
For section 13O of the National Health Service Act 2006 substitute—“13O Duty to consider residents of other parts of UK(1) In making a decision about the exercise of its functions, NHS England must have regard to any likely impact of the decision on—(a) the provision of health services to people who reside in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, or(b) services provided in England for the purposes of—(i) the health service in Wales,(ii) the system of health care mentioned in section 2(1)(a) of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c. 1 (N.I.)), or(iii) the health service established under section 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. (2) The Secretary of State must publish guidance for NHS England on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1).(3) NHS England must have regard to guidance published under subsection (2).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a duty on NHS England to consider the likely impact of their decisions on the residents of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to consider the impact of services provided in England on patient care in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, in moving my amendment I will speak also to Amendments 205 and 301. I thank my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie for their support for these amendments.
It is a pleasure to follow two excellent debates. I suspect—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, we are never quite sure how feisty the debates on these groups will get—that we may spend an even shorter time on this group to enable the Committee to make progress. These amendments are relatively simple, designed to improve transparency, quality and access to healthcare for residents in all parts of the United Kingdom. I thank Ministers for their engagement so far on the amendments. In particular, Amendments 205 and 301 were tabled in the House of Commons by Robin Millar MP and others.
The NHS is a UK institution. It could not have been developed without the combined economic strength of our United Kingdom and has developed from unifying United Kingdom values—you might even say that the NHS embodies them. It includes a promise that, wherever in the United Kingdom you are from and whatever your situation, you are entitled to the same protection and treatment. That is why the first two amendments, Amendments 17 and 205, are about access by patients to a consistent national standard of healthcare.
The unfortunate reality, of course, is that many UK residents do not have equal access to healthcare. Referral-to-treatment waiting times for England, Scotland and Wales are, respectively, 11 days, 32 or 42 days—depending on whether you are talking about in-patients or out-patients in Scotland—and 21.5 days. These headline figures are concerning enough. However, they obscure even more stark differences when treatments are considered separately.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I am very keen to speak to these amendments. This is the first time I have been able to contribute to this Bill, and I apologise for not being here for Second Reading. I was actually talking to Members of the Scottish Parliament about NICE and SIGN guidelines on the day of Second Reading, so I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute now. I will speak to Amendments 17, 205 and 301. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for tabling them; I would have added my name to all three if I had got in quick enough.
We all appreciate that health and care are devolved matters. As my noble friend outlined, the Scottish Administration have taken a very different path on health and care over recent years, which perhaps could be characterised as worrying less about long-term funding and pursuing a more centralised approach. The Bill is therefore predominantly and rightly focused on matters relating to England, but a number of clauses addressed by these amendments relate to devolved areas. I note that the Scottish Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland have yet to grant the Bill legislative consent, believing that some clauses do not reflect the devolution agreement. I beg to put that these amendments are slightly different, in that they do not cover a specific area of delivery within devolved nations.
Amendment 17 simply covers how NHS England should consider the impact of any decisions it might make on patient outcomes in the devolved Administrations. Amendment 205 protects the right of access to treatment and services for all citizens throughout the UK. Amendment 301 seems to be simple common sense, in that it ensures the interoperability of data and collection of comparable healthcare statistics across the UK.
I support these amendments on a number of counts. First, the pandemic has highlighted the huge importance of good data, and close collaboration and working, throughout all health and care services in all parts of the UK—whether that is knowledge gathering, information sharing, vaccine development and rollout, or anything else. The pandemic has demonstrated yet again that we are “better together”. In the realm of healthcare, I support any measure that ensures that we do not work in silos and that barriers are not created in the provision of healthcare that prevent seamless co-operation throughout the UK. This will become ever more important as roles change, technology advances and services develop.
We particularly need to ensure a UK approach to data gathering and healthcare statistics, as set out in Amendment 305. The disparities do not just present a barrier to consumers of healthcare—the public: voters, indeed—and their understanding and ability to evaluate standards of care in their area, as my noble friend Lady Morgan just illustrated. The lack of interoperability of data has real and detrimental consequences for health research, patient care, and ensuring and promoting continuous improvement in healthcare. This is before we even consider inconvenience and inefficiency.
My eldest daughter stands in danger of being caught out by the current unsatisfactory situation. As a student at the University of St Andrews, she had her first two Covid vaccinations in Scotland, recorded on the NHS Scotland app under her CHI number, which is the number that NHS Scotland uses to identify patients. By the time it came to her booster and third injection, she was working as a graduate trainee in London. She duly went along in December and queued at a drop-in centre for her booster. However, the two systems do not match, so nowhere can she now show her proof of having three doses of the vaccine—which might lead to some problems if she wants to go to the rugby, a nightclub or somewhere else where she has to show it; or if she wants to travel. The same situation has arisen for many students or others who regularly cross the borders of the United Kingdom for work, study or family reasons. For these reasons, I commend the Minister to look at initiatives such as patient-held records. After all, we should always remember that, importantly, this is the patient’s own data.
Another challenge we faced at the beginning of the pandemic was when consultants across the four nations sought to identify who should be in the shielding categories. Ensuring that the right people with the right conditions were identified and then notified was made far more challenging by the disparity of health data for different populations. It is bad enough that primary care, secondary care and social care data do not speak to each other, but healthcare is far too important to be allowed to become a political football within the UK.
The Prime Minister has put ensuring the viability and security of the union as one of his top priorities. We have heard the excellent recommendations of my noble friend Lord Dunlop, and many times in this Chamber we have been assured that the recommendations will be enacted by Ministers across government departments, so that decisions taken in Westminster and England that affect the devolved nations will be considered proactively, positively and constructively, and we can build mutual respect. This Bill and this moment are an ideal opportunity to put some of these principles into practice. What could be more positive and constructive than legislating for NHS England to ensure that this body considers the impact of its decisions on patient care in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Like Amendment 301, where better data will lead to greater transparency, the new clause proposed by Amendment 17, which aims to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes guidance on these matters, also goes some way to ensuring transparency, which is so important in the building of mutual respect. These amendments would ensure that those with different approaches and political views across the UK cannot simply manipulate the delivery of healthcare and sacrifice patient outcomes on the altar of division.
Turning to Amendment 205, at the moment, if a treatment is available to patients in one of our bigger teaching hospitals—say, in London, Glasgow or Edinburgh—should that treatment not be available to anyone in the UK? I refer to my interests in the register, particularly as the chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. I recall that, when the procedure for children with cerebral palsy, known as selective dorsal rhizotomy, was first performed in the UK, it was available at first only in Bristol. However, NHS boards in Scotland were able to refer suitable patients on an ad hoc basis, with funding following the patient. This saved families having to raise around £80,000 to travel to the United States for the procedure—but it did not just help the families. The practice was able to ensure that good practice and learning were shared. Now, the procedure, pioneered in Bristol, is available in a number of areas across the UK.
Specialist, life-saving cancer services are another example. I think of a recent case where a patient from Glasgow—a good friend of mine—was able to benefit from treatment in Liverpool, which was his only option for treatment in the UK. However, it is not just for rare procedures or difficult cases that this is applicable. I have often seen families of children with cerebral palsy from Belfast, Carlisle or Northumberland who wish to travel to Glasgow or Edinburgh for relatively routine but condition-specific input instead of having to travel to London. At the moment, as I said, these arrangements are made largely on an ad hoc basis rather than being broadly available. This is what Amendment 205 seeks to correct. The NHS is a great British institution. The clue is in the name: it is a national health service. Therefore, should access not apply right across the UK?
I urge the Government to accept these amendments. I cannot see why they would not, as they will not only ensure better co-ordinated healthcare throughout our United Kingdom; they will ensure that patient care for all our citizens, wherever they live, is given due consideration, and they will clearly illustrate the importance that the UK Government place on the well- being of people right across the UK. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for tabling these amendments and starting this debate, because these three amendments are very different.
I welcome Amendment 17. Of course we should consider the devolved Administrations because of all the cross-border flows. As we have just heard, people move around the UK. We have a lot of patients from Wales—I should declare my interests; I will not list them all in Hansard, but I have various roles in Wales and have done various things with IT in Wales as well—who routinely go into England from across north Wales; and in south and mid-Wales, they go across to Hereford and Shropshire. So I say to the Government, please make sure that you do always consider the impact.
We need patient-based clinical information that flows between different systems in a timely manner. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, referred to patient-held records. I hate to disappoint, but we did a quite extensive research project on them and found that there were all kinds of problems with them, one of the main ones being that, when the patient turned up in ED, they inevitably did not have their record with them—or they did not want things written in it in case somebody else in the family saw them, and so on and so on.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene briefly, if I may, to support my noble friend in her Amendment 17. I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I will not follow her in discussing the financial settlements between NHS England and NHS Wales; there is a lot to that. But I confess that I rather share her view that it would be a stretch too far for us to seek to legislate in this Bill for matters that are the subject of devolved powers for the parliaments in Wales and Scotland, even though the issues are very interesting and the points that were made, not least by my noble friend Lady Fraser, were perfectly sensible and rational objectives.
I will confine myself to Amendment 17 and say there are good reasons why my noble friend and the Government might adopt it. It seeks to amend what is presently Section 13O of the National Health Service Act. The differences are important. First, if one looks at Section 13O as it stands, it requires the board—NHS England for these purposes—to
“have regard to the likely impact of those decisions on the provision of health services to persons who reside in an area of Wales or Scotland that is close to the border with England.”
It is perfectly reasonable that it should do that, but that is not, as the debate has illustrated, the extent of the issue.
Speaking entirely personally, my late father-in-law was resident in Anglesey. He needed cancer services, so—perfectly sensibly—he went to Clatterbridge in the Wirral. My noble friend Lord Hunt is of course a former Secretary of State for Wales. He will be very familiar with the way in which services between north Wales and Cheshire, which he formerly represented, were provided. That is one straightforward example.
A number of noble Lords will recall the debate when I was Secretary of State about paediatric congenital heart services. In north Wales, they were provided in Liverpool, if I remember correctly. In south Wales, they were provided in Bristol. Those are one or two aspects of a necessary relationship for specialised services between different parts of the United Kingdom. At the border, there is a relationship in day-to-day healthcare services. There is an arrangement for that, and we do not need to interfere with it in this legislation. Shropshire CCG presently runs it on behalf of NHS England.
NHS England and NHS Wales have a statement of values and principles which, as far as I could see on looking it up, was last renewed in 2018. I think it is due for renewal. Basically, it relates to about 21,000 patients from England who are registered with Welsh GPs. About 15,000 patients resident in Wales are registered with English GPs. There is a transfer and a netting off of costs between them of about £6 million, and arrangements exist for referrals between the two countries. So we do not need to interfere with any of that, but the legislation needs to cover in particular this first point: that we are concerned not only with those who live in the areas bordering England and Wales; we are concerned with people in England and in Wales more generally, as well as with people elsewhere in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The second point is that the present drafting excludes Northern Ireland. Clearly, there should be a role for NHS England. It should be prepared to consider its functions in relation to the provision of services—obviously where required and requested—by the Administration in Northern Ireland.
Finally, the drafting of Amendment 17 rather sensibly says not only that one should consider the impact on people living in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but that one should think about the provision and delivery of additional services for people living in those areas. Amendment 17 makes this clear in 1(b):
“(b) services provided in England for the purposes of”
the health services in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In so far as any of those Administrations were to make a request or, under the concordat that exists, to look for support for services, that is something that NHS England would have the necessary legislative cover to support.
I appreciate drafting, if I may say so, and even at this stage my noble friend has drafted a very good amendment which I am rather hopeful that my noble friend on the Front Bench will also commend.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in very clearly introducing these amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said that this group might not get feisty. I hope that we can manage to be very civil and calm in tone. None the less, there is a degree of disagreement—to which I am going to contribute.
In concluding her remarks, the noble Baroness said that this is a UK institution, embodying UK values. That seems to deny the reality of devolution. It is entirely possible that at least one of these countries could be an entirely separate nation very soon. That is the practical reality.
Once again, I was struck by the similarity with the climate change debate we had earlier. Sometimes people say, “Well, the scientists will tell us what to do about climate change”. Of course, this cannot be true, because how you get to 1.5 degrees involves a huge number of political choices around the allocation of resources. Similarly with health, many different routes and choices are involved in the effort to produce as healthy as society as we can. Whose health are you talking about? These are all political choices.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, said that this was about data, not delivery. Of course, we know that very often what is delivered is what is measured, and if you choose to measure different things, maybe that is because you are seeking to deliver different things.
Like other speakers, I do not have any particular problem with Amendment 17, but I do with Amendment 205 and, in particular, Amendment 301, which says:
“The Secretary of State may … specify binding data interoperability”
and
“Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and Northern Ireland Ministers must arrange for the information”.
I do not speak for the Scottish Government—albeit that they have some Green elements—but I would be surprised if they accepted that kind of wording. I do not wish to redraft on my feet but, if the Minister were looking to redraft, I suspect that something like a direction to the Secretary of State to “work with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers to agree” would definitely be preferable.
However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who gave us some very detailed and informed comment, that the best way to achieve this is by institutions at an operational level working together to find ways to link things up. If we take the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about her daughter’s situation, we can all be very annoyed that that apparently rather simple situation has not been sorted out. But I do not think drafting law in your Lordships’ Chamber is the way to sort that problem out. That needs to be at a very different level, and it needs to be sorted out as soon as possible.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. There are of course different waiting-list lengths in the different Administrations, but I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about fair funding. She makes a very good point about Wales.
I too have had experiences like those of the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, over my Covid vaccination status, because I live in Wales and the NHS app in Wales did not seem to speak to the other one. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, that is something that needs sorting out at a different level.
As I said, I live very near the border in Wales, so I am acutely aware from personal experience that the nature, quality and resources of healthcare in England affect the people of the devolved Administrations. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said: it is not just about people near the border—Anglesey is not at all near the border—but in day-to-day working it affects people near the border very frequently.
These are of course devolved matters, but in their practical, day-to-day operation the borders are what people call “leaky”—in other words, people travel both ways for work, school, shopping, leisure and indeed health services. So, particularly in the border areas, it makes a lot of sense to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said happens all the time: for GPs to be able to refer patients for a particular service to or from the devolved nations. That is why anything that affects the provision and quality of services in England also affects Welsh and Scottish people in particular. I suspect it is slightly less the case for people in Northern Ireland, although waiting lists there are particularly concerning.
So this is particularly important in relation to the location of specialist hubs, because the border areas of both Wales and Scotland are very rural and the distances and transport difficulties to their own hospitals can be long and difficult—even more so if the patients have to cross the border. We need to ensure that anything done in the Bill makes cross-referral able to continue as easily as it does at the moment.
What discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations about the Bill? Are there any aspects of it that are still waiting for the agreement of the Governments of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, because she has helped me to clarify my thinking about this group of amendments. Basically, they have good intentions and they make good points about the things that need to happen, but I am not absolutely certain they need to be in the Bill. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her very well-informed contribution about what actually goes on. There are of course problems in relationships between the devolved nations and NHS England, some of which are down to not being very well organised, some of which are down to arrogance on the part of the bigger ones, and some of which are down to the funding not actually being available—and some of them might be politically motivated too.
Amendment 17 opens some new thinking on the subject of integration, and accepts that devolution has given us different systems for care in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, but seeks to ensure that what is done in one part of the UK—that is, England—does not adversely impact on other parts. The intention to bring collaboration between the nations is, of course, commendable.
I note that Amendment 205 places some requirements such that
“Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and a Northern Ireland department must make regulations providing that the choices available to patients in England by virtue of regulations under section 6E(1A) or (1B) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 69 of this Act) are available to patients for whom they have responsibility.”
Again, we can understand the need for consistency, but I am unclear about how that will play out against the devolved nature of healthcare—so I think the case will have to be made out for that and, indeed, why that would be included in the legislation.
In a similar fashion, Amendment 301 looks to establish interoperability around the use of data across the whole UK. Again, that is a wholly worthwhile intention, and one that I would hope that the various authorities could collectively work on and agree. Once more, what the role is for primary legislation to address this point is not entirely clear, and I welcome the discussion. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Morgan for raising these important matters both via this Committee and by engaging—as I understand she has recently—with my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health. I am also grateful to all other noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully and knowledgably on these issues.
There is no escaping one overarching reality in this policy area, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just alluded. As a Government of the whole United Kingdom, Ministers are responsible for all people of the UK; that is a given. However, while the core principles of the NHS are shared across all parts of the United Kingdom, it is the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are responsible for developing their own health policies. Health is largely a devolved matter in the UK, and the commissioning and provision of health services for people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will continue to be a matter for the devolved Governments.
It will not surprise my noble friend to know that the UK Government continue to respect existing devolution settlements, so our aim is close collaboration with the devolved Administrations to deliver the best outcomes for the people across the four nations. This means that, while we are sympathetic to the spirit of these amendments, I am afraid that we cannot accept them.
I shall address the detailed issues. On Amendment 17, I agree with my noble friend that there is more we can do to align our healthcare for the good of patients across the United Kingdom. We are already exploring several projects to support the NHS to work more closely across the UK, and this includes refreshing the current memoranda of understanding between all four Governments and working with the Office for National Statistics to establish a number of UK-wide datasets. Steps like that will improve transparency and collaboration for the good of all patients across the UK. We do not believe that these steps require primary legislation, but we will keep that question under review. We will also continue to work with NHS England to ensure that a number of groups that it currently hosts, such as the rare diseases advisory group, and their specialised commissioning processes, also meet the relevant needs of the devolved Administrations.
Turning to Amendment 205, we know that choice of healthcare is an important right for patients across the UK. The NHS Constitution for England, for example, enshrines the patient’s right to informed choice. We will be preserving the important right for patients in England to choose their first elective outpatient appointment, GP and GP practice through regulations made under powers provided by the Bill. NHS England works closely with the devolved Governments, including on commissioning and ensuring access to specialised services. Requests for patients to have treatment in other nations are generally to secure continuity of care, to provide care close to patients’ support mechanisms, or because of specialist expertise.
The health services in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland already have the power to contract with any NHS provider in England. As my noble friend Lord Lansley rightly pointed out, they already have in place arrangements for commissioning specialised services from English providers, including cross-border agreements, referral schemes and service-level agreements. Taking further steps, as suggested in this amendment, would place a significant burden on a smaller number of providers, particularly those along borders, with consequences for the smooth running of those health systems. From a legal perspective, such a change would be a significant impingement on a devolved competence and would require the consent of the devolved legislatures. Of course, patients matter most, but such a change would also be unlikely to greatly benefit them, since they are already served by existing arrangements.
Amendment 301 deals with data interoperability. The UK Government are committed to working with officials across the devolved Administrations to explore the benefits that healthcare data can provide while working collaboratively to respect the devolved nature of this work. As in other areas, we are looking at ways to improve collaboration on data matters and address issues with data sharing. There are commitments within the data strategy for health and social care to work across central government and the devolved Administrations to improve appropriate data linkage, thus supporting people’s health care outcomes. This builds on the work of units such as the Joint Biosecurity Centre, and the newly established UK Health Security Agency.
That work will help us to collaborate to solve public health issues, improve disease surveillance and overcome any behavioural or structural obstacles to appropriate data sharing across our respective health and social care systems. In addition, we are speaking to the Office for National Statistics about collecting data on performance and outcomes across the UK. We are pursuing this with it, working in concert with the devolved Administrations. The ONS has assured us that it does not need additional powers to gather such data.
The problems encountered by the daughter of my noble friend Lady Fraser in proving her vaccination status are being actively addressed on both sides of the border. I must concede that the problems are not fully resolved yet, but understand that a Covid status pass from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland will be recognised in England and vice versa.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I have been meaning to ask this question for a while. Will that also apply to students who currently study abroad and had their first vaccinations abroad, and who then come back to work in their home country? Will that be connected to the NHS app as well?
Earl Howe (Con)
Rather than give a wrong answer to the Committee, I had better take advice on that and write to the noble Lord, if he will allow it.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that if we look at this area in general, we are clear that we must and will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure a fully interoperable, UK-wide approach to healthcare, including in relation to the provisions in this Bill.
It is worth adding that the devolved Administrations already have powers in legislation under Section 255 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to request NHS Digital to collect and analyse data, so they have that ability if they wish to exercise it. I am very grateful for my noble friend’s interest in this important area. I assure her that we will continue to keep listening to ways in which we can make the NHS work for all four nations of our union. It is vital that we do so and implicit in the collaborative processes we are engaged in. However, for the reasons I have set out, I ask my noble friend to understand why I am unable to accept this amendment.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
I thank my noble friend very much for his response. Although this has been a short debate, it has been a very good one. It has certainly been very helpful in noble Lords on all sides sharing their experiences and thoughts. It has raised some important issues and some comments on drafting. I am grateful to noble Lords for them. It has also enabled your Lordships to share some practical experiences, not least about the NHS Covid app. It sounds as if it is moving towards a resolution.
I was slightly amused that some of those who said that these issues do not need to be addressed in the Bill are often those who say that other issues need to be addressed in primary legislation so, when we are talking about consistency, we all need to think about that.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for saying that he agrees that more needs to be done and is being done to align healthcare across the United Kingdom and for stressing the importance of collaboration. I will, of course, withdraw this amendment, but the amendments in this group raise important issues and I hope that discussions can continue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I think, said, this is about practical, positive treatment and outcomes for patients, which is what we all want to see regardless of where they live.
Baroness Thornton
“(5) Assistance or support provided under this section to a person or organisation which is not an NHS body or representative of an NHS body, may only be provided after consultation with the relevant integrated care board and integrated care partnership.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provides that the relevant ICB and ICP must be consulted before assistance is provided to bodies other than NHS bodies. It aims to ensure a transparent process where private providers are provided with assistance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendments in what is now group 4, commencing with Amendment 18 in my name, which address the various ways in which the board of an ICB should be constituted. I thank the noble Lords who have supported the amendments in my name and will speak also to Amendments 28 and 37.
Amendment 18 covers who should be on the board and, crucially, who should not. These amendments are about the governance of ICBs. They are going to be very powerful bodies—they are already operating in a shadow way, as it were—which will allocate hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds on our behalf. The question is about who should have a seat at the table where the decisions are taken. We should perhaps begin with who should not be on an ICB. There appears to be agreement that private sector interests should not be permitted, so I see no point in repeating the debates that took place in the Commons because that principle has already been settled. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail of how that translates into legislation and the ICB constitutions. It is my belief that what is in the Bill so far is not strong enough.
The objective is that private providers cannot have any part in decisions about how NHS resources are allocated or how contracts are placed. In my other amendments, I have extended the scope of this to ban GPs with APMS contracts, as they are definitely private sector interests. How someone from a social enterprise or the voluntary sector might be regarded is an issue to address sensibly, and I very much welcome that the Minister has said on several occasions that he believes that a margin of flexibility will be needed to make that happen. We all know that there is a single example of someone from Virgin Care being on a non-statutory non-decision-making ICS, one out of the 42 ICBs and one person on a body with 20-odd other members. That is still one too many. It is the principle that matters.
Private providers are bound essentially and legally to be addressing shareholder value, which is absolutely right and as it should be for their particular business interests, but they are not the values that underpin the NHS, which is absolutely not about striving for profit and shareholder value in any way. That is not to say that the NHS at every level should not strive for value for taxpayers’ money and effectiveness, but the best service for patients and communities is surely the underpinning objective of our NHS and it should be that for ICBs. Nor is it saying that the NHS should not be commissioning or working with a variety of providers, but we need to safeguard those values and the social value that underpin the NHS.
In the Commons this has been debated and Ministers are on the record about their intention not to have private providers represented. Sadly, some of us are still sceptical. This is particularly so when one looks at the easing of the 2012 commissioning and procurement regime. I await with interest the Minister’s reply on this matter. In making appointments to ICBs we are clear that there should be some kind of test so that if someone has something in their background which a reasonable person might think makes them unreasonably favourable or disposed to the use of private providers within the NHS, then they have no role on an ICB. I suspect that one might have to see, when the Bill finally takes effect as an Act, that those tests might be brought to bear on some of the ICS/ICB chairs and non-executive directors who may fail it.
The ICBs have similar duties to the CCGs they replace, at least on paper, but the board of an ICB will be very different from the CCG GPs and sometimes, it has to be said, the rather ad hoc arrangements that existed there. ICBs will be much closer to the unitary board model of trusts, FTs and the PCTs of recent memory. We agree with the intention of more effective commissioning of health services in the new era of co-operation and collaboration and with better integration with related services, so there should be a new kind of board made up of fewer NHS insiders and more who may have a wider perspective and fit better into the new model and the aspirations of the Bill.
We have had what feels like a dozen different ways of making commissioning work, and I have been directly involved in some. My observation is that as soon as they look like they are starting to work, they get reorganised. The trouble has always been the split between commissioners and providers, which some may say is essentially bogus. Both bits are still core NHS, and the big trusts have massive influence because they are massive. There is no democratic accountability, and the big providers had all the clout, not the commissioners. The NHS commissioning operation is often in splendid isolation from the rest of the public services, disconnected even from social care, to say nothing of where primary and community care and public health come in. This Bill aspires to be different, so we need to look at how it is served differently by the ICBs.
There has been some pretence that this will all change under the Bill, just as there has been for previous ones on commissioning. ICBs are given flexibilities and can build place-based sublevels, but the reality is that, as they are constructed at the moment, they are the same old NHS cartels. They have all the freedom they are allowed, but they may ultimately be powerless. The public will have as much idea about what ICBs do as they did about CCGs, and we all remember the marches to save our PCTs in the distant past. Just to make this clear, vested interests get a place in the ICB as of right but the public, patients and staff are not given that honour and responsibility. That is what part of these amendments does. Amendment 37, in my name and that of others, sets out our view about which voices are most important, and it breaks the mould of NHS appointing.
I divert briefly to say that elsewhere we will discuss more about how those appointments are made. Our view is that some independent appointments commission ought to make a comeback. I took great encouragement from the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on Tuesday, which helped in this regard. But there is still far too much control from the top and far too little say from the bottom on all the appointments that will be made under the Bill. Amendment 37 at least offers a way to have some diversity and possibility to challenge the interests that dominate the NHS.
Surely nobody who looks at what the amendments suggest would argue that these interests do not have a right to some voice. The public, patients, staff, social care, public health, mental health—which of these can be safely ignored and which has no part to play? We know the Minister in the Commons gave a minimalist defence in the interests of the new mantra of flexibility. He rightly said that boards should be of a manageable size and that ICBs should have some flexibility—as much as NHS England would allow—to add others to the board, beyond the minimum. The NHS actually has to do what it is told and, unless a more stringent requirement is put in the legislation, it will do what it has always been allowed to do. If we really want a better care system and some change to make organisational upheaval worthwhile, let us have a go at doing something different, with a wider group of voices to be heard and take decisions.
Our Amendment 37 deals with appointing key non-executive board members to represent interests, but within a unitary board. On Tuesday, colleagues pointed out that all board members share collective responsibility, which is a tried and tested model, but we need a discussion about this. I can see from the amendments in this group that other noble Lords have views—my noble friend Lord Bradley and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for example—but our amendments and others in the group, if we discuss them together, would make for a better balanced board, which does not necessarily have to be a larger board. I hope the Minister will consider these submissions carefully. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I want to support the proposed new paragraph (h) in Amendment 37, which says,
“at least one member appointed to represent the voice of patients and carers in the integrated care board’s area.”
The patient’s voice should be heard throughout the Bill. What is the National Health Service for if not patients? Patients should be involved in planning, ensuring that patients’ and carers’ views continue to be represented. Their experience should be collected. They, with their carers, are the people who know what good, safe care is and what poor results are. I hope the patient’s voice will be involved. I am pleased that many Members already stated this in amendments last Tuesday. I hope the Government agree, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 38 and declare my health interests in the register, particularly as a trustee of the Centre for Mental Health and an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
This amendment is short and simple. As its explanatory statement makes clear, it merely adds to the list of requirements for membership of an integrated care board that must be included in the ICB constitution. I believe it is essential to have a representative of mental health trusts for each ICB area, and therefore on the ICB, as it is the key strategic body for, among other things, healthcare commissioning, planning priorities and resource allocation for a local area.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and I support those amendments with respect to mental health. My Amendments 27 and 39 would provide for the addition of an expert in learning disability and autism on each integrated care board and ensure that the learning disability and autism lead was a person with knowledge and understanding of what good health and support look like for people with a learning disability and for autistic people.
As a starting point, this proposal has already been pledged by the Government in both the NHS long-term plan and the autism strategy, the latter stating:
“We also expect that all Integrated Care Boards, which will be established by the proposed Health and Care Bill, will focus on autism and learning disabilities at the highest level, for example by having a named executive lead for autism and learning disability.”
The reason for the Government’s firm commitment is that people with a learning disability and autistic people are among those who stand to benefit most from the integrated approach that the Bill seeks to implement. These are people whose needs frequently span health and social care systems. They are one of the largest recipient groups in terms of cost of health and social care provision and therefore a cohort with one of the greatest stakes in the effective integration of these two systems.
People with a learning disability experience huge health inequalities—very relevant to discussion on the first group of amendments today. On average, the life expectancy of men and women with a learning disability is 14 and 18 years shorter than for the general population respectively. Thirty-eight per cent of people with a learning disability die from an avoidable cause as against only 9% in the comparison population. These inequalities have been hugely exacerbated during the pandemic, with death rates of up to six times higher than among the general population, according to Public Health England. People with Down’s syndrome were identified as being at as high a risk as the over-80s. Yet they have had inappropriate DNACPRs put on their hospital records without their consent and had catastrophic reductions in care and support during the past two years, which will take years to recover from. There has been much greater reliance on family carers, who are too often dismissed as difficult by poorly trained health and social care decision-makers.
It is not learning disability and autism that are the cause; it is the situation that they are in as a result of ineffective plans and ineffective responses to their needs. Learning disability and autism, as well as foetal alcohol spectrum disorder—a much underdiagnosed and poorly understood condition but related to the groups I am speaking about—are lifelong states of being, but they are unequal states of being. Having a learning disability or being an autistic person is not like having cancer. People with learning disabilities and autistic people also get cancer; they also have a much higher prevalence of mental health problems.
The work I am overseeing for the Department of Health and Social Care places the major responsibility for inappropriate and lengthy detentions in long-term segregation under the Mental Health Act at the door of commissioners. It is a commissioning failure in the main. Some commissioners have relied on the availability of crisis admissions rather than collaborating to develop essential community services, including housing and skill support, social prescribing of meaningful activities and other innovative wellness approaches.
This is an urgent appeal to the Government to clearly signal a requirement for competent and accountable commissioning for people with a learning disability and autistic people. There is a lot of money being wasted at the moment through very poor commissioning. Please can we get it right this time?
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, before I address my Amendment 28, giving my support to my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish to endorse the other amendments that are calling for representatives of particular groups—we just heard mention of two. I particularly endorse all those, especially as I am taking rather an oblique approach to this debate, which is not reflected in the other amendments.
Last year, there was a report in America that, increasingly, hospitals there were closing. The report said that hospitals were seen as businesses; a fifth of hospitals in America are run for profit, and globally, private equity investment in healthcare has tripled since 2015. In 2019, some $60 billion were spent on acquisitions. Globally, that includes—indeed, targets—us and the NHS. Where does that affect us? Increasing inroads are being made into the National Health Service by Centene and its subsidiary Operose, which now own 70 surgeries around this country. From Leeds to Luton, from Doncaster to Newport Pagnell, from Nottingham to Southend and many more, Centene now owns and runs for profit surgeries formerly owned and run by NHS doctors. It is now the biggest single provider of GP surgeries in this country. It has further designs on the existing fabric of the NHS, seeking to have its representatives sitting on the boards of CCGs, making decisions about the deployment of NHS funding. This is a direction of travel that needs to be monitored and checked. Safeguards must be written into the Bill against this takeover.
Why does it matter, just as long as patients have good and free treatment at the point of need? What is the reputation of Centene in America? It is not good. Indeed, it is regularly embroiled in lawsuits from either patients or shareholders, and the sums are not small. In June last year, Centene had to pay a fine of $88 million to the state of Ohio for overcharging on its Medicare department. This is one of many. Since 2000, there have been 174 recorded penalties for contract-related offences against Centene and its subsidiaries. That enterprise is now active in this country and targeting our NHS. It is not a fit company to be part of our health service. I therefore ask the Minister for safeguards to be written into the Bill against such people being represented on our boards. When I raised this at Second Reading, the Minister replied that there was no chance of us selling the NHS. We do not need to: they are buying us.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee in speaking to my Amendment 30. In truth, I am speaking in favour of my noble friend Lady Thornton’s Amendment 29. I could claim that my amendment has the virtue of being shorter but perhaps brevity is not always a virtue. Amendment 29 also makes the important point that it is the sub-committees and committees of the ICBs that will be crucial. The substantive point is that the Government have to accept that the amendment agreed in the Commons is totally inadequate. It depends on matters of judgment. We want a clear specification of who is appropriate to be a member of those bodies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to support all the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I thank her for tabling this amendment and Amendment 28, to which I was pleased to attach my name.
I agree with pretty well everything that has been said but want particularly to highlight the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. As she was talking, I was thinking about testimony that I heard earlier this week at the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Art, Craft and Design in Education. A teacher was saying that if their educational provision caters to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged pupil in their school, that means that it is catering the best for everyone. It might be thought that having a representative for the interests of those with autism and learning difficulties will affect the care that they receive but it would actually greatly improve the care that everyone would receive. That is not often adequately understood.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said in her introduction, there are really two sub-groups here. Going from consideration of Amendment 18 to Amendment 30, we are essentially talking about, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was saying, the need to avoid corporate capture of our NHS, although the corporate sector has already won many battles and taken over a great deal of the NHS. If the need for profit is the way in which things are being run, care must suffer. Care is the second priority and that is an unavoidable fact. When one considers privatisation—I have later amendments that will address the care sector in particular—we see where this has been allowed to extend to extremes, whereby the private equity sector has taken over our care system at enormous cost to the quality of care for public and private pockets. The system is in a state of near-continual collapse. We have to make sure that ICBs do not go down the route that our care sector has already gone down.
I am thinking about this matter for Report. There is also a further issue whereby although these amendments address people’s current employment and roles, we also need to think about the revolving door situation, about which, I see from social media, the public are increasingly concerned. We see people flipping between the private and public sectors and taking the interests, direction of travel and thinking of one to the other—and not for positive purposes.
I am aware of the hour but I am looking at the second sub-group of amendments, Amendments 37 to 41, and at who should be there. The issue relates to my comments on the previous group. We cannot just say, in terms of managing the NHS, “Just leave it to the doctors and the experts. They know about care.” Of course they do in terms of running services but in making choices and allocations and in ensuring that the ICB meets the needs of its community, it is the community that knows what the needs are and should tell the medical people what needs to be delivered, and the shape of that delivery. The technical details will come down to the medical people.
It is therefore crucial that we do not see the ICBs as technocratic places for people with MBAs and doctors but that we should include trade unionists, patients and carers. Carers are particularly important because our current system does so poorly in meeting their needs and supporting them. We need bodies that truly serve to represent the community.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, in declaring my interests as set out in the register, I want to press my noble friend the Minister on conflicts of interest.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Bill provides that local NHS trusts and GPs are to appoint members of the integrated care board. Organisations that provide the bulk of NHS services will therefore be co-opted into the work of commissioning. It is currently the work of commissioners to hold providers to account, objectively determining whether they are best placed to provide a service and assessing their performance. The new integrated care boards must continue to perform that role.
Clause 14 introduces into the 2006 Act new Section 14Z30, subsection (4) of which provides, rightly:
“Each integrated care board must make arrangements for managing conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes.”
Reference has already been made to amendments that seek to exclude individuals involved with independent healthcare provision from joining the ICBs. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the membership of provider appointees on integrated care boards may at least risk creating a perception of a conflict of interest between the roles of those individuals on the board and any roles they may hold with provider organisations? How can the benefit of provider input into the work of an ICB be reconciled with the task of objectively assessing both the suitability and performance of providers? I believe that greater clarity from the very outset on the extent of the role that provider appointees will be expected to play will surely assist ICBs in developing robust governance arrangements, which would then enjoy public confidence.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 37. In so doing, I add my strong support to the comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett.
Of course, the ICBs will be central to ensuring adequate funding and support, not only for the powerful acute health trusts and primary care but for the services that are historically underfunded. It is for these services that this amendment is particularly important. Before discussing these specific gaps in the Government’s vision for the new system, I want to stress that I am very concerned that we should not lose vital clinical leadership along with patient representation, which were the hallmarks of the CCG system. Of course, we want worker and carer representation but, in my experience, top medics are actually rather good at deciding how money should be allocated across services.
In my view, the absence of a public health representative from the shortlist of necessary ICB members in the Bill is an extraordinary oversight. This amendment seeks to put that right. ICSs are already in the process of developing their draft constitutions, which, while dependent on the final content of the Bill, provide a clear indication of their intent regarding clinical membership. It is particularly concerning that several ICSs have failed to include any role on their ICB for public health experts in their draft constitutions, with some failing to make any reference to public health at all. As the BMA points out in its briefing, this poses a significant risk to the role and prominence of public health within the work of those ICBs.
In relation to the importance of public health representation on ICBs, noble Lords should be aware of the impact of this on the vexed issue of drug addiction. Police services up and down the country are recognising that criminalisation and imprisonment are entirely counterproductive in this field. These responses only limit the young person’s education and employment options and tie them into a life of drugs and crime, with appalling consequences for them but also for their communities. Police services are increasingly adopting diversion to treatment as a preferable response when an individual is found in possession of drugs, but drug treatment services have been cut over the past 10 years. ICBs will need to tackle this situation as a matter of urgency if the police are to be able to stem the tide of county lines and other highly damaging consequences of our counterproductive and, in my view, idiotic drug policies and failure to treat addiction as a mental health problem, which, of course, it is. These urgent issues will not be confronted unless public health is strongly represented on ICBs and other boards and committees in the new structure.
Another cri de coeur is for mental health, as others have said. Having chaired a mental health trust for many years, I am acutely conscious of the impact of bed shortages on very sick people and their families and of the very high threshold for child mental health services. There is no doubt that if we do not treat children with mental health problems, we will have adults with these kinds of problems throughout their lives. The country cannot afford to continue neglecting this important field. I support the other amendments in this group. The NHS has major long-term workforce shortages and other problems. If they are to be addressed adequately, the staff need representation, along with patients and carers.
I end with a plea to ensure, through membership of ICBs, ICSs and ICPs, that clinical leadership is retained within the NHS. On ICBs, this must include at least two primary care members, at least one clinical representative of secondary care, acute care and mental health and at least one qualified and registered public health consultant. I hope the Minister will tell the Committee whether he agrees with this approach to ICB membership.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lord, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, have identified in detail why this is a key amendment that identifies the core representation that is required for ICB boards to function satisfactorily and develop strategies for population health in their area, and I strongly support it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. I have huge sympathy with the intention behind this amendment. Everything that we have talked about so far on mental health has pointed to the fact that unless there is a strong mental health voice on ICBs, the whole issue of mental health funding and the priority it has will not get as strong a voice as it should. I recognise that some argue that we should not overspecify the membership of new bodies but should allow each integrated care system the flexibility to develop based on its own set of local relationships, and I do not overlook that point. However, my natural sympathy is that it is only too possible for mental health concerns to be ignored when decisions are made about resource allocation and prioritisation without a strong mental health voice around the table.
However, I think I may have a way through this. We need to look back to the discussions we had on Tuesday about the overriding importance of mental health being explicitly mentioned in the triple aims. If such an aim were in place, I think we would be hard pushed to form an ICS or an ICB without mental health representation and we might be able to argue that it is not necessary, in those circumstances, to have it in the Bill. However, if that aim is not explicit, then the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is very strong indeed.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I rose on the first day of this Committee to speak to the membership of NHS boards. I rise today for a similar reason: I think it is very difficult to stipulate the membership of boards, just as the noble Baroness has said. However, as I said with NHS boards, I say with ICB boards that I think the voice of the patient is central. Along with my role as the Government’s Chief Nursing Officer, I was director of patient experience while I was in the Department of Health. As a nurse at that time, I believed I had a patient focus. However, I learned that my default was always as a professional and that the patient needs a voice and empowerment. While I recognise the clinical voice and would always want it on the NHS board and the ICB board, it does not replace the voice of the patient and the carer.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baronesses who have spoken before me, I recognise the difficulty of being too specific about board membership, but I think that paragraph (h) in Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend, to which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has added his name, is wide enough to enable patients and carers to be represented. Indeed, given the Government’s commitment to the voice of patients and carers, I find it difficult to understand how they could not accept such an amendment. I know the Minister is extremely committed to that patient and carer voice.
I want to extend that a bit to making sure that we do not forget the vital contribution that charities and community organisations make to health and social care services through their well-documented ability to be innovative and flexible. Your Lordships know that in the course of the pandemic, they immediately operated better delivery mechanisms than the statutory sector was able to because they were able to be flexible. One million volunteers were recruited, and many people had experiences similar to mine, with people saying that it was only through the services of voluntary organisations and charities that they had any kind of support at all, particularly during the first few weeks of the pandemic.
When the Public Services Committee of your Lordships’ House did its inquiry into how public services had reacted to the pandemic, time and again we received examples of where charities were ignored by public service providers. Even if they were consulted at a later stage in planning, it was not to take account of their experience and skills but to assume they would co-operate in whatever role was doled out to them. That is not the way to make the best use of the untold amount of good will, experience and skill that exists in charities, especially in the areas of health and social care. This is a waste of scarce resources and must be recognised in the new structures as they are set out. There are many examples of where these partnerships work well, recognising the different skills on offer, and of where charities are treated as partners, but they must be involved in planning at the earliest stages and be supported financially if appropriate. They will always give a good return on resources.
The other area where charities make a significant contribution is in representing the patient and carer voice. Voluntary sector organisations are often the services that have most contact, especially with vulnerable people. Your Lordships will have endless examples of that. Much is made of how important the voice of the user, patient and carer is when planning or delivering the services. Co-production, co-design and the other buzzwords we hear all the time absolutely depend on being in touch with users and patients. Almost inevitably, the easiest way to access users and patients is through local or national charities which make users their focus, both in the planning of services and the governance of the organisation.
Proper involvement of users, patients and carers often throws up surprises, even pleasant ones, about money. If you really take the views of users and patients, you will often find that what they want from health and social care services is not what is being provided. They will often ask for less provision than we expect, so long as it actually meets their needs, not the needs estimated by the providers. This is a valuable fact when resources are short. It is one more important reason to forge partnerships with the voluntary sector when the memberships of ICBs and ICSs are being set up. Organisations in their areas should be considered as partners which have a great deal to contribute and will do so willingly and productively.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I have two amendments in this group, so I will try to address them very briefly because of time. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the way that she introduced this and would like to return very briefly to the issue of public/private potential conflict when public money is being spent, because there is an issue of probity around that. Having shared corporate accountability for the delivery, functions and duties of the ICS could be in conflict with the legal duties of company directors, as has already been pointed out, and therefore creates problems.
I know that the Government recognised this in the other place, but their amendment seems to fall short in two respects. It leaves to the appointed chair of the board the decision on whether a person with interests in private healthcare is incorporated into an ICB. The difficulty is that it provides a condition that their interests in private healthcare could undermine the independence of the health service, but it is very unclear how that will actually be measured. I can see that it would be a fantastic area for legal argument that a precedent had been set in one area that was being worked against by the chair of another ICB. I think this needs to be clarified, because they will be dispensing public money and there are examples already where different decisions have been taken. I will not go into those now because of time.
I turn briefly to the reasons behind the amendments I have put down and declare that I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for co-signing my amendments. There is a role in recognising that the allied healthcare professionals are the third-largest part of the workforce—the workforce is not just doctors and nurses—and are critical to the long-term plan for the NHS. They work across the health and social care boundary and out into the community. They are integral—physiotherapists in particular—to primary care, and speech and language therapists are essential for children and young people, particularly those with communication difficulties, and that of course includes those with autism and learning difficulties.
I also recognise, though, the problem that you cannot have everybody listed on a board and everybody wants their own so-called representation on it. It will be important that the terms of reference and the metrics by which the function of the board is measured and compared are very clearly laid out, to make sure that there is appropriate consultation at all times with those who are on the receiving end of healthcare, and that people such as allied healthcare professionals are appropriately involved in decisions for the patient groups on which they can have a major impact. Quite often they have a much more major impact than medicine or nursing will do in terms of a patient’s long-term quality of life, and rehabilitation in particular.
So I hope that the Government have listened to this debate and in particular will heed the important warning from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in opening this debate and in the content of the amendments that she has tabled.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I spoke on Tuesday about the structure that my colleague Paul Brickell, a Labour councillor in Newham at the time, and I, wrote for the then Government Minister Hazel Blears for the new company that would deliver the Olympic legacy in east London. I also described some of the key people who were invited to be directors of this company, with a clear vision and narrative, focused on delivery.
In east London live people from every nation on earth. Indeed, we did some research and we thought Greenland was not represented—but then we found a family in Newham that was from Greenland. Clearly, we could not have a representative from every nation on the Olympic Park Legacy Company, the OPLC—it was not possible.
At that time the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, was chosen as a Labour Peer by a Labour Prime Minister to be the chairman of the board. She was a very experienced player in the regeneration world from Scotland, not east London. I think that at the time she was a little embarrassed that I, an east Londoner, was not chairing it, given all the early work we had done on helping the east London Olympics happen. But I was not a Labour Party member and therefore could not carry the then Government with me, while she could. I was not concerned about this. My colleagues and I in east London were concerned about whether she had the knowledge and skill that could add real value to this important project and the public sector organisation that had been created. She was excellent and had an objectivity I could not possibly have.
We needed both things on the board: deep, local, practical experience and objectivity. I was asked to chair the Regeneration and Community Partnerships Committee, I think because she thought I knew quite a lot about these local issues and delivery, was trusted by local people and had a track record of delivering in place and in local neighbourhoods. Because my colleagues and I had delivered real projects with the local population, we did not know one thing about the place and neighbourhood: we knew, in depth, many things. It was all about finding the right experienced people, not those who said they represented something or somebody. The mayors of Newham and Hackney were there because they were impressive Labour leaders in east London who were turning around troubled local authorities.
I was asked to join the OPLC board as a person with deep, long-term roots in both a place—east London—and a neighbourhood, Bromley-by-Bow. I could speak and reflect back to the board not one thing—say, the environment—but also health: we were responsible for 43,000 patients. I had also been a Mental Health Act manager for quite some years locally. I think the noble Baroness chose me because I had deep and wide experience of the people, place and local neighbourhoods, and because of the practical work we had done in east London over quite some time—three decades, actually. It was about practical experience of place and neighbourhood and delivery. It was not about a person who thought he or she was representing one group or another, or a particular topic.
Experienced people bring many things to the board with them. I worry about the disabled person on a board who thinks they can talk only about disability issues—this is very condescending—or the young person who can talk only about young people’s issues. They can talk and have views on everything; it is about finding the right-quality person. However, they must have in-depth knowledge of what is actually going on locally and a deep understanding of the practical issues surrounding delivery. This is absolutely crucial.
There is a wider problem with some representatives on committees and structures, because they represent other agendas and they have mixed loyalties. They cannot focus on the task of the board because they have mixed loyalties elsewhere. They do not therefore prioritise the needs of the organisation they are sitting on. There is a lack of clarity about this, and I suspect we will all have experienced this on boards we have sat on. We need to get very clear about these democracy and delivery issues—what I call “the two Ds”. I have listened to a lack of clarity around these issues from successive Governments in recent years. We must get this clear if the new NHS structure is to really deliver the transformation we all now want to see and to deal with the health inequalities we rightly all discussed this morning.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too spoke on Tuesday about my concerns about listing the specific membership for the NHS England board. I have similar concerns to those that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, have just set out. However, there is a slight difference with this issue, in that the core purpose of an integrated care board is to integrate. So I recognise the very real concerns that noble Lords across the Committee have mentioned about the importance of being able to hear the voices of all the different elements of our health and care system, to hear patients’ needs loud and clear and to make it a board that genuinely works, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has just set out.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I shall start with those who I think should not be on the board before I turn to those who I think should. To a great extent I support the noble Baroness’s Amendment 29, but with a small caveat that, if she wished to press it, might require a bit of redrafting. I will explain.
Additional provider medical services are very useful in many areas to fill gaps in primary care capacity. They may provide additional services from which other NHS primary care services have opted out, such as out-of-hours services or enhanced services beyond the capacity of local NHS GPs to deliver. In some areas they have taken over primary care services where NHS GP practices have become too small to be viable or all the partners have retired.
Some APMS services are commercial businesses with a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit, and I do not think these should be on the board. However, some APMS contracts go to NHS entities, and I would not want to exclude those. Of course, we must remember that for many years GP practices have also been small businesses, sort of, operating within the umbrella and ethos of the NHS. They too need to clear their costs or they will close down.
That is all well and good. However, if the Government are serious that they want to exclude private sector interests from ICBs, they must surely agree to include in that ban non-NHS entities that hold APMS contracts. A failure to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, must surely make us a little suspicious about the Government’s claim that their amendment inserted in another place would successfully exclude private interests from the board.
Amendment 29 would extend the range of those involved in commercial enterprises from being members of the board of an ICS beyond those that we have just discussed in relation to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 28. Amendment 29 would specifically exclude NHS GP practices and voluntary or not-for-profit organisations from the ban. There are many types of organisations that would be included in the ban, although they could be heard on the board of the integrated care partnerships. Those include: pharmaceutical companies; providers of medical devices, equipment or premises; people who own care homes; and many other essential services without which our NHS could not survive. However, their importance should not entitle them to influence the constitution, strategy or commissioning principles of the board of the ICS. They are important providers that will be appropriately involved in planning at other levels, but they should not be able to steer fundamental decisions without the suspicion that they might have a commercial interest in such decisions. Indeed, the ban proposed in the amendment would protect such companies from such a suspicion, so perhaps it would be welcomed by them.
Turning to those who should be on the board, I will not repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said in introducing her amendments, because she has done it extremely well, particularly emphasising the impact of integrated services on people with learning difficulties and people with autism and how they could benefit from better integrated services if we got it right. So, I support her amendments.
I turn to Amendment 37, to which I have added my name to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the following reasons. According to the Explanatory Notes, each ICB and its partner local authorities will be required to establish an integrated care partnership, bringing together health, social care and public health. The constitution of the ICB as it stands in the Bill specifies that the board must include only a minimum of three types of people who the Government clearly believe are essential to the effective operation of the board. They are someone from NHS health trusts or foundation trusts, someone from primary care, and someone from one of the local authorities in the area. If it is okay to prescribe these members, would it not also be wise to prescribe a few other key people with appropriate knowledge in order to achieve the ICB’s objectives of bringing together health, social care and public health? This amendment therefore suggests five other nominees—not 15, bearing in mind the Government’s wish to keep the ICB to a manageable size. But given the powers of the board, I would think it essential to have people nominated from mental health, public health, social care, health trade unions, patients and carers to bring their knowledge to strategic decisions.
If the board is to comply with the ambition of parity of esteem for physical and mental health—which we talked about two days ago—it will be important to have someone with the knowledge of how mental health services are working, as my noble friend Lady Tyler emphasised. Public health is a very particular discipline, the importance of which has been amply shown during the pandemic, which also has a vital role to play if we are to improve the health of local people and level up inequalities. Social care provision should never be separate from or subsidiary to health, as it is intrinsic to the functioning of health services in every area, so it is inconceivable that any ICB should ever be without someone from that sector.
The NHS is a people business, which is why those who deliver the services and the patients who are on the receiving end should have a voice at the top. Similarly, those thousands of unpaid carers, without whom vulnerable people would use up more of the NHS’s scarce resources than they currently do, should be represented at the very top of these new organisations. Their contribution to the efficient use of the board’s financial resources is crucial.
If the objective is to encourage more integration and collaboration, how could it be right not to have these additional five or six groups of people helping to make the strategic decisions? If that is not the case, as has been said by other noble Lords, the board could be dominated by the large acute hospitals and primary care, and the integration objective of the Government, which I endorse, would fail. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate, and I really am grateful to all noble Lords who tabled amendments today.
With your Lordships’ leave, I turn first to Amendment 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would mean that the relevant ICB and ICP would need to be consulted before NHS England is able to provide support and assistance to bodies other than NHS bodies. The NHS has, under successive Governments of all political colours—indeed, since its foundation in 1948—commissioned care from various sectors to help it be more responsive to patients’ needs, and particularly to help deliver the commitments set out in the NHS constitution.
The vast majority of NHS care has been—and will rightly continue to be—provided by taxpayer-funded public sector organisations. But experience before and during the pandemic has demonstrated how important it is for NHS England to have the power, as the Trust Development Authority currently does, to provide support and assistance to any providers of services on behalf of the NHS. This will ensure that independent providers can, if necessary, be commissioned to provide important additional capacity where needed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I really rather hoped the Minister would not go into whether or not I was suggesting that we should or should not be using private services. This is about who commissions services; this is not about who provides services. In my opening remarks, I said that a variety of providers is exactly what we have and will continue to have.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification.
The amendment seeks to exclude individuals whose GP practices hold an alternative provider of medical services, or APMS, contract from being a member of an integrated care board. While APMS contracts may not be appropriate for all GPs, they offer the ICBs, as commissioners, greater flexibility than other general practice contract types. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, acknowledged, the APMS framework allows commissioners to contract specific primary medical care services to meet local needs. APMS contractors include some private and third sector social enterprises and GP partnerships, which provide outreach health services for homeless people, asylum seekers and others. It is quite clear that none of this diminishes the commitment to ensure that care is provided free at the point of use, paid for by taxpayers.
All contract holders providing NHS core primary medical services are subject to the same requirements, regulations and standards, regardless of the type of contract. The Care Quality Commission, as the independent regulator, ensures that all contracts meet these standards.
Some GP partnerships concurrently hold a general medical services contract for core medical provision, as well as an APMS contract. Some individual GPs provide services for a range of practices. The concern is that this amendment would exclude GPs working for one or multiple practices which operate under APMS contracts from being members of the ICB.
NHS England’s draft guidance states that nominated members of an ICB will be full members of the unitary board, bringing knowledge and a perspective from their sectors, but not acting as delegates of those sectors.
This amendment would prevent some individuals being on integrated care boards, based on what type of NHS GP contract their practice holds. This could limit the ability of primary medical service providers to appoint an ICB member who understands the health requirements of the local population. This could reduce the diversity of GPs who could be appointed, based on their contract type. If we think of the unintended consequences, this may inadvertently exclude representatives with much-needed expertise in serving specific local populations and addressing their health needs.
Earlier, we talked about tackling inequalities. I feel very strongly that there are sometimes unintended consequences, where people think that they know better what is best for their communities. It would be unfortunate to exclude APMS contracts, or anyone who had an APMS contract and who had the expertise needed for those communities that are not receiving an adequate service, or for poor, immigrant communities. This could go against the goal that we all want to see of tackling inequalities.
I now turn to Amendments 29 and 30. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for bringing this issue before the Committee. I understand the interest in the role of independent providers in the integrated care boards. I also understand the concern across the Committee to ensure that independent providers, including companies seeking to produce health and care products, should not be appointed to the board of ICBs. We agree. Integrated care boards will be NHS bodies whose board membership consists of a minimum of individuals nominated by NHS providers, GP services and local authorities whose areas coincide with that of the ICB.
Although, as has been acknowledged, service provision by the independent and voluntary sectors has been an important and valuable feature of the system under successive Governments, it has never been the intention for independent providers as corporate entities to sit on integrated care boards, nor for an individual appointed to be there as a representative of an individual provider, in any capacity. People must therefore be assured that the work of ICBs will be driven by health outcomes, not profit. However, we recognise that this is a matter of concern to many noble Lords, as well as to the other place. We have been keen to put this beyond doubt, which is why we brought forward the amendment on this very point at Report stage in the other place. This amendment makes clear that no one may be appointed to an ICB who would undermine the independence of the NHS as a result of their interests in the private healthcare sector, social enterprise or elsewhere, including the public sector.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I want to ask him a question going back to Amendment 28 and the APMS contracts. If we were to bring forward an amendment that made it very clear that we had no objection to NHS entities or not-for-profit organisations with APMS contracts being on the ICB, would he take a more friendly approach? It would just eliminate those that take profit out of the NHS.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion and for trying to narrow the gap that there clearly is. If an amendment were put forward, we would look at it very carefully and consider the unintended consequences from the way it is drafted. We will consider it but, as I am sure the noble Baroness appreciates, I can make no promises at this stage.
I turn to the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral about how provider input in the work of an ICB will be reconciled with assessing both the suitability and performance of providers. As my noble friend correctly noted, each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflict of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore, each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB. They are not delegates of their organisations, but are there to contribute their experience and expertise for the effective running of the ICB—a point made most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, my noble friend Lady Harding and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It is important that this is about expertise, not the trust or organisation that they are taken from, or their skills and knowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said.
We are also keen to allow ICBs to develop their own governance arrangements, which best take their local circumstances into account. We want to give them the flexibility to learn and develop as their best practice evolves, so that other ICBs could learn from that best practice where there are concerns.
To support ICBs, NHS England is working with them to issue guidance and to develop and make clear our expectations of ICB leaders—expectations that have been reflected in the discussions and fantastic contributions from many noble Lords. For these reasons, I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments at this stage. However, I hope I have given noble Lords such reassurance that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Turning to the membership of integrated care boards, I will begin with Amendments 27, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments today. I understand the interest from all sides in this membership. Schedule 2 sets out the minimum membership of the integrated care board; it will need to include members nominated by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, by persons who provide primary medical services and by local authorities of areas that coincide with or include the whole or any part of the ICB’s area.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, about mental health. I am sure he recalls the debate on Tuesday, when noble Lords felt very strongly about this. I have offered to meet many noble Lords from across the Committee who indicated that they want to see this parity with mental health, which they do not believe is implicit at the moment, even if we believe that “health” refers to physical and mental health. Indeed, it refers to spiritual health in many ways. But we understand that we have to close that gap and I will make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, is invited to those meetings.
It is important for us that we are not overprescriptive, which is especially true of any membership requirement. Any extension beyond the proposed statutory minimum will risk undermining local flexibility to design a board, as my noble friends Lord Mawson and Lady Harding and others have said, in the most suitable way for each area’s unique needs, drawing on the best expertise, but not where they are from. It may also make the boards less nimble and less able to make important decisions rapidly if we overprescribe.
It is important to remind the Committee—I apologise if noble Lords do not appreciate the repetition—that we set a floor and not a ceiling. The ICB can appoint board members if it wishes. Local areas can, by agreement, go beyond the legislative minimum requirements. They will want to ensure they appoint individuals with the experience and expertise to address the needs and fulfil the functions. Areas are already doing this. For example, in south-east London the ICB is proposing to include three provider members—acute, community and mental health—and six place members, one for each borough. This approach is exactly how we want ICBs to use the flexibility available to them.
If, in time, some of the concerns expressed today by noble Lords become clear—such as issues being skated over, ignored or elbowed out by others with louder voices—we may need to add further requirements that relate to ICB membership, and there are regulation-making powers in place in Schedule 2 to allow the Secretary of State to do so. Furthermore, NHS England has the power to issue statutory guidance to ICBs. It could, for example, use this to recommend that each ICB should consider appointing a learning disability and autism senior responsible officer, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has asked for and has spoken about most eloquently many times, most recently in a debate a few weeks ago.
Taken together, our approach reflects our view and, I reiterate, the view of the NHS that we should not attempt to overlegislate for the composition of ICBs and instead let them evolve as effective local entities to reflect local need. Let us get the right balance between the top-down and bottom-up approach, and make sure that they are relevant to their local areas. I am afraid that these amendments are seen to take a different approach, by adding more people to the minimum requirements for the ICB, making them larger but not necessarily better. They also add additional complexity by introducing a significant number of members who are responsible for activity outside the NHS. We think these would be better represented on the integrated care partnerships, which have a broader remit. I come back to the point that it is about expertise, not which trust.
I will consider the comments made by noble Lords very carefully if some of the concerns have not been met, and will have future conversations, between this stage and the next, if they feel that we have not addressed their concerns completely. I regret that the Government cannot accept these amendments. I hope that I have given your Lordships some, if not complete, reassurance and that noble Lords will feel able at this stage to withdraw and not press their amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I was disappointed with the first remarks he made because he resorted to the mantra that the Government tend to go to when the question of private sector interests in delivering healthcare is raised by this side of the House. That is a shame, because the questions that we have raised are legitimate. In fact, his friends in the Commons accepted the conflicts of interest that could arise from private sector interests being represented on ICBs. We were seeking to make sure that that is watertight and there is no way of it changing. That is a legitimate question to ask.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Meacher, for supporting Amendment 37, which is the key amendment in this group as to who may or may not be members of the board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, made a powerful case for the interests of people with learning disabilities and autism being represented. We know that where health systems make the health of people with learning disabilities a central priority, the whole health system benefits from it. That has happened in some places—for example, in Manchester—and it demonstrates how we improve the whole system. It is an important point.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell made the point about Centene and Operose, and that is partly why I put forward my amendment on APMS. The Minister may recall that we raised this matter in Questions a few weeks ago, when I asked him to write to me about what system had been used to give that contract to Centene, or Operose, in Camden, the area where I live. Having served on the CCG in Camden, I was aware of the importance of who runs primary care and of who the GPs in our surgeries are. Having right and proper people and organisations running our primary care was one of the criteria that you would use as a commissioner when you were looking at who was running, and who might wish to run, primary care and GP surgeries. I was involved in that process. As I learn about the history and background of this organisation now running primary care and GP surgeries in the UK, I do not think they are right and proper people to be doing that.
If this amendment does not serve the purpose of stopping that happening, I ask the Minister and the Bill team to reflect on what we might need to do to ensure that those from the private sector, social enterprises and charities whom we commission to run parts of our health service are right and proper people to do so. The remarks made in that regard by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were very interesting and useful, as they often are.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the point about public health. That is the theme running through this Bill: the need for public health to be represented. She was also absolutely correct to bring us back to the idea that clinical leadership is very important. Of course it is. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked some pertinent questions.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley raised the issue of social enterprises, which is close to my heart. I am the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group for Social Enterprise, which I helped to found 20-odd years ago. The APPG has just completed an inquiry, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, about the impact of Covid on social enterprises, which absolutely illustrates the points made by my noble friend and which I will share with the Minister when it is available.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made relevant points about Allied Healthcare. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I agree that the problem with APMS is that there is a lack of clarity and it is a bit of a loophole, and we need to look at it again. This may not be the Bill to do it in, but it might be.
With those remarks, and hopeful that the issue of who the members of the ICBs will be will run through our discussions for the next few weeks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
Baroness Meacher
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify and prioritise how use of sums paid to NHS England under section 223B of the National Health Service Act 2006, better known as the Better Care Fund, can be used towards service integration for children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 177. Amendment 20 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that the better care fund, an important and successful initiative, is used to support service integration for children as well as adults. As the Bill stands, the better care fund will continue to be focused exclusively on adults. This is one of a number of amendments that we will debate over the coming weeks which together ensure the children are given equal treatment with adults in the Bill. I assume at the outset that the Minister agrees in principle with us that children and adults should be treated equally in the Bill. Can he give the House an assurance that this is the case—I cannot believe it is not—and if it is not, can he give us the reasons why?
We understand that the fund has focused on adults until now but surely it is time to extend it to children’s services. When the better care fund is all about integration of health and social care, it is hard to understand why children’s services should be excluded. Integrated multiagency support for children and families is key to delivering on the Government’s policy agenda, including for disabled children, those with special educational needs, children supported by the social care system and children during the first 1,000 days of life. Extending the scope of the better care fund to children would greatly accelerate this process of integration and support the Government’s ambitions for children.
I recognise that the funding streams and systems involved in services for children are complicated and it would involve work to extend the better care fund to incorporate those systems. However, this complexity is precisely why good and integrated services for children are so hard to achieve and why the better care fund could be so beneficial.
To illustrate the point, I will quote from a letter I received last week from Julian Wooster, the Somerset director of children’s services. He welcomes this amendment and explains that
“unfortunately we currently have a perfect storm of issues nationally in relation to placements of teenagers with complex needs, which is having a detrimental impact on their well-being.”
Apparently, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services has made a number of submissions, including the following commentary to the review of children’s social care which is under way:
“Despite long standing and ongoing discussions about the needs of children across the children’s social care, mental health and youth custody secure estate, the three systems continue to be separately commissioned, operate under separate legislative frameworks and are the responsibility of different government departments, each with different priorities. This can present practical barriers to local innovations and change. Locally in Somerset the council and NHS colleagues have worked well together on a joint initiative, which is receiving national interest. If the country is to benefit, Wooster claims, there needs to be a joint framework which the better care fund could provide.”
I am aware that officials from the department have been having positive conversations with colleagues from the Children and Young People’s Health Policy Influencing Group and the National Children’s Bureau, and I hope these will continue. But what I hope today is that the Minister will clarify to the House is that he has no objections to the principle of extending the remit of the better care fund to children, and that he is happy to explore how that might be achieved.
I turn briefly to Amendment 177, which seeks to ensure that the needs of those aged nought to 25 are adequately met under the integrated care systems. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on how ICSs should meet their obligations and with which ICS bodies would be required—that is a very important word—to comply. I do not think that I really need to persuade the Government that meeting the health needs of children from birth to adulthood is perhaps the most important investment in the health of the nation. Obviously, good health in childhood is likely to lead to good health in adulthood, to the benefit of every single one of us and to our NHS and taxpayers. We know that integrated care systems will have to cater for all ages in the context of the historically large backlog of appointments and treatments. It will be all too easy for particular groups to be left behind, unless there are specific provisions in the legislation to make sure that they are not.
As this Bill passed through the House of Commons, I was really pleased to hear that the Minister for Health had recognised the importance of meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. In particular, I warmly welcomed his commitment in Committee to ask his officials to develop bespoke guidance spelling out how ICSs should meet their needs. I understand that officials from the Department of Health and Social Care are currently engaged in discussion with the Children and Young People’s Health Policy Influencing Group on the development of that guidance, which is really encouraging.
I hope the Minister understands the reason for this amendment. Given that the Minister in the other place has shown his commitment to the principle of issuing guidance, our purpose here is to ensure that the guidance is published and will have statutory force to ensure compliance with it. I shall not go into the details of the amendment, but those are its objectives. I hope the Minister will be able to agree to this amendment, as it does nothing more than ensure that his colleague’s commitment in the other place is honoured by the new system. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 98. I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, in this amendment, so that the safeguarding of children has an important place in this Bill.
Vulnerable children’s needs must be highlighted. It is not long ago that six year-old Arthur and the little girl called Star were cruelly murdered, and the chances of saving them were missed. Over the years, there have been many other shocking cases where children were tortured and killed. It is vital that all the safeguarding people involved in the many tragic cases of vulnerable children work together. It should not be left to one junior social worker, who may be frightened of facing difficult, devious and cunning parents. I hope that the Government agree on the need to upgrade safeguarding children’s needs and will help to see that it is in the Bill. The needs of children should not be passed over and neglected.
I also support many other amendments in this group.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendments 51, 98, 141, 151 and 162 in my name and, briefly, the other amendment to which my name is attached. I shall make one opening remark. This group is all about children and young people. I know that all noble Lords feel very strongly about this issue. Children and young people make up 30% of the population but are not mentioned anywhere in the Bill.
Amendment 51 would require integrated care boards to share relevant information and data with key partners in the children’s system and to collect multiagency data from those partners. As the Bill stands, there are a number of crucial areas in which adults are, rightly, set to benefit from improvements to integrated working in ways that children are not. One of the most concerning ways in which it feels to me as though children have been an afterthought in the Bill is in the sharing of data and information.
Barriers to sharing information have been identified over many years as a key barrier to better joint working, commissioning and delivery of services but, due to the invisibility of children in existing data-sharing legislation, the children’s system faces even greater barriers to sharing information than that for adults. However, the measures to improve the sharing of information and data in Part 2 apply only to the adult system. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.
Alongside the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Hunt, to whom I am very grateful for adding their names to my Amendment 51, I heard numerous accounts of the huge challenges that the NHS and local authorities face in collecting, sharing and interpreting data as part of the recent Public Services Select Committee inquiry into child vulnerability. We heard this time and again. I quote just one sentence from the report:
“poor data-sharing between Government departments and local agencies endangered vulnerable children and their families by undermining safeguarding arrangements and preventing referrals for early help.”
As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, following the heartbreaking murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Star Hobson and other vulnerable children in this country, it is essential that arrangements for data sharing between the health system and local authorities for babies, children and young people are urgently improved. As I have said, Part 2 focuses on data sharing between health and adult social care but does not extend this to the children’s system. It is not just that children are not specifically included in the wording of the Bill; they have been explicitly excluded.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, colleagues in the sector, including the National Children’s Bureau—to which I am very grateful for its help and support on these amendments—have engaged in discussion with officials on this issue. I was pleased to hear that this engagement is going well and is set to continue, but I hope to secure today the Minister’s agreement to look again at this issue, which is in the best interests of vulnerable children in this country.
Amendment 98 would add the discharge of duty as a safeguarding partner to the general duties of ICBs in Clause 20. It would require new regulations that specify how ICBs should perform the statutory child safeguarding duty when it is transferred to them from CCGs, which are obviously abolished as a result of the Bill. Although the statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children already sets out the responsibilities of a safeguarding partner, the recent tragic events that I have just referred to show that a more robust legislative approach is needed to ensure that children are properly protected by a really effective multiagency safeguarding system.
It was heartbreaking, and I know that all noble Lords in the Chamber were shocked when they heard the details of the tragic death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, a six year-old boy who suffered prolonged abuse and was murdered by the very people who were supposed to keep him safe. I recently met the NSPCC, which highlighted government data showing 536 incidents involving the death or serious harm of a child due to abuse or neglect in 2020-21.
Sadly, young Arthur’s case is only one of far too many, but health practitioners such as GPs, nurses, midwives and health visitors are in a prime position to recognise and report safeguarding concerns; during medical examinations they might identify signs of physical or sexual abuse. Missed medical appointments can also indicate neglect. As the strategic safeguarding leader, the ICB will be responsible for ensuring that health practitioners are fully supported to work with other agencies on safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Alan Wood’s review from 2021, which has been discussed in the Chamber on a number of occasions, makes clear recommendations on strengthening the existing safeguarding arrangements, which came into effect in 2019, including by ensuring effective leadership, data sharing and scrutiny. The Bill offers a golden opportunity to act on these amendments to bolster local health partners’ role as a lead safeguarding partner and to embed effective joint practices that really do keep children safe.
Amendment 141 would require NHS England to assess how well an integrated care board has met the needs of children and young people in its area. In order to make a judgment about this, the amendment would require NHS England to publish an accountability framework for setting out national priorities for children and young people. Among other things, ICBs will have a crucial role in commissioning primary and community healthcare services directly for children and young people. They will play a key role in jointly commissioning services for disabled children and those with special educational needs, and in contributing to education, health and care plans, and they will be crucial in commissioning the joined-up services in the first 1,000 days of life, which the Government, to their credit, are investing in.
However, as we all know, there is unwarranted variation, with the support that children and young people receive in the health service often based on where they live rather than on their level of need. This amendment would create much needed accountability for integrated care boards and provide an overarching framework for children’s health that ICBs can work within, importantly without being prescriptive in any way about how local systems fulfil their duties.
Turning to Amendment 151, Clause 21 requires every integrated care partnership to develop an integrated care strategy. The amendment would require ICPs to consider specifically the needs of babies, children and young people when developing this strategy. I think the Minister knows my concern and that of other noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, referred to it—that if we do not refer explicitly to children in the Bill, they will not be given priority equal to the adult population’s when it comes to implementation. Sadly, experience shows that when legislation does not explicitly require health systems to consider children, they are often overlooked in subsequent implementation.
Children and young people have distinct development needs. They use a distinct health and care system staffed by a distinct workforce with its own training, and they are covered by distinct legislation. Simply hoping that integrated care systems will take full account of that of their own accord will just not cut it. A more robust legislative approach is needed. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I was also pleased to hear that the Minister in the other place recognised the importance of focusing on children and families in the new ICS structures and made a commitment that the Government would develop bespoke guidance for integrated care systems on meeting the needs of babies, children and young people. That is why I support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and to which my name is attached, to put this guidance on a statutory footing.
Amendment 162, on Clause 26, would require the Care Quality Commission to work jointly with Ofsted to plan and conduct reviews into the provision of health and children’s social care in integrated care board areas.
Again, I refer back to my experience as a member of the Lords Public Services Select Committee. I can confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be able to, that the committee investigated the role played by the relevant regulators and inspectorates. Indeed, we took evidence from the senior leaders of the relevant inspectorates and regulators, specifically Ofsted and the CQC. Our conclusion was that, despite the very best intentions, these inspectorates do not work together closely enough or have a truly integrated approach. It is telling that our report revealed that the CQC itself called on the Bill
“to give it the ‘ability to look at [the] care of children across all settings’ as part of its regulation of Integrated Care Systems”.
I believe that the Bill should give the Care Quality Commission and Ofsted powers jointly to hold integrated care systems, service providers and local decision-makers accountable for the long-term outcomes for children’s health, including health inequalities.
I very much support Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. It has been explained and it very much goes with the grain of my other amendments.
I also strongly support Amendment 142 in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which would provide an opportunity for the Government to ensure that children and young people are prioritised on ICBs while maintaining local flexibility, which is important. An impact assessment would allow for good practice to be shared quickly and for both Houses to exercise effective scrutiny over the implementation of this legislation.
On Amendment 87 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the idea of the appointment of a strategic clinical lead for children and young people’s health is an excellent proposal, but I will leave the noble Baroness to express that.
In conclusion, the Government have a very important agenda for children. There are a lot of things that they are trying to do. I strongly support most of them but I really feel that we must have an effective legislative framework to allow that agenda to be taken forward successfully.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is particularly important because it concerns the next generation, addressing children and young people’s health and social care needs. As has been said, I have tabled Amendment 87. I have also put my name to Amendments 141, 151 and 162, introduced so comprehensively by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I also support the other amendments in this group.
These amendments address how the needs of children and young people aged nought to 25 will be met by the relevant healthcare and social care provision within the area of each integrated care board. A bonus from recognising this in the Bill would be the encompassing of young people with learning difficulties and autism, whom we discussed last week.
I was struck by a figure raised during the debate in the other place. According to Young Minds, 77%—more than three-quarters—of sustainability and transformation partnerships failed to consider children’s needs sufficiently. Only one of the 42 ICSs in existence listed a strategic lead for children and young people. Given the range of agencies and pathways, someone must have responsibility for the integration of services at the local level and for listening to the needs of young people.
More than 12.6 million children aged 18 and under live in England, yet the Bill reads as if it is written by adults for adults. Let us not forget that an estimated 800,000 children in England are child carers and more than 250,000 of them are likely to be providing high levels of care for their relative.
Alarmingly, the UK is fifth from bottom among 27 European countries for infant mortality, and one in six children has a diagnosable mental health condition. The number of children in looked-after care is rising and we have heard terrible stories of children whose lives have been lost through abuse and illness.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, on behalf of my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, who cannot be in her place today, I speak in support of Amendment 141, to which she has put her name, alongside all the amendments, which I too support, having listened to the discussion and read them carefully. They all aim to strengthen the services for children and young people. The Government should be congratulated on continuing in the NHS a long period—perhaps 20 to 30 years—of raising the profile of children and young people. The work of the clinical director should be noted, and the involvement of young people in the design of services, although we have already heard this morning that this could be increased.
The pandemic has shown that there are still gaps through which children and young people fall. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London, and myself in Birmingham, are in regular contact with head teachers of Church schools and know about the increase in children’s mental ill health, continued inequalities, and the uneven provision of services across the country.
In the second day of Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, emphasised the need for focus in the NHS. Other noble Lords here have spoken of the need for levers in the Bill to ensure accountability. I think that this is what Amendment 141 attempts to do—to provide such a regular assessment and framework to ensure that the needs of children and young people are always included and that there is a general and regular accountability. I trust that the Minister will consider the amendment carefully, along with the others—but particularly this one—and accept it.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be here at the start of the debate on this group, owing to a medical appointment.
I shall address my remarks to Amendments 141, 151 and 177. I do so because, like other noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments, and as I made clear at Second Reading, I believe that supporting speech, language and communication development and better outcomes for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs, which I shall refer to as communication needs for the remainder of my contribution, is incredibly important and a cost-effective investment.
I should at this point declare my interest as a proud vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. I should also say that I have incorporated within my remarks those that would have been made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who has a passionate interest in adequate support for people with communication needs as a former speech and language therapist.
My first point is that these amendments do not come with a significant price tag attached. Indeed, the price tag of not implementing what they propose would be considerably greater. These amendments would actually facilitate cost-efficiency because of the significant benefits over the medium to longer term of getting the system right at the outset—in other words, by ensuring that the system works to maximum effect when it matters most, as early as possible in children and young people’s lives.
We know that the impact of not supporting children and young people with communication needs in particular can be significant. For example, children and young people with long-term communication needs—10% of all children and young people—are at greater risk of worse educational attainment, mental health problems, unemployment and potential involvement in the criminal justice system if their needs are not identified and adequately supported. It seems common sense to require NHS England, as Amendment 141 proposes, to assess how well an integrated care board has identified and met children and young people’s needs in relation to the national accountability framework, which, of course, it has responsibility for publishing. It would help ensure transparent value for money—in other words, optimal bangs for bucks for the taxpayer. I have to ask: what’s not to like?
This amendment gives us the opportunity to ensure that children and young people are prioritised by decision-makers in the health system. Sadly, children and young people with communication needs are often even less of a priority. Indeed, this has been demonstrated by decisions taken during the pandemic, when speech and language therapy services to children were stopped and speech and language therapists were redeployed in many areas. As a result, according to a survey conducted by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, 62% of children and young people received no speech and language therapy during the first lockdown. That is almost two-thirds whose life chances will have been adversely affected, and that will definitely come with a price tag attached over time.
It is therefore vital that integrated care boards are held to account to ensure that they give children and young people the priority they deserve, with a clear set of outcome metrics, including outcomes for children with communication needs. In fact, this would be in line with the Government’s very welcome acknowledgement—in a response to a Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in July 2019—that speech, language and communication skills are a primary indicator of a child’s well-being.
Surely it makes complete sense that this accountability should be grounded in a national accountability framework so that we actually see equitable support across England and thereby reduce the risk of babies, children and young people and their families facing a postcode lottery of access to services. I assume that all noble Lords would agree that the service they receive should be based on need rather than where they live. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the national accountability framework will include metrics on outcomes for children and young people with communication needs.
Amendments 151 and 177 are in a similar vein and would, I believe, also bring considerable cost benefits. Amendment 151 would require an integrated care partnership to specifically consider the needs of babies, children and young people when developing its strategy. As with Amendment 141, to ensure that the Government’s very welcome ambitions for babies, children and young people, including those with communication needs, are achieved, it is essential that an integrated care partnership’s strategy specifically considers the needs of babies, children and young people so that they can achieve the best possible outcomes, not least in terms of life chances. This would help to develop a holistic, local approach to supporting babies, children and young people and their families, including, of course, those with communication needs.
It is also crucial that the strategy includes plans to support speech, language and communication development at the population level. This would help not only to deliver better health outcomes for children but to tackle health inequalities, an issue that I appreciate noble Lords have already addressed in considerable detail in Committee.
Finally, on Amendment 177, this proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay regulations and publish guidance on how integrated care systems should meet the needs of babies, children and young people. This would also require integrated care systems to act in accordance with guidance. The key point here is that bespoke guidance for integrated care systems on meeting the needs of babies, children and young people must be on a statutory footing if we are to ensure that the strongest possible support is provided, including for those with communication needs and their families. I suggest that only then can we be confident that meeting their needs will not be considered optional and that a potential postcode lottery in access to services and support can be pre-empted and prevented.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the British Stammering Association; indeed, I am a stammerer myself. I regret that I could not join in at Second Reading. I support all the amendments in this group, as does the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
I want briefly to add my support for Amendments 141, 151 and 177. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said, Amendment 141 would improve the lot of some 10% of children in the United Kingdom. That is a large proportion. Those are the ones who have identified speech, language and communication needs, which, as has already been said, affect their life chances in many ways. The way to do this, as the right reverend Prelate said, is to have the vital structure of accountability for their needs being identified and met.
There is a big equality issue here. I remind noble Lords that up to 50% of children in areas of social disadvantage start school with delayed language or another identified communication need. The 2010 Marmot review on health inequalities emphasised that
“giving every child the best start in life … is our highest priority recommendation.”
The review identified reducing inequalities in the early development of physical and emotional health and cognitive, linguistic and social skills as a priority objective, noting communication skills as crucial for “school readiness”. Levelling up is for children too; arguably, it is particularly important for them. The national accountability framework in Amendment 141 must include metrics on speech, language and communication development at the population level and outcomes for children and young people with communication needs.
On Amendment 151, I can do no other than echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, with whom I agree entirely.
I strongly endorse Amendment 177, which would put the guidance on a statutory footing. One advantage of this, which should be done for all sorts of reasons, is that it would enable the postcode lottery to disappear or at least be very much reduced. Of course, it ought to include specific guidance on supporting speech, language and communication development at the population level, explaining how the needs of children and young people with communication needs will be met. I hope that the Government will pay attention to this often rather neglected aspect.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and in so doing declare my interest, as laid out in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a non-executive director of Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
NHS England defines the better care fund as being there to support
“local systems to successfully deliver the integration of health and social care in a way that supports person-centred care, sustainability and better outcomes for people and carers.”
So why is that not the case for 30% of the population, children and young people, who have the same complex needs and the same need for integration as adults do to help and support them on their journeys? The better care fund has been around since 2014. My guess is that this was an oversight rather than a deliberate means to keep children and young people out. Having looked at examples of what the better care fund can achieve in integration and outcomes for adults, I believe that this oversight needs to be addressed. Children and young people need to be on the face of the Bill.
I think that the Government accept that things need to happen, because we have the children’s social care innovation programme, which is particularly about looking at innovation in social care along with healthcare partners. The problem, however, is that it is a bidding system and it is not for all local authorities. If you win the bid, you can do it. Children and young people across the country deserve and should expect the right to have innovation in integration to improve their outcomes regardless of where they live. It should not be conditional on their local authority being successful in a bid.
I can see no reason why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, the Government would not want to do this. It is an oversight in the better care fund. Putting children and young people on the face of the Bill would ensure that they received the integration and better outcomes that adults achieve through the fund.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer the support of the Green group for all the amendments in this group. My name is attached to Amendments 51 and 87 and it would have been attached to others had there been space. I can only commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for identifying a serious lacuna in the Bill and for providing practical, careful and sensible solutions to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that the Bill was “by adults for adults”. The other amendments in the group address only half that phrase. It addresses the “for adults” part but not the “by adults” part, which is what my Amendment 103A aims to address. Young people are experts in being young people. We may think about the life experiences of a 12 year-old or an 18 year-old, but none of us really knows what it is like to be 12 or 18 at this moment. A phrase often used particularly by marginalised groups is “Nothing about us without us”—given the hour, I will spare noble Lords the Latin version.
Young people are undoubtedly a marginalised group in our society in that their voice is far too rarely heard. As I have reflected previously, they are hugely underrepresented in this place and in the other place. The under-18s do not have the vote. The under-25s in the voting population, for structural reasons that could be fixed but have not been, do not have the same kind of voice.
I entirely accept that, among paediatricians and social workers, there are many older people who have much expert knowledge, but it is crucial that we actually hear. My amendment seeks to address ICBs and sets out that, in statute, there should be an advisory board consisting of young people on every ICB. I believe that this is an important addition to ensure that young people’s voices are heard. It might be said that many ICBs may set up such a structure, but that is not the same as it being statutory, ensured in the Bill with a message from Parliament saying, “You have to listen to these young people’s voices”.
I doubt that I need to address this in detail, particularly with the occupancy of the Chamber for this group, but I want to mention the Children’s Society’s Good Childhood Report 2021, which looked at 10 to 17 year-olds. Among them, one in 15 were unhappy with their lives—the highest level in a decade. We know that children who are unhappy at the age of 14 are significantly more likely to display symptoms of mental ill health, to self-harm or, sadly, to attempt to take their own life by the time they are 17.
As the report makes clear, the pandemic is only part of this story. There is a climate emergency and a pervasive fear about the future that young people have lived their entire lives through. We are talking about people whose whole life experience, virtually, has been since the financial crash. One thing that we know addresses a sense of powerlessness, with all its negative effects on mental and physical health, is giving people a sense of empowerment—that is, a sense that they can take control of their lives, make choices and make a difference. I often see this with young climate strikers.
I believe that the measure proposed by my Amendment 103A would ensure that this group of amendments collectively addresses the two sides of the problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, identified. I want to take this forward and I invite noble Lords who are interested to talk to me about it. This should be included in the Bill. Let us hear from children and young people and make sure that ICBs listen to the children and young people they serve.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness and I support the broad thrust of these amendments. As this is my first intervention on the Bill, I should declare my interests as a board member of the GMC and the president of GS1 UK, the British Fluoridation Society and the Hospital Caterers Association. I am also a trustee of the Foundation for Liver Research.
I support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. As she said, she, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who also put his name to the amendment, and I are members of the Lords Public Services Select Committee, which has just produced a report on vulnerable children. When taking evidence and listening to the arguments, it was sobering to hear that it is now estimated that the number of vulnerable children has accelerated, particularly during Covid, so that more than 1 million children are growing up with reduced life chances. Too many of them end up in our criminal justice system but, despite this, there is no government strategy to deal with vulnerable children.
The result is a lack of co-ordination both nationally and locally. Too many children fall through the gaps. Public services intervene far too late to prevent some of these children from getting into difficult circumstances. Although the amendment deals with only one aspect, it is but one aspect of a more general problem that we believe the Government need to address. The particular problem that we wish the Committee to take account of is the silo working that continues to be evident both nationally and locally, as well as the frustrating unwillingness of public bodies to share data even though it is abundantly clear from both the law and the Information Commissioner’s comments that they are perfectly able to do so.
I do not pretend that passing an amendment to the Bill will change everything overnight, but we look to the Government to be firm in their intent. It is unacceptable for public bodies, many of which have a direct relationship with government, to refuse to share information for all the miserable reasons of tribalism and managers not being willing to let go. We need to do something here.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am sure that he has, like me, a feeling of déjà vu. We were here not so long ago talking about the Domestic Abuse Bill, when I and many Members here today urged the Government to put children in the Bill. I am pleased that the Government listened, although it took some time and a lot of effort—that is why I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendment 20. It seems clear to me that children should be front and centre in this Bill, as we made them in the Domestic Abuse Bill.
We have worked closely with Barnardo’s, which has advised many of us, and I know that it raises three issues here: to protect the needs of young carers; to mandate that the child impact assessment is undertaken by the Government within two years of the Bill’s implementation to assess its impact on children; and to clarify and prioritise the better care fund so that it can be used to achieve service integration for children. I do not want to take time—I just think that my noble friend the Minister may want to look at Hansard and our debates on the Domestic Abuse Bill. I am sure that he will find a way to put children front and centre in this Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this morning the Committee has heard from the noble Baronesses who have spoken to amendments many good reasons why it would be helpful to the Government’s agenda to improve services for children, if children were referred to explicitly in several places in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to consider this matter and see whether there is anything that he can do about it.
I have Amendment 142 in this group. New Section 14Z57 in Clause 20 is about performance assessment of the integrated care boards; it contains several important measures, but one is one missing. This amendment would mandate that, two years after the Bill is implemented, a child impact assessment should be undertaken by the ICS annually to assess its impact on children. This would provide the information to enable NHS England to do the assessment which Amendment 141 requires it to do. I very much support all the amendments, particularly those that would gather information, publish it and enable its sharing, because that will help. We know that early intervention works, but we do not know where to intervene unless we know what is going on, and that is why these things are very important.
There is no duty in England for government to assess and publish the effects of legislation on children—neither is there a duty in this Bill on the ICS. It was in about 2010, I recall, that the then Government committed to regularly assess the effect on children of relevant legislation, although it is not mandatory to do so and it is often not done, despite the fact that Nadhim Zahawi, now Education Secretary, when he was Children’s Minister in the Department for Education said:
“The use of children’s rights impact assessments is widely promoted across the Department and wider Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/19; col. 447.]
Well, I hope so.
Scotland and Wales have taken a slightly different approach; they have systems to assess the effect of devolved legislation on children. I have to say, as a proud resident of Wales, that those two nations have always led the way in relation to children’s rights.
As others have said, this is a very adult-focused Bill, but there are more than 12.6 million children aged 18 and under living in England, compared to just under 10.5 million of 65 year-olds and over—people like me. As drafted, the Bill does not explicitly recognise the health and well-being needs of those children and young people, who, as we have heard, have very specific needs and no voice and are often more dependent than adults on integrated services. They could benefit from the Bill perhaps more than any other group.
We know that around half of mental health disorders start at the age of 14 to 16 and that, although research has shown that around 30% to 40% of the risk of anxiety and depression is genetic, 60% to 70% is environmental—and we can change the environment. I am grateful to Barnardo’s for these figures. In addition, this generation, from infants to older teenagers, will have had their physical health and mental well-being impacted by the pandemic, and in just over a decade, over half of this group will have left school and entered further and higher education or the workforce. Other amendments will allow the ICBs to gather information and share it. This amendment would allow them to publish an impact assessment, which would help NHS England to publish what it has to publish.
The Government cannot meaningfully address the challenge of improving overall population health without tackling child health inequalities. The success of the Bill should be measured by its practical and tangible impact in ensuring children and young people’s access to timely and appropriate health and care services, and ultimately in doing what the Government want to do: improving health outcomes for the whole population.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the House will recognise that children have very different needs. They are vulnerable in many ways and in need of the recognition that all the services have to work together. It seems strange that in a Bill on health and social care, children are not identified as a special group. I support these amendments.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, today’s debate has shown the strength and depth of feeling across your Lordships’ House that children and young people should be properly provided for within the scope of the Bill and not just as an afterthought, as many noble Lords have said.
Intervening in the early years of a child’s life is the most effective way of shoring up their good health and well-being as an adult. This group of amendments seeks to do just that, ensuring that our children are not sidelined in a healthcare infrastructure currently designed with adults, and just the NHS, in mind. This group also seeks to strengthen the Bill by including safeguarding, interagency working, service integration and data sharing, especially between government departments and the NHS and social care.
I thank noble Lords for putting forward these amendments, particularly the indefatigable noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her proposals across Clauses 20 and 21 to ensure the joining up of the roles and work of ICBs and ICPs in these crucial areas. Indeed, what is particularly striking about today’s debate is that the experience and contributions of noble Lords have joined up children’s needs across a whole range of service provision and support in a way that government structures currently fail to do. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed, particularly to address the needs of vulnerable children, as my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords have stressed.
If the Bill is to stand any chance of improving government health outcomes, it must start with the youngest among us all. Right now, in this, the fifth-biggest economy in the world, child health inequalities are widening, while 25% of children in the average reception class will be overweight. By the time those children are in year 6, it will be 40%. The all-cause mortality rate for under-14s in the UK is among the worst in Europe, and the World Health Organization tells us that 50% of lifetime mental illnesses start by the age of 14. Noble Lords will recall the debate last week about the need for robust mental health services, which include those around potential young suicides, self-harm and eating disorders. As the charity YoungMinds reminds us, after-care and follow-up are crucial although, sadly, ignored in current sustainability plans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has expressed particular concern that there is currently no duty in the Bill to include representation from children’s health and care services on integrated care boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, underlined in her Amendment 87 the importance of safe staffing levels and of this in driving forward improvements in child healthcare outcomes and ensuring that children and young people can access the care they need, when they need it and from the most appropriate person or team.
Barnardo’s is similarly worried about the absence of a child impact assessment, without which there will be no clear, objective idea of the impact of the changes in this Bill on young people. The right governance and rigorous evaluation, aimed at providing lessons learned for future service design and reform, can surely only be a good thing. We strongly support Amendment 142 on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which calls for the impact assessment to be undertaken within two years of the Bill’s implementation. It also emphasises the need for an annual report and debate in Parliament on the impact of changes, scrutinising, in the first year in particular, how the changeover from CCGs to ICBs is working in practice.
Following last week’s debate on the appalling backlog of waiting lists and the NHS’s duties under the mandate and constitution, I remind the Committee that last month’s National Audit Office report showed that more than 288,000 children and young people are waiting for NHS treatment, 86,000 of whom have been waiting for longer than the 18-week target I asked the Government to reaffirm.
Whether it is ensuring proper information sharing between care providers, safe staffing levels or clarifying how the Better Care Fund can specifically be used to better integrate children’s services, these amendments have compassion and common sense behind them. We have an opportunity in this Bill to give our children a healthier future. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage but I cannot let the opportunity pass to say, in my view, how important it is that children be particularly referred to and their circumstances be properly taken into account. We have very powerful legislation on the care of children, but the same is not true with health, and it is extremely important that that be kept in view. Apart from anything else, special staff and treatments are required for children, and I therefore strongly support this amendment. I am sorry that I was not able to do so at a more appropriate time, but I arrived a little later than I would have liked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments for debate, and noble Lords from across the House for their eloquent contributions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly said, it is important that, as the fifth-largest economy in the world, we treat all our citizens equally and give them the respect and access to services they deserve. As she also said, the strength of feeling across the House on the importance of this issue is clear, and this was amplified most eloquently by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
With your Lordships’ agreement, I will look at some of these amendments from a different perspective. Each amendment touches on a different aspect of providing health and care for children. Before I turn to matters of detail, let me say that we believe that the Health and Care Bill’s proposals represent a huge opportunity to support and improve service planning and provision and ensure that they better meet the needs of infants, children and young people.
With your Lordships’ permission, I will start by addressing Amendment 20, which was spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lord Polak. It would clarify and prioritise how the Better Care Fund could be used to integrate services for children. I remind the Committee that the relevant legislation does not prevent the use of the Better Care Fund for the integration of children’s services. The disabled facilities grant within the BCF is already used to fund housing adaptation for individuals aged under 18 with disabilities. Some areas also extend the scope of their BCF-funded initiatives to include integrated services for children and young people.
However, we can go further. The Government believe that integrated care partnerships and integrated care boards represent a huge opportunity for partnership working. The Bill explicitly requires integrated care partnerships to consider whether needs could be met more effectively under Section 75 of the NHS Act 2006, which provides for arrangements to be made between NHS bodies and local authorities. The Government are also working on bespoke guidance on the measures that statutory bodies should take to ensure that they will deliver for babies, children and young people.
Turning to Amendment 51, I particularly welcomed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on vulnerable children. The amendment would require ICBs to share and collect information from partners when arranging for the provision of services for pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding and young children. I sympathise with the amendment, and in fact, I would go further: one of my three big priorities in my departmental portfolio, as the Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, is to push digitalisation and sharing data. As all noble Lords have rightly said, that is not just for children’s services but right across the sector. We hear stories almost every day of something that could have been prevented, had data been shared more appropriately.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I say a huge thank you to and congratulate Members from across the Committee who have made the most amazingly powerful contributions to this debate on the children’s amendments. I think that we are all just taken aback that there is no mention of children in these crucial clauses. I confess that I was very disappointed in the Minister’s response; we do not seem even to have managed to persuade the Government that the Bill should mention children somewhere, so I think that a number of us will want discussions with him before Report to see whether we can make some progress on making sure that children in future are taken care of. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barker
“Appointment of a National Clinical Director for Women’s Reproductive Health
NHS England must appoint a National Clinical Director for Women’s Reproductive Health.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require NHS England to appoint a clinician to provide national clinical leadership, advice, input and support on issues relating to reproductive healthcare.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. At Second Reading, I said that it was not at all clear exactly what contribution the Bill would make to the strategic aims that all parties have to turn the NHS into a body that is preventive, forward-looking health promotion service, which concentrated far less on the acute sector and looks at population health much more strategically while making greater use of technology and, in doing so, seeks to reduce health inequalities. On day 3 of the detailed examination of the Bill in Committee, I am still no clearer about that.
In every set of amendments that noble Lords have put forward, they have tried to ascertain from the Government exactly how the Bill will achieve that aim—and, as yet, the answer is unclear. But if the Bill is about anything, it is about enabling those within the NHS, as well as patients and interest groups that work with them, to take what we have as a National Health Service at the moment and introduce into it new and innovative ways of looking at conditions, to build different pathways and processes of treatment in order to bring about the much-improved health outcomes that we believe are possible from the NHS.
In this amendment, I am very much influenced by the 2009 report from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Better for Women, which did exactly that: it took a longitudinal life-course investigation of women’s health needs. The report decided that the way health services have traditionally been provided is lacking, because it is by and large built on some fairly old established ways of thinking from a provider’s perspective rather than from the perspective of women and their partners. In terms of reproductive health, the RCOG report showed, with a number of different stakeholders, the many different ways in which we could look at women’s health and achieve far better outcomes.
The RCOG report started by looking at the data on reproductive health. Bear in mind that reproductive health is unique. It is perhaps the one area of medicine in which the people engaging with health professionals are, for the most part, not ill. They are in need of medical intervention and occasionally surgical intervention, but by and large they are not ill. They are going through a process that is natural but needs the informed intervention of health professionals. It is very different from other areas of acute medicine.
We have a national health service and all the years of experience behind that, yet we currently have very poor outcomes for women. Almost half of British women experience very poor reproductive and sexual healthcare. It is estimated that about 45% of pregnancies in the UK are either unplanned or there is ambivalence, and that is after decades of different Governments making concerted efforts to deal with unwanted pregnancies. The abortion rate is probably the highest it has been since records began and, crucially, access to contraception, and to particular forms of contraception, including long-acting reversible contraception, is now in significant decline. Also crucially, cervical screening for eligible women is at 70%, significantly below the national target of 80%.
This is largely due to one simple fact: we have completely fractured service provision. We know that reproductive health services were traditionally part of primary care; indeed, access to information about reproductive health services was part of the education service. We know that an element of women’s reproductive health will always have to sit in the acute sector, yet in all these years we have failed to build a coherent system that works with the three different elements—primary care, acute care and the education system—and in which women can access what, by and large, they know they need.
For some sections of our community, the outcomes are even worse. We know that the figures are much worse for women from black and minority ethnic communities. Eight per cent of abortions occur in women who report as being black, but that is in 3% of the general population. We also know that black, Asian and minority ethnic women also have much worse outcomes in maternity services. Only of late has that begun to be looked at and systematically analysed by one or two very good, interested professionals in maternity units.
The amendment, which calls for a national director, was tabled to highlight the case for having somebody in the leadership of the NHS who can look at the whole question of information for women, access to services and the different outcome statistics for different methods of arranging reproductive health services. We have different arrangements in the four nations of the United Kingdom because this is a devolved matter, so we can have comparative statistics to see which approaches work better.
If we follow the lead set out in the RCOG report, we can have an inclusive approach to women in all their diversity, and inevitably we will look at systems that are beneficial to men. Clearly reproductive health has a particular impact on the lives of women, but men are included too.
It seems to me that, if this Bill and the flexibilities in it are a route to better outcomes, this is perhaps one way in which we could try to have innovation at the centre. It impacts in different ways throughout the system, which hopefully will be integrated between local government, primary care and tertiary care. It is in that spirit that I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s proposal for this simple reason: it would enable focus on the very particular needs of women’s reproductive health. As we heard earlier in our debate, children have specific needs. Well, so do women, particularly with reference to their reproductive cycle.
I am particularly keen on the element of prevention of ill health. Many services for women focus on it. Obviously, we all have cause to be grateful for the breast and cervical screening services that are available; I was professionally involved with them many years ago. It is also, however, cause for concern that the number of women taking advantage of those important preventive services has been falling. A national lead would have the expertise, responsibility and ability to focus on areas where women need to be encouraged to take advantage of the services that are available to them.
There must be concern about the quality of maternity and perinatal services, given some of the dreadful cases that we have heard about and the poor quality that has been rife in a few centres in the country in the past. I hope that things are being put in place to improve that, but there is an element of prevention here too. Good-quality maternity services prevent women and their babies having a bad experience at the beginning of their life together. It is so important for the ongoing mental and physical health of the child that women can bond with their children and babies can bond with their mothers. That bonding starts at the very beginning, but it is less likely to happen with poor-quality maternity services, which of course cost the health services and the country later on.
These services are vital for preventing further problems not just for the mother but for the children. It is the sort of thing that a highly qualified and knowledgeable national lead can focus and advise on in trying to ensure that access to good-quality services is available to all communities in the country. My noble friend Lady Barker highlighted the difficulties that some communities face in getting those good services. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment in a positive light.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for introducing this amendment. Yet again, it is an indication that if this Bill actually presents the opportunities that the Government tell us it does, they need to accept something that recognises the opportunities that are being suggested to them across a whole range of issues, including children, about whom we have just had a very good debate.
The amendment would require NHS England to appoint a national clinical director for women’s reproductive health to provide the kind of clinical leadership that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about and to support this important area of women’s reproductive healthcare. In recent years, the Government have issued policy papers about women and health, so I would have thought that this particular proposal would chime with that.
We know that almost half of British women will experience poor sexual and reproductive care. It is clear that we can take the opportunity to improve this situation, particularly on the postcode lottery that some women face. I can certainly see, as the two noble Baronesses have said, that a single clinical director for the whole of the UK would give the area energy and focus, particularly for the 50% of women who have not had a good experience. We agree with the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, which supports this amendment. I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this important issue, and I hope that the Minister may have some good news for us.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for bringing Amendment 20A before the Committee today, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton, for their very wise insights. I do not think there can be anyone in Committee who does not agree that delivering high-quality reproductive healthcare is critical for the health service.
This is definitely a priority area in the Government’s work on the women’s health strategy for England. Proof of that, I hope, is that on 23 December 2021 we published Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England. The vision is informed by analysis of the call for evidence, which ran for 14 weeks from March to June 2021.
On reproductive health specifically, the vision sets out our ambition that
“women can access services that meet their reproductive health needs … and women’s experiences of services and reproductive health outcomes are improved”.
As a bit of further background, we were clear that the strategy should be evidence-based, so the vision is in fact underpinned by the analysis of what we heard through the nearly 100,000 responses to the call for evidence. We owe it to women and girls across England to get it right, and when we publish our full strategy later this year we will set out our ambitions in more detail and will follow that up with full delivery plans where appropriate.
Joined-up national policy and clinical leadership are essential to the delivery of women’s reproductive health services. I can assure the Committee that this is also recognised as a priority by NHS England and NHS Improvement. We continue to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on the development of the women’s health strategy for England. We will also be working closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on the Government’s forthcoming sexual and reproductive health strategy to ensure that, together, the women’s health and sexual and reproductive health strategies take a holistic and comprehensive approach to improving women’s reproductive health. The sexual and reproductive health strategy will consider how we can strengthen leadership and accountability in relation to reproductive health, as well as how we improve access to contraception.
Self-evidently, NHS England regards these as major areas of work. We do not, however, think it appropriate in the Bill to require NHS England to appoint an additional national clinical director specifically for reproductive health. The first reason is because, within the current NHS England and NHS Improvement, the role of national clinical director for maternity and women’s health already exists. This position is responsible for clinical advice and leadership on obstetrics and gynaecology matters, which are of course important areas of women’s reproductive health. The post is currently held by Dr Matthew Jolly. The national clinical director works alongside the national speciality advisers for gynaecology and four other national speciality advisers, covering broader aspects of obstetrics and public health. Creating an additional post of national clinical director for reproductive health is likely to be counterproductive, in that it may lead to duplication or less clarity over responsibilities and clinical leadership.
Secondly, as a point of principle, we should try to resist the urge to specify the clinical directors that NHS England should appoint. If we make a habit of doing that, it strips it of its operational autonomy. It is better to allow it to determine the directors it needs, based on the challenges it faces.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, rightly pointed out the disparities that exist between different groups of women in this country. I can only express my agreement with the points that she made on that subject. It is essential that we recognise that women are not a homogenous group. The different characteristics that make up each woman’s identity can lead to multiple, sometimes overlapping barriers to accessing healthcare and can contribute to disparities in health outcomes.
When we launched the call for evidence that I mentioned, we said that we wanted to better understand where there are disparities between men and women and between different groups of women. As set out in the vision, a key priority running through this work is to ensure that all women have equitable access to and experience of services and that disparities in outcomes are reduced.
In addition, NHS England and NHS Improvement regularly review their clinical leadership, including national clinical director and national specialty advisor roles, to ensure alignment with strategic priorities for the NHS and patients, as set out through the NHS Long Term Plan, and to support areas in which NHS England and NHS Improvement are taking forward major programmes of work or areas identified as priorities for improvement. In other words, this is not a static landscape. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured by this and so will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I realise that time is at a premium, but it was useful to air these issues. I thank the Minister for his full response, although it was not entirely unexpected.
I do not doubt that NHS England has a number of clinical directors, but the stats speak for themselves: 45% of pregnancies are either unplanned or ambivalent and abortion rates are at their highest level. Whatever we have at the moment is not working. The call for this director came from the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and RCOG; they are people who know this subject in great detail.
I know that across the NHS there are different initiatives trying to bring a greater understanding of gender in medicine. For example, for NHS England I know that the Government are working with the Royal College of Physicians to try to bring about a greater understanding of gender in medicine in the form of training for medical students. But this area of medicine is one in which information, and particularly digital transformation, is already having a significant impact and could have an even greater impact on outcomes. That in itself is a challenge to practitioners, and NHS practitioners are not always the best at dealing with that sort of challenge to their existing practice. Therefore, there is perhaps a case for refreshing the clinical leadership of NHS England in this respect.
If the stats do not improve, we will definitely have to look at this before too long. I listened to what the Minister said about the two strategies that are coming out and I will look at them with a keen eye. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a determinate period for the clinical commissioning group or groups to propose the constitution of the first integrated care board.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 24 and 53 in my name. Amendments 22 and 24 are probing amendments about the time it should take to set up a new ICS constitution and who should do it if the local CCGs fail to do so. I also support Amendment 23 on the importance of consultation, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
I welcome the short delay to implementation that the Government have announced. However, as the Minister probably knows, I am still dubious about whether the Bill is being brought forward at the right time. The NHS is currently in crisis, the staff are exhausted, many are absent through Covid illness or the need to isolate, and the Army and volunteers are being brought in to help. There is evidence that some of the shadow or non-statutory ICSs are not quite as ready as some noble Lords have suggested. Last year, nearly half of them did not publish board papers as they are supposed to do. This is a strong indication that they have not been holding routine public board meetings or joint committee meetings. They may say that they are not obliged to do so until the Bill is implemented, but NHS England said in a paper in 2019 that ICS partnership boards and joint committees, despite not then being statutory bodies,
“should be required to … Make decisions in public meetings … Minute and make public its discussions and decisions”
and publish board papers in advance of meetings. This followed the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee recommending that
“we expect ICSs to meet the highest standards of openness and transparency in the conduct of their affairs by holding meetings in public and publishing board papers and minutes.”
It seems that this has not been happening.
At Second Reading, we heard the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Adebowale, as well as the Minister, assuring us that the NHS is ready for these changes, has been preparing for them for some time and, indeed, has been behaving as far as possible as if these statutory powers and duties to collaborate were already in place as shadow authorities. The passing of legislation, we heard, was just a small barrier to getting on with things. We are being asked to rubber-stamp the way they have done it, despite the amendments that many noble Lords have laid to ensure that people with the right skills and experience to achieve the ICSs’ mandatory objectives are appointed to the boards. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will have more to say about that.
What we do not want is a postcode lottery where some areas, which are already well on the way to getting their ICS running smoothly, are getting on with it, while other areas—perhaps those that have been particularly badly stretched during the pandemic and had their attention elsewhere—find themselves with gaping holes in their commissioning for an unacceptable period or even with the wrong people on the board.
That is why I have suggested in Amendment 22 that the relevant CCGs must set up the constitution of their ICS within three months of the passage of the Bill, which would give them time to appoint additional people to the board if your Lordships’ arguments persuade them, and the Government, that they need additional skill sets. In Amendment 24, NHS England can do it within the same period if the CCGs do not. The Bill says “within a reasonable time” but, if what I am being told about all the detailed preparation is correct, three months is a perfectly reasonable time.
Amendment 53, my other amendment in this group, refers to new Section 3A in Clause 16:
“Power of integrated care boards to commission certain health services.”
It changes the word “may” in subsection (1), which is about securing improvement, to the word “must”. It is a simple amendment, but it is fundamental to legislation that seeks to improve the way in which health and care services are provided through integration and collaboration. New Section 3A requires the ICB to commission services to improve its population’s physical and mental health and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of their physical and mental ill health.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, brought us very persuasively to the point of Clause 14, which I must say I am extremely puzzled about, because it purports to set out the whole set of arrangements that have to be gone through before integrated care boards can be set up as statutory bodies. However, it appears that that has already been done.
I register a very strong protest with the Minister at the actions of NHS England in going ahead and establishing these bodies, issuing extraordinary edicts such as no local authority councillor being able to serve on an ICB. What right does a quango have to say that local authority councillors cannot be represented on ICBs? This is absolute abuse of parliamentary power, because quangos do not have the right to set out what should happen on governance issues at local level in the NHS without parliamentary endorsement.
NHS England has put out a note that says that, subject to parliamentary progress, arrangements for the new statutory bodies are to come in now, on 1 July. How can that be, when we have not even gone through the sections that deal with the composition of integrated care boards? It is quite possible that your Lordships might insist on Report that local authority councillors are members of the ICBs. That is not impossible, so what will happen? Will the Minister say that, despite what Parliament says, the ICBs will go ahead, or does it mean, as I read this legislation, that the Government have to start again?
Lots of issues will be raised in this and the next group, not least the outrageous governance issue, which says that NHS England basically appoints the chair and the chief executive officer is also at its disposal. There is no attempt locally to have a board that elects its own chair or one that is appointed independently; they are essentially place-people put in there by NHS England. These are matters that Parliament should decide. I accept that Parliament may say that it is happy to go ahead on that basis—but I strongly object to this clause. It is dishonest; it purports to go through a process from the start that says that this is how ICBs will be set up—but they have all been set up, the boundaries settled and the chairs nominated, without any proper public accountability process whatever.
I hope that, when we come to agree Clause 14, the Minister will think again and that he will issue instructions to NHS England to withdraw the letter that says that the new arrangements will come into place on 1 July. I do not understand how that can possibly be.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 45. This is a disparate group of amendments, dealing with the issue of integrated care boards. I strongly support the comments already made. My amendment addresses another issue. There are questions about what the boards are; the issue is for whom they provide services, and how they are defined.
I have been made aware of a case that raises real questions about how this is going to develop. The case was reported in September, in the Manchester Evening News, about a woman who suffered burns while on holiday. She returned to her local urgent care centre in Rochdale and was advised that, because of long waiting times, she should go to another A&E in Bury. When she arrived there, she was told that that centre did not treat people from Rochdale, because of rules laid down by the integrated care board predecessor, which had established the rules in that part of Lancashire. She was left literally on the pavement, unable to obtain the care that she required.
That is a specific case under the existing rules, but it points out the lack of clarity in the Bill about how the integrated care boards will operate. The fear is that they will be membership bodies along the lines of health management organisations in the United States, which are responsible for providing services to members. That contrasts with the residential basis on which the NHS was based, at least up to 2012.
Proposed new Section 14Z31(4) gives the Secretary of State astounding power to set out which ICB is responsible for a particular individual’s care. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance, but the problem with membership-based organisations is that, first, there will be cherry picking of patients and, somewhat counterintuitively, at the same time they will be competing for the less expensive patients. Without far more clarity through the Bill from the Minister, people will have reasonable fears over how these new organisations will work and how people will attain the services that they currently expect from a seamless provision of services. My amendment seeks to address the issue of it being a single service. We have these 43 ICBs, or whatever they are, but it is a single service, and patients can access services wherever it is best for them and not best for the service.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
We are living in a parallel universe. We are discussing the legislative framework for this new system while, out in the real world, the foundations and the bricks are being built. People are in place. Dates are being set. People are being told that they cannot be on boards. This Parliament has not decided. Under what legislative framework are these organisations working? They have no legitimate powers or approval from Parliament, yet they are being set up. People are being put in place. Chairs are being appointed. Councillors are being told that they cannot sit on ICBs.
This Parliament has not decided that yet. Letters are going out from NHS England telling the system when it will start, and Parliament has not gone through the legislative process. This is not collaborative working at a local level, because many local authorities feel that they are not even in the car let alone in the driving seat; the car is leaving and they are being asked to join at a later date. This is not a good start for collaborative working. It has to stop. NHS England has to be reined in and told that, until there is a legislative framework, the system must stay still.
In that sense, I support Amendment 23, because, significantly, it would give local authorities powers to determine their own destinies. As a former NHS manager, I am not somebody who says that this is a bunch of bureaucrats who are a waste of time. I understand the importance of NHS leaders and managers, but they cannot start drawing lines on a map and ignore local authorities’ democratic mandate. This system is not just about administrative convenience; there are real questions about the identity of local authorities, which have built regional boundaries.
Some local authorities look two ways. Let me give noble Lords an example, not a health example but something that happened in south Yorkshire and in which I was involved. The people and the authority of Barnsley, on the edge of south Yorkshire, look to west Yorkshire as well as looking to, and being administratively in, south Yorkshire. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will know, because she knows the local area, when we set up the economic framework it caused a lot of distrust and bad blood for four years, simply because the local authority was not allowed to use the democratic mandate that it had been given and people from the centre were pushing how local economic partnerships and mayoral authorities should be set up.
If we are talking about local authorities and the National Health Service working in a collaborative way, the democratic right of local authorities must be taken into consideration. They know the nuances of their local people in a way that NHS managers do not. I say that having been an NHS manager, a councillor and a leader of a council. It is important to establish the democratic mandate in the system right from the beginning. I can tell you now that if you get a system where two local authorities out of four are forced into an area that they do not want to be in, I can tell you now that it will not work. There will be years of fighting and distrust. This is not just a plea; this is really important. The system has to stop. It has to be a collaborative approach in which local authorities’ elected mandate is key, but NHS England must also take its foot off the brake and wait until this Parliament has set the legislative framework before the system gets going. This is a parallel universe and it has to stop.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the outrage of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about how this is proceeding. In a way, I can see how some of this has come about. Perhaps the Minister will say that the Government are building on what is happening on the ground. It is perfectly true that many organisations at a local level found their way around the disaster that was the 2012 Act. They set up systems so that they did not have to follow it and could collaborate and not compete. Many of those systems operate practically on the ground, but they do not operate in a proper legislative framework, as we have heard, and nowhere is that more important than the outrageous decision in some areas to preclude local authorities, as noble Lords have said.
For those of us who know our way around the system, it is easy to ignore the fact that most patients and users—after all, the Bill is supposed to be focused on their experience and what their outcomes will be—have no idea about the difference between local authorities and the local health producers. To them, it is all the council or the NHS, and they have no idea that the GP, the district nurse, the care provider and the local care home do not talk to one another or have any mechanism for coming together. That is the kind of mechanism that we are trying to establish. We must ignore the informal arrangements that may have taken place as a result of the 2012 Act, and establish the proper legislative framework in which all those who have the interests of patients and users at heart are properly represented.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC. I will speak particularly to Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have attached my name; it is unfortunate that we have not heard from her yet. It is about consultation with local authorities, which is what so much of our debate on this group thus far has already addressed. I particularly associate myself with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Davies. A great rearrangement of the NHS has happened entirely under the radar, and it is deeply disturbing to those of us concerned about the risk of the Americanisation of our NHS and its takeover by private US healthcare for-profit companies.
I am slightly surprised that no one has yet mentioned the report in the Times this morning about the Health Secretary seeking to model NHS hospitals on academy schools, which has been seen as a large privatisation of our education system. Also, we found out only recently and entirely by accident that the Chancellor was giving days of his time to visit US healthcare companies in California. When you look at those facts, the runes seem very disturbing. To defend against the incidents that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to, and the restructuring by stealth, we need local authority involvement. That is what Amendment 23 seeks to ensure, at least in part.
I also want to comment briefly on another amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, Amendment 44, which is about protecting the collective arrangements for pay and conditions for staff. We have to look at it in the context of the survey this week that showed one in four doctors saying that they were exhausted to the point of being impaired in their work. We have an exhausted, utterly worn-down workforce, and we have nurses who are not paid enough and end up going into food banks to feed their families.
It is obviously a matter of justice that we at least protect, and in fact improve, the pay and conditions of healthcare workers. But more than that, it is very much an issue of health as well, because workers who are overworked and underpaid are simply unable to deliver the quality of care that we would hope to provide.
I very much hope that this group of amendments will get some attention, because this has all happened under the radar. There has been no public discussion of this and that desperately needs to happen, so once again it seems to fall to your Lordships’ House to try to get this on the agenda.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments to Clause 14, which is a very important clause. There is absolutely no doubt about that, and the Minister can be in no doubt that that is exactly how we see it. It was touch and go whether we would have a clause stand part debate on this, and I am not sure that we were right not to do so, because this debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments, has highlighted some serious problems.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is quite right that the arrangements that we are seeking to put into statute, which have grown up over the last few years to allow areas to collaborate, were the right thing to do. In my area of the world, I have no doubt that it was important that the boroughs collaborated together, particularly in their relationship with and commissioning of services from the very big providers.
The question in Clause 14 is: what is going on with the arrangements that the Government are putting into statute? I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to speak to Amendments 23 and 44 in my name. Amendment 23 addresses the vexed issue of boundaries for an ICB. In this Bill we are dealing with geography, whereas the 2012 Act dealt with GP lists. The area of an ICB is defined in terms of tier 1 local authorities.
Concerns have been expressed, because the NHS is often a bit clueless and sometimes very defensive about local government, its boundaries and its powers. Maybe the Minister will tell me I am wrong, but I suspect that one of the reasons why elected members have been precluded from the boards is that the NHS does not feel comfortable with the direct democratic accountability at that level. That is a great shame. I think it is wrong; accountability is extremely important.
How can we have an integrated service when social care is provided by local government, which is democratically accountable, and we want to integrate that with the NHS at a local level in an area to provide the best service that we can for that population and those patients? The almost offensive way of constructing a board that does not allow elected representatives is not acceptable.
My quite modest amendment seeks to change that situation for the future. There were exchanges in the Commons about this, and there have been meetings with disgruntled authorities that seem to have ended without agreement. We may need to take a step back and learn some of the lessons, perhaps from Scotland and Wales where more logical boundaries have been applied for their health boards.
We may learn a bit more about plans for integrated commissioning at this level when we get the promised but overdue White Paper on integration. It is possible that it will set up a third set of geographies, and who knows how that will line up? This seems to be the wrong way around. Our amendments at least elevate the need to consult with local authorities over boundaries to start off with. That is perhaps a pious hope, but we can agree that any future changes can be made only if the local authorities agree.
Amendment 159 arises out of lengthy discussions elsewhere. In the twin-striker model for ICS, we have the ICBs and the ICPs. We know almost nothing about ICPs; all that is said is that it is part of the “flexibility” and so should be valued. Referring back to my previous remarks, I just hope that local authorities will be genuinely involved in the ongoing discussions about ICPs, how they are set up and their governance. What we do know is that the ICPs will own the analysis of needs and the strategy that follows from that. What, therefore, is the role of local health and well-being boards?
There are echoes of 2012 here, as, during the consideration of the 2012 Bill, amendments were advanced on the same issue. In the 2012 version, it was the health and well-being boards that did the strategy and the CCGs that did the commissioning, at least of health. Nobody ever properly addressed how social care would be commissioned in any integrated way in a wider strategy. It was proposed in 2012 that the health and well-being boards had to approve the plans of the CCGs, and that was the glue that would hold the whole thing together. We know that that has not worked. It has sometimes worked on paper, but it is not the thing that has driven the work of the CCGs.
The answer so far for 2022 is that everyone will play nicely and it will all be resolved. I do not think that can possibly be the case when there is such a serious imbalance. Our Amendment 159 acknowledges that there just might be a dispute over whether some decision or plan of an ICB was genuinely aligned to the strategy that it was supposed to be following, so a process for resolution is needed.
I am not sure whether Amendment 44 sits easily in this group, but it is a matter on which assurance is needed. When foundation trusts came into being, they were rather bravely given the power to set their own terms and conditions for staff. One of them might have tried it, and it was not a great success. In general, despite whatever powers exist, almost every part of the NHS follows the Agenda for Change, the collective agreement that took 10 years to agree but which has stood the tests of time.
Now, as with CCGs, we have the power of ICBs to set their own terms and conditions. They are probably unlikely to do so, as it takes an enormous amount of work and the risks that it brings are probably not worth the effort. Without doubt, some staff are worried that they just might be the ones picked on for special treatment. The Minister will no doubt say that the ICBs need the flexibility, but surely, given the pandemic and everything else that faces the NHS, it would be much better to give staff certainty and confidence they will be treated properly.
We agree with the sentiments of Amendments 22 and 24, which try to ensure that agreement on ICB constitutions will be done promptly. We agree with the sentiments of Amendment 53, which echoes a previous amendment about the need to drive improvement. In my noble friend’s Amendment 45, he asks a legitimate question, which I think the Minister will need to answer.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Once again, I thank all noble Lords for bringing this debate before the Committee today. There have been a wide range of views on the establishment of the ICSs and on what is currently going on in the NHS.
I will start with Amendments 22 and 24 from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which were supported very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King’s Heath, and on the ICBs’ establishment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing the amendments, and I understand her concerns about ensuring that ICBs are established in a timely way. We agree. We have had an interesting debate here. A number of people have said that it is really important, given that ICSs have already been established, that you put it on a statutory footing, but we are also being asked how they dare to go ahead and do this, because the legislation is not there yet.
In recognition of the fact that ICSs have been set up in some areas and are being established, we are trying to get the right balance. That is why work is under way to prepare existing organisations, including CCGs, for the transition once the Bill comes into force.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly asked whether NHS England is pre-empting Parliament. He raises an important point but I assure him that the powers necessary for establishing each ICB and publishing any statutory guidance cannot be made until the Bill has been enacted and the relevant provisions commenced. However, to ensure that ICBs are ready to begin work, NHS England is producing a range of draft guidance, including a model constitution, so that system partners can start work on preparations—but this does not have the power of statutory guidance. The guidance and the model constitution are based on the proposed requirements—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I accept that but how can NHS England give guidance to say that no local authority councillor can be on the ICB? That is not for NHS England to say, and how can it do it prior to the Bill going through Parliament? It is for Parliament to decide these matters, not a quango.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I apologise to the noble Lord because I was coming to answer that point, but maybe in too long-winded a way. One issue that was clearly raised, and very strongly felt in the contributions from more than one noble Lord, was about banning councillors from sitting on boards. There is nothing in the Bill that expressly bans this. We recognise the points raised in this debate and will raise them directly with NHS England. It is not statutory guidance.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry but this is a very important point. They have made the appointments and are not going to start again, which of course they should, because this is an absolutely hopeless position. No one from NHS England has ever had the guts to come here to explain why they are making this decision, and who will believe it? The chair of the ICB is appointed by NHS England. They know that NHS England does not want local authority councillors on the boards. Who are they going to take notice of? They are going to take notice of NHS England. The Minister has to tell NHS England to stop sending out this ludicrous guidance and telling the NHS that the new arrangements will start from 1 July. It cannot possibly do so if we go through what is contained in Clause 14.
I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but the fact is that we must have a three-month consultation process on the proposals. This is the problem we are in: none of this stands up because Parliament is being treated with absolute contempt by NHS England.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I hear the strength of feeling from the noble Lord. I will take this back to the department and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope noble Lords are reassured by that. I may not get the perfect answer, but I will try. I understand the strength of feeling on this issue; no one can fail to do so. Let us put it this way: it was not subtle but direct. It is really important that, as the Minister here, I take this back and reflect the feeling of the House in my conversations with the Secretary of State, and his subsequent conversations with NHS England. I will take that back and look at the consultation process and the CCGs consulting all the relevant local authorities.
I understand the point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that we have to be careful about prescribing in a top-down way how to work locally. I have always been a strong believer in localism and making sure that powers go down to a local level rather than being taken away. Let me again assure the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords that I will take this back, because clearly there is concern. I had not appreciated the strength of that concern. At Second Reading the noble Lords, Lord Stevens and Lord Adebowale, said, “We are already doing this. It makes sense to go ahead and put it on a statutory footing”. But I have now heard the other side of the argument, and it suggests that I should go back and have a stronger conversation with, in effect, my boss—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope that gives some reassurance.
On Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I assure your Lordships that we intend to provide as much stability of employment as possible while ICBs develop their new roles and functions. I hope that noble Lords are aware that there is already an existing commitment that staff transferring into ICBs will transfer across on their current terms and conditions in line with the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service Handbook. NHS pension rights will also be preserved. As a result, staff transferring into ICBs will not see any change to their existing conditions.
However, the Government are concerned about forcing ICBs to adopt conditions and practices that the ICBs do not believe work best for new staff. We believe that it is important to give ICBs flexibilities relating to staff terms and conditions; they are there for a reason. For example, when it is difficult to recruit and staff are going elsewhere, this would include allowing ICBs the flexibility to diverge from collectively agreed pay scales in order to attract staff from elsewhere or with unusual or valuable skills, or to reflect local circumstances. It will also give ICBs the flexibility to support joint working and bring in staff currently working in local authorities or foundation trusts, for example, supporting integration and the joint working approach that the Bill hopes to encourage.
I also note that ICBs having the independence and flexibility to choose whether to adopt collectively agreed pay conditions and pensions for new staff is not unique, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, acknowledged. NHS foundation trusts, which are already free to exercise their discretion in adopting such conditions, overwhelmingly choose to honour and apply such terms to their staff unless there are good reasons to diverge.
On the proposals for very senior managers, existing procedures are in place to ensure that the most senior staff within the NHS are appointed with fair and equitable salaries. Proposals to pay very senior staff more than £150,000 must be similar to those for other equivalent roles or be subject to ministerial oversight.
The Government are in the process of finalising the procedures that will apply for ICBs. The specifics may differ but the effect and intention will be the same: to afford ICBs agency in setting pay at competitive rates so that we can continue to attract the most senior and experienced leaders, while putting adequate checks and balances in place to ensure appropriate use of taxpayers’ money and keep senior public sector salaries at an appropriate level. The Government believe that this amendment, which also asks for ICPs to approve annual salaries in excess of £161,000, is unnecessary. I am happy to have further conversations.
I now turn to the amendments on how the ICBs will function once established, starting with that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which relates to the question of treatment outside the ICB area. The new clause in question provides that NHS England must publish rules for determining the people for whom integrated care boards have responsibility. Importantly, this clause ensures that everyone in England is covered by an ICB.
We intend that the rules set by NHS England should replicate the current system for CCGs as closely as possible. This means that the ICB will be responsible for everyone who is provided with NHS primary medical services in the area—for example, anyone registered with a GP. It will also be responsible for those who are usually a resident in England and live in their area if they are not provided with NHS primary medical services in the area of another ICB.
It is important to remember that no one will be denied healthcare on the basis of where they live. We want to ensure that, under the new model, bodies that arrange NHS services—decision-making bodies—are required to protect, promote and facilitate the right of patients to make choices with respect to services or treatment. This means allowing patients to choose to be treated outside their ICB area. Choice is a long-standing right in the NHS and has been working well for some time. The Bill continues to protect and promote it. However, I am afraid that we have concerns about this amendment, as it places a requirement on providers rather than commissioners. It would not be reasonable to expect providers to provide services regardless of whether they were funded by an ICB to do so, and it is important that ICBs should be able to make decisions about with whom they contract and where they prioritise their resources.
On Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I hope I can assure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring continuous improvement in the quality of services provided to the public. As your Lordships will be aware, there is already a wider range of duties in relation to the continuous improvement of services. Clause 20 imposes on ICBs a duty as to the improvement in quality of services. Furthermore, the ICB must set out how it proposes to discharge that duty at the start of each year in its joint forward plan and explain how it discharged the duty at the end of each year in its annual report. I hope this goes some way to meeting the noble Baroness’s concerns.
Clause 16, which this amendment seeks to alter, recreates for ICBs the commissioning duties and powers currently conferred on CCGs in the NHS Act 2006. It ensures that ICBs have a legal duty to commission healthcare services for their population groups. It also recreates Section 3A of the 2006 Act, which provides the commissioning body with an additional power to commission supplementary healthcare services in addition to the services they are already required to commission. This power enables ICBs to arrange for the provision of discretionary services that may be appropriate to secure improvements in the health of the people for whom it is responsible—or improvements in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness in those persons—so it is important that the clause remains as it is currently drafted.
The Bill will ensure that the existing local commissioning duties conferred by the NHS Act 2006 will transfer over to ICBs. This is set out in proposed new Section 3, which is also to be inserted by Clause 16 on page 13. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will be reassured that it rightly uses “must” rather than “may” when referring to the arranging of services. I can therefore assure the Committee that ICBs will continue to commission the services previously delivered by CCGs. That will ensure that service delivery for patients is not impacted.
Amendment 159 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, touches on the important relationship between ICBs and ICPs. I remember that, when we had an earlier consultation, the Bill team had a diagram about how ICBs and ICPs would work together; It might be helpful if I ask for that to be sent to noble Lords so that all of us can have more informed conversations about the intentions of the amendments and the issues that noble Lords want to raise. I will make sure that that is done.
This amendment would add a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a dispute resolution procedure if an ICB fails to have regard to an assessment of needs, an integrated care strategy or a joint local health and well-being strategy in respect of the ICB’s area. The Bill was introduced to ensure that existing collaboration and partnership, working across the NHS, local authorities and other partners, is built on and strengthened; I recognise the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
We intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision-making process of ICBs and local authorities. That is why we are extending an existing duty on ICBs and local authorities to have regard to relevant local assessments and strategies. The ICB and local authorities will be directly involved in the production of these strategies and assessments through their involvement with both the ICP and health and well-being boards at place—that is, at a more geographical level. As a result, they have a clear interest in the smooth working of the ICP.
More widely, there are several mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities will have regard and not intentionally disregard the assessments and strategies being developed at place in their areas. First, health and well-being boards have the right to be consulted.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I just had a flashback moment. I remember being asked, or volunteering, a decade ago to produce a chart of the various organisations under the 2012 Act. I think that the King’s Fund did a rather good job of doing it back then; perhaps it might do it again, although it will find that it is more complicated this time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked a perfectly reasonable question that might simplify the process. If health and well-being boards do the same job as integrated care partnerships, in large measure, why cannot integrated care partnerships and health and well-being boards be the same organisation?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I remember hearing in an earlier discussion on the Bill that nothing prevents that where they coincide. My noble friend and I have had conversations about health and well-being boards and where they sit. Given that, and given my noble friend’s experience of this issue, perhaps we could have a further conversation on this matter before the next stage to clarify some of the issues that he rightly raised in previous conversations.
At this moment, we believe there are mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities have regard to and do not disregard the assessments of the health and well-being boards. As my noble friend points out, that is for further conversations.
As noble Lords know, NHS England must also consult each health and well-being board on how the ICB has implemented its joint health and well-being strategies, so there is another level of reassurance there. The ICB must also include in its annual report a review of the steps it has taken to implement any relevant joint local health and well-being strategy and must consult the health and well-being board when undertaking that review. NHS England has formal powers of intervention if an ICB is not complying with its duty in any regard. That is sufficient to ensure that ICBs will have regard to both ICP and health and well-being board plans, but I understand the concerns raised.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, decides what she wishes to do with this amendment, I say to the Minister that this is very important; I cannot stress this enough. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I are in agreement again about this. At the next stage of the Bill, the Government could find themselves in very serious trouble indeed if we do not resolve it between now and then.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I appear to have opened a can of worms. I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to go back to his boss and talk about some of the serious issues raised by noble Lords.
My purpose in introducing Amendments 22 and 24 was simply to ensure that once the Bill has passed through all its stages in Parliament and an implementation date has been reasonably proposed, from that point onwards there is reasonable coherence across the country so that there are no gaps in the proper commissioning of services and everybody gets on with it in a reasonably timely way.
However, noble Lords will remember that both at Second Reading and when I introduced this group of amendments I expressed my view that it is too soon, for a number of reasons—first of all, the state of the NHS. Also, as has been pointed out by me and other noble Lords, the Bill has not gone through Parliament yet. Last week noble Lords proposed a number of amendments about who should be on the ICB and what skill sets, knowledge and experience should be represented on it. It has become quite clear that, should this House decide to press those amendments, the shadow boards may have to look again at who they have appointed, because Parliament will have said that perhaps they need to appoint some more appropriate people to carry out the objectives that the Government have rightly laid down for them. It became clear to me that the three months I had suggested might not be quite enough, because of the consultation. It would not be the first time that noble Lords had laid amendments that were to some extent faulty but had stimulated an important discussion among other noble Lords.
I very much appreciate the Minister’s commitment to going back. I hope that, when he has those conversations, he remembers that noble Lords in this House are very supportive of the objectives of allowing local authorities to play their appropriate part in the establishment and running of these new boards, and allowing health and care people to work collaboratively in the interests of patients.
I want to say a brief word about Amendment 53. The Minister gave me several reassurances about where, in other parts of the Bill, there really is a duty to improve. I am afraid that he succeeded only in convincing me that changing “may” to “must” in the place I suggested in the Bill is totally consistent with what he says exists in other places, so I may come back to that at later stages.
Noble Lords will have their say about who should be on these ICBs. Things may have to change and appropriate time may need to be allowed for the now-appointed chairs of all the ICBs to make some corrective measures regarding who they have on their boards. I will leave all those thoughts with the Minister. For the moment, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we will start the next grouping now but we will stop at 2.15 pm. Anybody who is speaking three minutes before 2.15 pm should realise that they will have only three minutes before we stop, if the Committee sees what I mean.
Amendment 25
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“ NHS Appointments Commission (1) There is to be a body corporate known as the NHS Appointments Commission.(2) The NHS Appointments Commission has the function of—(a) appointing the Chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards;(b) other duties as set out in regulations under subsection (3).(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for—(a) the establishment and constitution of the board of the Commission;(b) the financing of the Commission;(c) the duties of the Commission.(4) The Commission must prepare and submit an annual report of its activities to Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would provide for an independent commission to have responsibility for the appointment of the chair and ordinary members of integrated care boards.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 25, I will speak to other amendments in this group, which follows on from the previous group and the last comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. On day two in Committee, we had an interesting discussion about the composition of integrated care boards. My noble friend Lady Thornton and other noble Lords argued for specifying in some detail the composition of ICBs, including having representation from mental health trusts, public health, staff and the patient’s voice.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, discussed the problems that arise when members on committees are seen to represent what he called “other agendas”. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was supportive of that view, although she argued that
“we should think more about what we want the integrated care boards to do”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1303.]
and how we will measure this, rather than exactly who is on them. I see the force of that argument; I for one am pretty uncertain about what exactly these integrated care boards are all about.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, went to the heart of this when he raised an issue that has troubled me right from the beginning: the provision that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are to be members of the integrated care boards. As he said:
“Organisations that provide the bulk of NHS services”
are therefore brought into the work of commissioning. The current system is one where commissioners—CCGs—hold providers to account
“objectively determining whether they are best placed to provide a service and assessing their performance”
and, as he said, the question then arises as to how the new integrated care boards can
“continue to perform that role.”
He felt that the membership of provider appointees on those boards at least created a risk of
“a conflict of interest between the roles of those individuals on the board and any roles they may hold with provider organisations”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1297.]
In response, the Minister said that
“each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflict of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore”—
this is a very relevant point—
“each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB. They are not delegates of their organisations, but are there to contribute their experience and expertise for the effective running of the ICB”.—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1308.]
Up to a point, Lord Copper. I am now totally confused as to what ICBs are. I must admit that I thought that reason for having all the key local players around the table was to brokerage deals, sort out the flows of money and keep the show on the road, but the Minister’s vision seems to be for a rather more rarefied forum, where members of the ICBs have to leave their interests behind them and think Olympian thoughts in the interests of the greater good. However, when you think of an ICB, with members of a major trust sitting around the table, and local authorities represented not by their political leadership but by officers, how on earth can they leave their principal interests behind them? Surely the responsibility of the CEO of a trust or presumably of a local authority or the director of adult social care is to represent the interests of the organisations on that board.
I will give a couple of examples. On page 21, the Bill states in relation to new Section 14Z50 on the joint forward plans for an integrated care board and its partners that
“an integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must prepare a plan setting out how they propose to exercise their functions in the next five years.”
That is fine, because that is probably one of the most important things that they have to do, but what are the trusts’ chief executives on the ICB expected to do? Are they expected to sit there and declare that it is a conflict of interests and therefore take no part in the discussion, or are they there to represent the interests of their trust, because the forward plan is very important to the success or otherwise of their organisation? It would be the same with the local authority representative, even though that representative, because they are an officer, will have to report back all the time to their political leaders to get the green light to what they have to agree to within the ICB board, which is why it is so stupid to keep local authority councillors off that board.
The Minister says, “Oh well, if it all goes wrong, we can use regulation powers to put it right”. But we are at the beginning of this process, and we need to get it right now. I very much ask the Minister to think again about the structure of ICBs and how on earth you can expect them to operate if the large trusts that they are supposed to commission serve round the table. It is really a nonsense in governance terms. Only NHS managers could have come up with this—and, oh dear, it was NHS managers who came up with it. Much though I love them and have represented their interests, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that accountability and democracy do not come very easily to them, and you can see that in the complete mess that we see before us today.
We then come to the question of whether these ICBs are accountable at all locally. I see no evidence of that at all; they are clearly part of a top-down managed hierarchy. How can you explain the reasons for the chair being appointed by NHS England and not by the board itself? How can the chair be removed from office only by NHS England? The chair should hold office at the confidence of the board. It should be the board that decides whether the chair is competent to continue, subject to external regulatory interventions, as of now, where that is necessary.
Secondly, why does the appointment of the ICB members have to be approved by the ICB chair? I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here. If I, as leader of Birmingham City Council, for instance, decided that my director of adult social care should go on to the board of the Birmingham and Solihull ICB, what right does the chair have to give their approval or not to that appointment?
We have already discussed the nonsense of local authority councillors being left off, but let me just make one other point. If you were the chief executive of the local authority appointed to an ICB, where you are making big decisions about finance, does the Minister imagine that that officer will do it off their own bat, or does he think that every step of the way they will report back to the leader of the council and the cabinet member for social care? Of course they will.
The problem is that NHS managers think local government is run in the way the NHS is run; they think the officers are in charge. But they are not, because you have political, democratic leadership. It is the same with Ministers in government, which it seems is why they have got themselves into such a mess in relation to this governance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise only to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. I will speak very briefly to Amendment 24 in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron, which would ensure the involvement of the integrated care board and the integrated care partnership in the appointment of the ICB chief executive. That seems to me to be sensible.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support that. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, introduced Amendment 34. According to the Bill as it stands, the chief executive of the ICB could be appointed only by the chair—of course with the approval of NHS England. Like many of your Lordships, I have been on a board, including being the chair of a board, and as such, I always thought it good practice to appoint my chief executive with the help and approval of my board members. As an ordinary member of a board, I cannot imagine how I would have managed the relationship with a chief executive officer who had been appointed over my head only by the chair without any consultation with me or other members. If we want to encourage collaboration, that is not the way to do it at board level.
It is inconceivable that the mechanism would work in practice in such a situation. Indeed, it is vital that all the senior people who steer the ICS, the members of the ICB, and indeed the chair and members of the ICP, must have confidence in the chief executive; the word “confidence” was so appropriately used by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. How could that be if they had no involvement whatever in the appointment? It is a simple matter of good practice and I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister can possibly find to say against it.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I know we have 10 minutes to go, but perhaps it makes sense to stop now in case noble Lords want to interject during the Minister’s speech.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the group of amendments to which noble Lords spoke before the break deals in various ways with the appointments processes for integrated care boards. I will deal first with Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which is designed to ensure that the chair of an integrated care board can be removed only by the integrated care board and not by NHS England. This is a worthwhile issue for debate, and while I recognise the spirit in which the amendment is offered, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I are coming at this from rather different perspectives.
It is worth reminding ourselves that ICBs are accountable to NHS England and thereby to Ministers and ultimately to Parliament. That link is fundamental, given the amounts of public money involved. It is therefore right that the appointments and removals process should involve these bodies. In contrast, the noble Lord’s amendment would effectively break that accountability link, because under this amendment, neither NHS England nor the Secretary of State would be able to remove a chair who was acting inappropriately. We cannot have that.
I understand the concern that there should be a safe and robust process for the appointment and removal of the chair of an ICB. I can assure noble Lords that there will be. The chairs of ICBs will be public appointments and therefore managed in line with the Governance Code on Public Appointments and regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I regret that the Government cannot support this amendment, but I hope I have explained sufficiently why.
Amendment 33 would ensure that the chief executive is appointed by the integrated care board rather than the chair and not subject to the approval of NHS England. I am afraid that, once again, this amendment is not one we can accept. As your Lordships are aware, the chief executive is the accountable officer for the ICB and a crucial person for ensuring that the board is operating effectively. It is therefore right that the appointment should be ultimately made by the chair and approved by NHS England. This approach ensures that we bring together local knowledge and a commitment to ensuring the board is appropriately constituted, while also ensuring that golden thread of accountability from ICBs to NHS England and then ultimately to Parliament. Making the ICB the sole appointing body would break that chain of accountability.
I also remind the Committee that in order to ensure that ICBs can be established and formed in time, NHS England has carried out a selection process for intended designate chief executives which, subject to the passage of the Bill and commencement of the relevant appointment provisions, it expects to be appointed by the chairs of ICBs. All provisional ICB chief executive designates have been agreed by the NHS England appointments and approvals committee, and all candidates were subject to a fair and open recruitment process.
While the current process for appointing designate ICB chairs has primarily been managed and agreed by the NHS England appointments and approvals committee, chiefly in the interests of ensuring that ICBs will be ready to begin work, I reassure your Lordships that we would expect future appointments of chief executives to involve significant engagement from the ICB as a whole to ensure that all chief executives command the confidence of both the ICB and NHS England.
I would also like to address two other significant points the noble Lord raised in his speech: first, the question of conflicts of interest. I can assure the noble Lord that ICBs will have robust duties in relation to conflicts of interest and will be required to maintain and publish a register of members’ interests and make arrangements for the management of conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, part of the purpose of the chair’s veto is to ensure that candidates for the board who are unsuitable or have unreconcilable conflicts of interest are not appointed to the board.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The appointments commission worked extremely well for many years. Why is it not good enough now?
Earl Howe (Con)
As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is proposing a separate NHS appointments commission. I am suggesting that it would be unnecessary to add that arms-length body to the existing landscape.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, which he has clearly put a great deal of thought into. At the end of the day, what is being proposed is a very top-down, hierarchical approach to running the health service. ICBs may be accountable to NHS England and, through NHS England, to the Secretary of State, because the Government are taking power of direction through this legislation. However, it becomes abundantly clear that ICBs do not look outward to their local communities; they look upward to the hierarchies above them.
This is the problem with giving NHS England such power over the chief executive and the chair. Anyone who has worked in the NHS knows that, in the target-laden, panic-ridden approach from the centre to local management, the ICBs will be under the cosh right from the start. For all the wonderful words that have been used about what they will do, the reality is that they will be beaten up by the centre in the traditional “target” approach to running the service. Of course, it did not have to be this way. While it is perfectly proper to have boards making their own decisions and appointments, and being held to account for interventions where necessary, this is such a top-down approach that I do not think it will work. I believe and hope that the House will seek to amend it in some of the ways suggested in these amendments. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“(ba) a director of digital transformation (see paragraph 7A), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other to page 137, line 10, ensure that a director of digital transformation is appointed to the integrated care board.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 26 I will also speak to Amendments 70, 73, 84, 134, 140 and 160. I start by warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for allowing me to speak to and lead on this set of amendments, to which his is the leading name. By the same token, I am delighted to see that he is now back in his place and able to advocate much more knowledgeably than I can the merits of the amendments in this group, which relate to the digital aspects of the NHS and the importance of digital transformation in the health service. They are designed to ensure that a digital transformation duty is set out, five-year plans are made, digital issues are high up on the agenda of the ICBs, and progress in this area is assessed and reported on.
I am sorry that I was not able to contribute at Second Reading on digital or data matters. However, as Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said in his Observer piece two Sundays ago,
“we need a national transformation programme that embeds modern technology, 21st century medicine, integrated care closer to home and much greater emphasis on prevention at the heart of our health and care system.”
There is huge potential for technology to help health and care professionals to communicate better and to enable people to access the care they need quickly and easily when it suits them. Quite apart from its impact on planning and administration, the technology, as the NHSE digital transformation website emphasises, goes all the way from ambulance iPads through fitness apps to digital home care technology. It ranges from websites and apps that make care and advice easy to access wherever you are to connected computer systems that give NHS staff the test results, history and evidence they need to make the best decisions for patients.
As the recent Wade-Gery report points out:
“Digital technology is transforming every industry including healthcare. Digital and data have been used to redesign services, raising citizen expectations about self-service, personalisation, and convenience, and increasing workforce productivity.”
It says that the NHS should be in the vanguard. It goes on to say:
“The pandemic has accelerated the shift to online and changed patient expectations and clinical willingness to adopt new ways of working.”
It also says that
“the vaccine programme, supported by so many brilliant volunteers and staff, was only possible through the use of advanced data analytics to drive the risk stratification, population segmentation and operational rollout.”
However, the review also says:
“The need is compelling. The NHS faces unprecedented demand and severe operational pressure as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, and we need new ways of working to address this. Now is the moment to put data, digital and technology at the heart of how we transform health services … Effective implementation will require a significant cultural shift away from the current siloed approach in the centre with conscious management to ensure intentions translate to reality … This system leadership should be responsible, in a partnership model between the centre and ICSs, for setting out the business and technology capability requirements of ICSs and the centre with the roadmaps to realise these, and for determining the appropriate high level technical standards, and blueprints for transformed care pathways.”
I have quoted the Wade-Gery review at length but the What Good Looks Like framework set out by NHSX last year is an important document too, designed as it is to be used to accelerate digital and data transformation. It specifies in success measure 1:
“Your ICS has a clear strategy for digital transformation and collaboration. Leaders across the ICS collectively own and drive the digital transformation journey, placing citizens and frontline perspectives at the centre. All leaders promote digitally enabled transformation to efficiently deliver safe, high quality care. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) build digital and data expertise and accountability into their leadership and governance arrangements, and ensure delivery of the system-wide digital and data strategy.”
Wade-Gery recommends, inter alia, that we
“reorientate the focus of the centre to make digital integral to transforming care”.
In the light of all this, surely that must apply to ICBs as well.
We need to adopt the measures set out in the amendments in this group; namely, specifying in Amendment 26 that there should be a director of digital transformation for each ICB. ICBs need clear leadership to devise, develop and deliver the digital transformation that the NHS so badly needs, in line with all the above. There also needs to be a clear duty placed on ICBs to promote digital transformation. It must be included as part of their performance assessment—otherwise, none of this will happen—and in their annual report, as set out in Amendments 84, 134 and 140.
The resources for digital transformation need to be guaranteed. Amendment 160 is designed to ensure that capital expenditure budgets for digital transformation cannot be raided for other purposes and that digital transformation takes place as planned. It is clear from the Wade-Gery report that we should be doubling and lifting our NHS capital expenditure to 5% of total NHS expenditure, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the Institute for Public Policy Research back in June 2018. We should have done that by June 2022 to accord with his recommendations but we are still suffering from chronic underinvestment in digital technology. Indeed, what are the Government’s expenditure plans on NHS digital transformation? We should be ring-fencing the 5% as firmly as we can. As Wade-Gery says:
“NHSEI should therefore as a matter of urgency determine the levels of spend on IT across the wider system and seek to re-prioritise spend from within the wider NHSE budget to support accelerated digital transformation.”
It adds up to asking why these digital transformation aspirations have been put in place without willing the means.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for speaking so eloquently in support of this group of amendments. There are a number of amendments relating to data in this Committee and they fall into three categories. The first category, the group that we are debating today, is about the prioritisation of the digital transformation in the NHS. The second group looks at specific patient groups and the potential of data to improve their care outcomes. The third set is about confidentiality of data as far as patients are concerned. My view is that all three run together.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am enthusiastic about digital transformation in the NHS; indeed, I believe it is the only way we can hope to meet the challenges that healthcare faces over the next 20 or 30 years. However, there are two conditions. One is that the integrity of patients’ data is assured for individual patients. That has not always been the case in the past, and the debacle of care.data is a salutary warning of what can happen if we do not protect patient information in an appropriate way.
The second condition is resources. I was very glad that my noble friend referred to the issue of resources and to the Wade-Gery report, which is the most recent report looking at the arrangements to support digital transformation in the health service. Wade-Gery reported that
“transformation funding is … split between revenue and capital and dispersed across the organisations. Tech funding is variable, often diverted and not necessarily linked to strategy and outcomes, incentivising either monolithic programmes or small-scale initiatives.”
She commented:
“The requirement for digital transformation in other sectors has driven up the proportion of their spend on digital and technology”.
It has been well-known, for many years, that the NHS locally has not been spending sufficiently on data and data transformation. The latest estimate from NHS England is that the NHS spends less than 2% of its total expenditure on IT, while the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and the IPPR suggest that this should be nearer 5% by 2022. I say to Ministers that, unless they can find ways to ensure the NHS starts to spend at that level, we are simply not going to achieve the kind of transformation we want.
One way to do that is to ensure that, at the ICB level, there is an official charged with driving this forward at the local level. We know, in general, in relation to boards of the health service, that the data/digital leadership often does not have a seat, in contrast to many organisations. This is why we think that needs to change. Overall, we believe this set of amendments would enable the Government and Parliament to show how important it is to prioritise the kind of digital transformation that we want to see.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments but first I believe in putting right wrongs. I failed to declare my interests in last Tuesday’s debate, so I took advice from the registrar. He assured me that I do not have to give a full account of my life and times, which is a great mercy to everybody, but I do have to declare what I am currently involved in and the remunerations. I serve on the Maternity Transformation Board, which is owned by NHS England, and the maternity Stakeholder Council, which is also supported by NHS England but is much more of a free agent.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; it was a very rounded, fulsome and clear introduction to these amendments. I want to pick up the issue of trust, because both noble Lords linked trust and confidentiality. That is absolutely essential. We will not get the support or trust of the public if we do not respect their confidentiality, and I will say a word about that in a minute. I support Amendments 84, 134, 140 and 160—I have added my name to them. I also support Amendments 70 and 73, and wish to comment on those.
I strongly support digital transformation. Amendments 84, 134 and 140 place a duty on integrated care boards to promote digital transformation and to produce their own five-year plans. It will need money, so Amendment 160 requires the NHS to spend at least 5% of its capital allocation to achieve it. That is right, as digital needs sustained resource—it is not simply a “nice to have”; it is absolutely essential for the future of our services. I have talked to visitors from the USA and cannot believe how antiquated they think our systems are. In many places, they are still in the dark ages, so we have to invest in digital.
I support the increased use of digital technology in healthcare largely because of my involvement in two major inquiries into NHS services in the last few years. One evening in 2014, I had a telephone call from Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England, before he was knighted and welcomed into your Lordships’ House, where he has already made a very significant contribution. He invited me to chair an inquiry into maternity services for England. The noble Lord has a sense of humour: he gave me nine months in which to deliver.
I set up a panel and we delivered in time, calling our report Better Births. Our 28 recommendations were accepted by NHS England, which then set up the Maternity Transformation Board and the Stakeholder Council, on which I have declared my interests. The Stakeholder Council is interesting because it is full of a wide range of people. A lot of charities, in particular, are on that council, and add a lot to the work that we do.
Two of the 28 recommendations are particularly relevant to this Bill and these amendments. We recommended that every mother should have her own digital maternity record, which she would create with her midwife. This record would set out the plans for managing her pregnancy, the birth and aftercare, which is so necessary for the baby, the mother and, I would add, the family. The mother’s record would then be accessible, with her permission, to all those contributing to her care. In future, we could see it being part of the child health record, and possibly the lifetime health record of the mother.
Although some progress has been made on improving access to NHS health records, we are still some way from achieving this, or the ambition set out in the NHS Long Term Plan for every citizen to have their own personal health record. We need to galvanise the NHS to move quickly and capitalise on the enormous potential that digital offers. That is what these amendments are designed to do. I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench will consider them carefully and assess the potential that they offer.
I also recently had the privilege of chairing an investigation into the safety of medicines and medical devices; our report was called First Do No Harm. Thousands of women and children suffered avoidable harm relating to the medicines and one of the medical devices which we reviewed. They continue to live with the terrible consequences today. This harm did not take place in one isolated moment; it has spanned years and even decades. Why was it not detected and stopped? Many people could have been spared the misery it has been for them and their families.
Part of the answer to that lies in the absence of data. We found that data was not collected or that, when it was, there was no attempt to link data to identify patterns of concern. Paper records, such as there were, were incomplete, dispersed, archived or destroyed. The healthcare system could not tell us how many women had taken the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and gone on to have damaged babies. It could not tell us how many women had pelvic mesh implants, or which implants were used, or where and when.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I too stress the importance of digital transformation in our health and care services. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for their contributions and for enabling us to have this debate.
The way that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has characterised this as three different issues interwoven is an extremely good way to think about this. I completely agree that the integrity and confidentiality of patient data, and having the resources to lead transformation, are essential components. I would just like to add a contribution on the third element, the prioritisation of digital and data. I too am going to cite the Wade-Gery review. It is really important that those of us who have worked in digital transformations in other sectors also encourage our health system to look outside. All health systems are probably 10, perhaps 20, years behind other sectors—financial services, retail and, dare I say, even politics—in their digital journey.
This is not just an NHS issue: it is a health sector issue. One reason why that is the case is that we have tended in health to think that digital is “other”, something separate from healthcare itself; whereas, actually, healthcare is that most human of services and digital is an enabler. It is the means, not the end, and it is hugely important that we think of prioritising digital and data as prioritising the overall transformation of care, rather than the digital transformation. This is not just semantics: it is important that everyone owns that transformation, most importantly our front-line clinicians, and that it is not something that is parked separately.
When I was growing up, my parents’ generation abdicated responsibility for the family VCR to the children. Certain business leaders, 10 or 15 years ago, abdicated responsibility for their technology transformation to their chief technology officer. If we really want to see the benefits of digital transform our health and care system, we must not abdicate that transformation to a digital transformation team. It needs to be the business of everyone—most importantly, our leaders. I hugely support the spirit of these amendments and particularly the amendments looking specifically at funding and a duty to lead transformation, but I caution against creating a post of digital transformation because that needs to begin with the chair, the chief executive and the medical and nursing directors, not just an individual with digital in their name.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, my colleagues and I built the first online facility for the voluntary and social enterprise sector in this country in 1997, called CAN Online. We learned rather a lot from doing that, and I actually came to many of the conclusions that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is telling us about. When we started this, we naively thought that this online environment was going to solve all our problems, as if it sat “out there” somewhere. We bought 12 computers: they came in very big boxes at that point, as noble Lords might remember. We put them in a room in a conference centre—we were in the Cotswolds—and I invited 12 entrepreneurial people working in the social sector to come and share a few days with them. We connected them all up. We thought it was about technology, but we actually we discovered that it was all about people and relationships; that this technology was simply a tool—an enabler—to facilitate a marketplace that we needed to build between us.
We began to understand that this was not about large systems up there that you plonk in the middle of things in some separate way. It is actually organic: they are very connected, and you need to co-create it and invent it together around the real needs and opportunities that are presenting themselves. I think this technology is telling us something about what needs to happen to the health service. It is organic; it is entrepreneurial; it is about creating a learning-by-doing culture. My colleagues and I have seen examples in the NHS and other parts of the public sector where millions of pounds have been spent on systems that have landed from Mars and have not worked.
First, we must understand the detail of this technology, and the opportunity that it brings. Later on, as we go through the amendments, I will share with noble Lords some technology platforms that we are working with across the country that have absolutely understood this. When they are engaged with the NHS, instead of the system getting behind them and building on their success and knowledge, it never follows up on the conversation with them. They never heard from the NHS again. There is a disconnect going on, and a fatal misunderstanding of how this new world now needs to work.
I welcome these amendments and this conversation, but we must understand—from those of us who built some of this stuff, even in the clunky old days of 1997 —that it is all about the relationship between people and technology and a learning-by-doing entrepreneurial environment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I, too, praise the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his analysis and for rightly identifying the important connection between trust and confidentiality, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his diagnosis. In particular, I double up on the praise for Laura Wade-Gery and her report, which provides a huge amount of insight for this debate, and praise also my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who has been a pioneer and remorseless champion of safety. She is entirely right that we are talking here not just about productivity but safety. Data saves lives, and her report made that point extremely well.
Basically, I just want to repeat absolutely everything that my noble friend Lady Harding said about ambition. My concern about this debate is not the analysis, which I think is spot-on; it is the level of ambition. I have lived through digital transformations. I lived through one in the music industry, and it did not just come from digital transformation officers—although I know that that is not the point of these amendments—but required the commitment of everyone from the superstars down to the roadies. Everyone in the industry was affected; it was a massive revolution; it led to an incredible improvement in the industry; but it was hard fought and a difficult thing to go through.
I have also lived through a revolution in digital in healthcare. Over the past two years, we saw amazing breakthroughs in individual areas, the vaccine rollout being a really good example to which my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred, but also in non-present appointments with GPs and in other areas. But it took a pandemic to drive that progress as quickly as it did, and I never again want to see such a horrible emergency be required to create change.
The message to the Minister is that the Bill is a remarkable enabling document that helps the healthcare system in the UK make important progress across the board on many different areas, but the big challenge of our generation is digital transformation. It does not require a lot of legislative change. These amendments are not what will make a difference. My noble friend needs to have the energy, passion and determination to see through that transformation when he gets back to the department, and I hope that the Bill gives him the tools to do that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thought noble Lords would have more to say about digital matters. I shall respond to this group very briefly, because my noble friend Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others have very adequately covered the issues: the potential for digital transformation, the need to use patient data, the need for resources and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, just said, enthusiasm and leadership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as she always does, brought us practical applications of the reasons why the amendments are necessary, and it brought to my mind that my digital interface with the NHS is a good example of someone who is absolutely at the coalface. I am part of UCLH’s digital patient management system. It does not talk to my GP and it does not talk to the Royal Free, which is where one has one’s tests in the part of London I live in, and I think, “For goodness’ sake, we really ought to be able to do better than this”.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for bringing these amendments for debate before the Committee today.
Once again, we are dealing here with an important set of issues. First, Amendments 26 and 35 would ensure that integrated care boards appointed a director of digital transformation. The Government fully agree with the spirit behind the amendments, ensuring a strong local focus on digital transformation. However, looking at the pros and cons, we must balance the desire to go further—which we all want—with the important principle that I have articulated before: that the provisions in the Bill should not be too prescriptive when it comes to membership requirements. As we have discussed, it is an essential principle of the Bill that there must be local flexibility to design the board in a way most suitable to each area’s unique needs.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is much in agreement with others that the leadership being enthusiastic for progress is important. I understand that nominations have already been made for the various positions that are likely to come up. To what extent has enthusiasm for digital transformation been a criterion in nominating those people? It is vital that the leader really believes in what is to happen if it is to happen at all. Therefore, it would be useful to know to what extent that consideration has applied in the prospective nominations of people for the local positions.
Earl Howe (Con)
Noble Lords will remember that, even 10 years ago, when I was appointed as a Health Minister, there was an acronym, QIPP, which stood for “quality, innovation, productivity and prevention”. While I think the acronym has largely fallen out of use, those four principles remain alive and kicking in the strategic thinking that happens at the top of the health service, and indeed in the department.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very considered response. We have had a very rich debate, and I thank all the speakers. It has been a privilege to take part in what I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, called this “conversation”, because we have heard huge experience and authority, right across the board, about the way we might digitally transform the NHS.
In a sense, I think it is about means, not ends: we are trying to reach the same end but we disagree on how to get to that objective. At the core of that disagreement, and no doubt where we will have considerable debate later on in the Bill, is where the digital transformation aspect fits with data confidentiality and data sharing—all of which is necessary as part of digital transformation. I listened with enormous interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had to say on that. We have to get this equation right, and we have to build public trust. I say “build” public trust because I do not think it is completely there, post the GP data grab, as it has been called, of last year. We will come on to that on future occasions.
I feel somewhat that the noble Earl, despite his mellifluous approach to these matters, was rather throwing the book of arguments at the need for any form of amendment to the Bill. He always does so with great style, but I was not totally convinced on this occasion. He mentioned the principle that we should not be too prescriptive—in that case, why are we legislating? We are trying to legislate for what the priorities for the health service are in the current circumstances.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does my noble friend not think there is an interesting contrast in saying that we must not be too prescriptive but, for NHS England, we are going to tell it what to do?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Absolutely. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about a disconnect in another context, but that is probably the word I would use in these circumstances. The Government say that they are going to prioritise good local leadership but do not want to be too prescriptive about who is on the board of the ICB; that they want a clear strategy for digital transformation but do not want to make it a duty; and that a general level of competence and expertise is required but, again, “Oh, no, we don’t want any digital duty; that would be a little bit too prescriptive”.
We need a level of digital maturity, and a regular set of digital maturity assessments. I liked the sound of that, but faced with all the other duties that ICBs will have, which ones are they going to prioritise—the ones that are built into statute, or the ones that are part of a What Good Looks Like programme? The noble Earl quoted exactly the same document that I had access to. It is a splendid document but, without some form of underpinning by legislation, it is very difficult to see ICBs giving priority to that.
Of course, the other argument the noble Earl made was that if we had a separate duty, we would have to have a whole separate planning process. That is not how these things work. When you have a set of duties, you try to do it in a holistic fashion. You do not say that we need one plan for this duty and another for that duty. If you are going to use your resources sensibly and the capabilities within your organisation in the right way, you need to do it in a planned programme, right across the board.
On the whole issue that having a separate statutory duty risks misalignment, I thought that was where somebody had really been creative and woken up with the inspiration that this was the final killer blow in the arguments being made.
I listened with great interest when the noble Earl came to the question of funding. I have not done any calculations in my head, but I bet that £2.85 billion cap ex spending over three years does not equate to 5% of the NHS budget. As my noble friend intimated to me, when you look at the cost of some of the digital developments that have taken place over the last year or two, you will see that they are highly expensive, in both revenue and capital spending. The noble Earl talked about not ring-fencing We all know the problem of distinguishing between capital and revenue in public spending. That is not to say that that is necessarily right.
Finally, on the idea that we must not tie hands—what is legislation designed to do but to set out parameters?
I thought that the aspect of patient engagement was quite interesting, and I will need to re-read what the noble Earl had to say, because it may be that the current set of duties within the Bill provides for that. That may be a glimmer of hope. Indeed, the whole question about the duty to foster a culture of innovation is a kind of fig leaf. What board is going to treat that as an absolute duty that it needs to plan in and set particular duties to its team for? In a sense, it will be an optional extra if we are not careful.
To tell your Lordships the truth, I am not entirely convinced that we are going to be able to—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—“galvanise” the NHS. I thought that was a splendid word; it has a certain electricity about it. I do not think anything in the current Bill is going to deliver that galvanising impact, and we will be left with the disconnect that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about if we are not careful. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would strengthen minimum clinical representation on Integrated Care Boards by ensuring there are at least two primary care members.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare that I am an elected member of the BMA ethics committee and a past president. The BMA has been particularly concerned about ICB membership. I know we have already debated this, so I expect this group to be quite quick—I am sure the Committee would also hope that.
The Bill sets out a core minimum membership of integrated care boards, but this does not go far enough. We have just discussed not being prescriptive, but there are dangers in that. There is no guarantee of clinical leadership on the board and there is a real danger of undercutting truly representative clinical leadership by failing to retain some of the positive elements of clinical commissioning groups. Clinicians are already demoralised and a failure to give space to their voice and enthusiasm will only worsen this.
ICBs should have clinical representation from primary care and this amendment suggests that there should be two people for this, given the wide area that the boards cover and the very different types of practice within each area. Boards also need a secondary care clinician who is in a front-line, not a management, role and a public health representative. As we have already discussed, without public health representation on the board, there is a real danger that the evidence of health gain and the potential to reduce inequality will not be adequately voiced. The board needs public health input to be able to act as a population health organisation.
Some boards have acknowledged the shortcomings and allocated additional positions for general practice, secondary care and public health within their draft constitutions, but others have not. They appear to be ignoring the voice of the very people who work in front-line healthcare. Unless these voices are heard, along with the voice of public health, there is a real danger that the boards’ decisions will be distant from the reality and that they will become bad decision-makers themselves by losing clinical trust and confidence. I hope that the Government will rethink and ensure that the boards are able to have members who can provide a solely professional view of the whole population for whom the board has responsibility. I know we have already debated much of this, but I want the Government to think again, given the dangers of a further demoralisation in both primary and secondary care. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is essential that the board have available to it the skill set that you find in people at the clinical front line. I was interested to see that, putting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, together, we have three people who are not representing one of the big acute hospitals, and one who is. Given the danger referred to by a number of noble Lords that the big acute hospitals will continue to have more influence in an integrated system than perhaps they should, that is a good element of putting the two amendments together.
As I said, it is important that clinical knowledge and experience be available to the board, but I would like to know that there is a balance and that this does not overwhelm other skill sets which all of us want to see represented; that became clear in the discussions we had last week about who should be on the board. With that caveat—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, might respond to that if she chooses to withdraw her amendment—I offer qualified support to what she is suggesting.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The two amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, add to those we have already discussed about who should serve on the board and what range of experience its members should have. Of course, we all agree that it is important to have clinical experience brought to the board. However, if this is about integration—I may have said something similar to this last week—mental health, social care, primary care and public health need to be part of the planning on these boards. In that respect, I give these amendments my support, but I think we need more discussion about this. At the moment, as far as I can gather—perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me—the boards are pretty much made up and I do not think they fulfil the criteria of things we will need to bring to bear to have properly integrated planning in the places covered by these ICBs.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing these amendments before the Committee today. I am also grateful to all noble Lords, who have offered me two bits of advice thus far: first, “You can make your life a lot easier if you just accept our amendments”; and secondly, “Don’t worry about the other amendments, just accept mine; that’s who needs to be on the board”. I hope all noble Lords understand the sort of advice I have been given, as I consider my response.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raises an important point and there is clearly understanding and support for ensuring that there is primary care representation on ICBs. This is a topic that we have both discussed and are likely to return to. I am in danger of sounding like a scratched record, for those who remember vinyl—I am told it is making a comeback—but I hope not to, or to labour the point too much, by repeating the arguments we have already discussed at length.
We fully agree that the membership of ICBs should include individuals from a number of places and this is why we have set a requirement that ICBs should have at least one member nominated by the primary medical care providers on the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, made a couple of very useful points here. The board should have available to it the talent and skill sets that it needs, but there should also be a balance that does not overwhelm any one set of skills. That is one of our concerns as we look at not overprescribing the make-up of the ICBs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is absolutely correct that, given the debates we have had up to now, there will have to be more discussions on the ICBs between this stage and the next. I accept that; we will have meetings and roundtables to discuss this, and I know there might well be more amendments on the membership of the ICBs. Before those discussions, I would just reiterate at this stage that this is a floor, not a ceiling; it is a minimum requirement. ICBs are able to appoint individuals with those skills as they see fit, and we would hope that they would, to make sure that they meet the health requirements and tackle the health challenges of the local areas they cover. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe said last time we discussed these issues, it is important not to be overprescriptive and close off the opportunities to tailor boards to each local area. The noble Lord spoke very eloquently about his experience of building a board in a particular place, which might have been quite different, had it been in another place.
Turning to Amendment 41B, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised an important point about ensuring there is sufficient representation of clinicians with experience of public health and secondary care. We fully agree that ensuring that sufficient clinical expertise is available to the ICB is critical. We do so through a duty imposed on ICBs to seek advice from persons with a range of professional expertise in, for example, prevention, which noble Lords have said we should focus on, diagnosis or treatment in illness, and the protection or improvement of public health. This applies at every level of the ICB and impacts how it discharges its functions. As a result, I can assure the Committee that the clinical voice will be heard loud and clear at every level—not just at the ICB or ICP level, but in the health and well-being boards.
For the reasons I have discussed, I am afraid that I do not agree at this stage that the best way to ensure this would be by requiring two additional members of the ICB. This would take away the flexibility provided to ICBs and potentially inhibit their ability to respond to their own area’s local needs. Finally, I would not want to risk ICBs believing that their duty to seek clinical advice would be discharged solely by appointing two clinicians to their board—saying, “Okay, we have those two clinicians, that box is ticked”. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a point about a staff member called Gladys, whose role ticked a box. We have to be very careful that we do not repeat that mistake with two tick boxes. Instead, ICBs should seek appropriate advice from subject matter experts. This may mean seeking advice from different clinicians for different issues and developing different models of seeking advice for different types of decision.
As I said earlier, we will have discussions about the whole ICB composition between this stage and the next. In that spirit, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be a little reassured and feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton, for their comments, which I share. In the previous debate, I argued that we should have people from the allied health professions, and I do not dissent from that. This is not to replace them at all. I also completely recognise the Government’s comments that we need talent and a skills set. Having a balanced board means that you have to have the range of skills. Some people may bring several skills to the table, but they do not automatically bring them because they have a label on their head saying where they come from.
The other difficulty that we will face is that boards need to have contemporaneous experience in an area—and people go out of date remarkably quickly in different areas. The pandemic has shown how some areas have changed enormously in a very short space of time. The representations that I have had from the BMA, at a professional level, have been about how we make sure that the ICBs will be up to date with that contemporaneous input coming through all the time. I am glad to hear that the Minister plans to discuss all of this further. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mawson
“(d) one voting member nominated by place-based partnerships to represent their collective views in delivering their strategy.”
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, reminded us last Thursday that we have been talking about the social determinants of health and health inequalities for 40 years. It is now time to act. I want to get practical, and my three amendments are all about the practical detail—the “how” questions—about the transformation of the health culture and about new ways of thinking and working. My focus is on the first small, necessary steps on this journey.
Following my speech at Second Reading, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for agreeing to meet with me and the chairman and CEO of Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in north-west Surrey and allowing us to share with him and his colleagues, in more detail, the work that we have been doing there in recent years. This is set out in Hansard. This work builds on 37 years of work that my colleagues and I have been doing at the Bromley by Bow Centre in east London on the integration and place-making agenda.
The principles of the work in Bromley-by-Bow are now well known and are being shared with communities right across this country, and this work is now starting to have a national reach, through the Well North Enterprises programme, which I lead. I declare my interests. The work in north-west Surrey is one further practical example of what happens when you start to take these principles to scale and apply them to the place and neighbourhood agenda, which I suggest needs to be strengthened in this legislation.
The Minister thought that it might be helpful to the House if I first set out the background to my three amendments, which are focused on the importance of place and the local neighbourhood, before dealing specifically with the first amendment on the Order Paper. What does a modern integrated health service actually look like, and how do we take the first faltering steps towards it? I suggest that the clues are in the micro: in the place and the local neighbourhood.
The NHS is in some difficulty, and much of the narrative that underpins it is from the last century and now well out of date. The chairman of Ashford and St Peter’s hospital describes it as a “financially unsustainable illness service”, not a health service. Science and modern understanding of the integrated nature of life and health have, in recent years, taught us a great deal about the social determinants of health. Ironically, the pandemic has forced all of us—the nation, if not the world—to return to the simple question: what is health? Nowadays, we all know that health is no longer simply a biomedical matter for doctors and hospitals—indeed, it never has been. The Peckham experiment on the social determinants of health was telling us all this early in the last century, but the NHS in 1948 thought that it knew better and chose not to continue with this approach.
Health is everybody’s business. It is not just the domain of health professionals, hospitals and just one government department. If 70% of the determinants of health are social, and if our present business model for the health service is unsustainable, we desperately need to return to the central question: what is health? What changes to the narrative on services and provisions does the state now need to make to respond to this modern understanding of what health is all about? We need to get upstream towards prevention and early intervention. For this modern generation, which takes integration for granted, the siloed approach of the state will no longer cut it.
Over the last 37 years, my colleagues and I have built practical working pathfinder projects in real neighbourhoods with local people. Others may well refer to these in this debate, so I will not waste the Committee’s time now. The Bromley by Bow Centre is in London’s East End and is well known nationally and internationally, but we have been involved in other projects. Today, the Bromley by Bow Centre is responsible for 43,000 patients on four sites in Poplar. Working with local partners, we have built the first independent housing company, which is resident controlled and has connected health, housing, education and jobs and business skills. Today, it brings together people from many nations of the world who live there, around practical place-making, health and social projects. This housing company now owns 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has in play a regeneration programme worth many millions of pounds.
Today, the Bromley by Bow centre is visited by over 2,000 people from the public sector and across the world, who we find are desperately asking the same questions as us. These are the practical questions—“how” questions—about how we bring together the health services, local authorities and voluntary and business sectors and generate a 360 degree response to people’s health needs and lives and the opportunities in local communities. This is not a simple matter, but I suggest that the place to start is not in the macro but in the micro: in local communities and neighbourhoods, where lots of talent and opportunity lie that are not being tapped and never will be if you do not join them up and develop a very different approach.
In 2015, Duncan Selbie, who at the time was CEO of Public Health England, asked me to take this place-making work and the working principles of the Bromley by Bow Centre into towns and cities in challenging communities across the country. In partnership with the NHS, local authorities and business and voluntary sector partners, we created 10 innovation platforms in Bradford, Rotherham, Skelmersdale, Doncaster et cetera. We did not write policy papers or research documents, which, in my experience, often few read; we created practical learning-by-doing environments. The clues that we have found are local—in people and relationships—and not necessarily national.
My three amendments seek to use this legislation to tap into this local talent to take the first steps on the road to integration, with a necessary focus on the local, the place, the neighbourhood and the community. Health is a social matter: it is not just about private individuals, and we now desperately need to get upstream on the health agenda in this country and move forward.
This legislation, and the integration White Paper that is soon to follow, can help us all take the first steps in this century in the transformation of the NHS. I suggest that the micro is the way into the macro; it is not the other way around. In local neighbourhoods across the country, at a human level, we now need to create innovation platforms in local places and neighbourhoods, with public sector leaders and local people willing to support and generate new integrated approaches to health, and learn from them. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
As we expand our work across the country through practical engagement, we are finding that lots of people already get all of this. Many of them are in the public sector and the NHS and are desperately frustrated with the present state of affairs. They want to be health creators, but the system is not harnessing their creativity and energy—so, often unintentionally, it is pouring treacle into their projects and disempowering them, creating an ill organisation.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and I especially support the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. It was typical of him that he started our thinking about what health is; I am sure there are many answers, but I think one of them might be integration—not just integration on the biggest scale but in terms of neighbourhoods, communities and what we now call place. That is so important. Those are the building blocks of all we are trying to do in the hierarchy of the National Health Service.
I am inspired by the noble Lord. He is a man of infinite resource and sagacity, an entrepreneur and, above all, a great achiever, based on solid principles which he believes in and, like a man of the cloth, is anxious to spread to others. He does so with really good effect.
It is no accident that I entitled my first report to the Government, many years ago when I was Mrs Cumberlege, Neighbourhood Nursing: A Focus for Care, as I believe the neighbourhood—or, in today’s parlance, the place—is all-important. This is what colours how people think, behave, succeed and, sometimes, fail. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has shown how even the most deprived areas can be rejuvenated and thrive with strong leadership, purpose and commitment. The noble Lord’s deep unshakeable philosophy is that patients, people and the local community should be the movers and shakers and be in control.
I want to mention Bromley by Bow, because it was a really innovative and new way of thinking about things. I remember visiting it years ago, not quite when it first started but when it was beginning to really thrive. Bromley by Bow was the first health centre in the country to be owned by the patients. Founded in 1984, it began with just 12 elderly patients, a rundown church, and just £400 in the bank. Today, by applying entrepreneurial principles to challenge social and health issues, it now has more than 250 staff. It is responsible for 43,000 patients, as the noble Lord said, and four health centre sites across Poplar. It operates on 30 sites even more widely across east London. It has supported local entrepreneurs. What is really interesting is that it has built 93 small and medium-sized enterprises. This is people helping themselves and ensuring that there is employment through a charitable structure, a housing company, which is controlled by the residents and now owns 10,000 properties and 34% of the land in Poplar.
This is a remarkable achievement in a very poor part of London. It is effective because it recognises that health and wealth are profoundly connected—not in huge municipal buildings and ivory towers remote from their populations but by the people who live and work in that area. The schemes are intertwined with the population. They are neighbourhood schemes and recognised as such. They are valued by being part of the destiny of a place in which local people live and work.
I visited Bromley by Bow in the early days, as I said, and I am really disappointed by my GP practice in the village in which I live and grew up. My father, one of two GPs, knew his patients literally inside and out. He knew who was getting off with whom. As his children, the first thing we learned was confidentiality and how to respect it, because we heard all sorts of things. He managed to get a health centre built. It is called that: above the entrance to the building it says, “The Health Centre”, but today it has been renamed the medical centre. It is a service that is not about health but about transacting to patients what the doctors think they need. The practice even shuns social prescribing, which is prevalent in many areas. It is also very careful not to involve the community. The friends of the health service have become disillusioned. They were established about 20 years ago and they are fed up with what is going on. Two weeks ago, they closed that organisation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his Amendment 41A seeks to use the new world of integrated care boards to ensure that local representation is guaranteed. We have had a lot of debate in this Committee about who should be on what board and so on, but in listening to those debates—there was a big one last Tuesday—I was very struck by people talking about the big battalions. I could see that people were trying to ensure places on the integrated care boards that were represented by the big battalions. That is understandable. They are the component parts of the NHS. There are parliamentarians who see this as the only way forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Might I have some clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson? He and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have referred to three amendments and I can see only one. I would be grateful if he could enlighten me on which the other two amendments are that we might be addressing in this debate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, there is just one amendment in this debate. My other two come further on.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I have signed and strongly support all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord to ensure that integrated care boards are closely connected to local communities. We have riches yet to come: the noble Lord’s later amendments ensure that local solutions are prioritised, and that procurement is firmly rooted in local communities, but I will speak only to Amendment 41A.
I will give an example of when the noble Lord and I have been involved in another project, beyond the very important Bromley-by-Bow project that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about; namely, the St Paul’s Way Transformation Project, the health, education, jobs and skills, and community campus which started in 2006. It is a great example of a response to the local challenges faced in an east London neighbourhood very close to Bromley-by-Bow, with failing health and education services and community relationships. This transformation project was focused on integration from day one and has been a huge success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, talked about the extraordinary track record of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as a social entrepreneur. He launched this project in partnership with the NHS and Tower Hamlets Council, and brought together the local authority, the local school, the GP network, the local housing association, Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association, and the diocese of London, to bring about transformational change in and around St Paul’s Way, a main street running through Poplar. Together they built a new secondary school, new primary school, new health centre, new mosque, new community centre and restaurant, new park, new street scene and 595 new homes. In parallel with this, the quality of the local leadership, and hence of local service provision, was transformed. The failing secondary school moved to Ofsted outstanding, the failed GP practice was replaced and its successor became CQC outstanding, and the independently monitored residents’ satisfaction level is currently 85%.
The St Paul’s Way project has been a great success story of local partnership with other local actors. For example, near neighbour Queen Mary University of London, the governing body of which I chair, with two campuses in Tower Hamlets, and which is intimately involved in the governance of St Paul’s Way Trust School, helped design and develop the school’s new science labs. They are in the health building, which the school uses and where we have taken space for our school of dentistry and DNA research.
Partners in the local schools, the GP practice and the housing association have played an important role in recent years, as they have shared their work and experience with communities in towns and cities across the north of England and now beyond. However, the project faces major challenges, as outdated NHS procurement systems are now in danger of undermining the good work that it has been doing for over a decade. Amid this project being put together, the PCT procured a primary healthcare provider with no London experience, let alone any local experience. After two years, it surrendered the contract because it had not understood that primary healthcare is very different and costs a lot more to deliver in Poplar than in affluent suburbs. This experience is an illustration of the importance of there being a neighbourhood voice in the making of decisions by the NHS, which, if they are got wrong, can damage the ability of local integrated partnerships to function and develop effectively at the neighbourhood level. There is an opportunity to address this in legislation.
In this light, how can the Government make integration a reality? This is a clear example of disconnects that will be replicated on other streets across the country, and a demonstration of what happens when the NHS procurement systems and policy do not take place and neighbourhood seriously. Health is about bringing people and communities together, not undermining them. The solutions are often local and not in large outdated systems and processes. This local approach must be embraced. It is at the 50,000-person neighbourhood level, not an enormous eight-borough ICS where integration aimed at innovation in prevention and recovery can be most effective. Neighbourhood must be understood, valued, and given leverage in the system and flexible use of budgets. It is at this level that the actual practical interventions can happen. It is here that schools, housing, job opportunities and community action can happen. Neighbourhoods can act with speed and agility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested that the Ministers visit Bromley-by-Bow; equally, I suggest a visit to the St Paul’s Way transformation project. This amendment is as much about creating the right culture as the right representative structure. I hope that the Government accept this important amendment and the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on this subject.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I too was very happy to sign this amendment. I will speak only to it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her very moving speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on a very comprehensive speech. I will be brief. In view of the logic of everything that I have heard in debates on previous amendments this afternoon, this amendment is even more important than I thought. When the Committee is discussing how to make the ICBs as effective, powerful, salient and comprehensive as possible for the people that they are bound to serve, all these factors must be taken into consideration, but the power of place itself and the opportunity that the ICB creates to make this manifest, just as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has made manifest in Bow, is a unique and highly innovative opportunity, and one which may not come again.
What the noble Lord proposes is extremely modest. It is to give just one person from the partnership voting power. However, it is essential, and it is in the spirit and the logic of what place-based partnerships are intended to do. It means that on the ICB there will be people who can bring nearsight, access and reach into the community to the decisions of the ICBs. They can help to inform those decisions, to bring that knowledge and sensitivity of the lives that people live, what they are faced with, and their specific choices. They are one of the most optimistic partnerships and ideas that we have had in this House for some years.
I have spoken many times in this House on the power of place, what it can achieve and how it affects people’s lives, particularly their health. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I published quite a useful report on building better places when we were on the same committee a few years ago. We diagnosed the relationship between good design, good buildings, good environments and good health. Maybe it is time to get that back off the shelf.
What is also useful is that the partnership principle is alive and well and is generating good practice. There is increasing evidence that it works and that there is an increasing exchange of ideas and skills, and we are learning all the time about what is possible. There is nothing to be said against this.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to Well North Enterprises, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. I congratulate him, and other noble Lords from different parts of the House who have spoken on this amendment, on making the whole issue extremely clear.
I will make a few very specific points. First, we have heard about great big projects making a massive different. Everyone in your Lordships’ House, I am sure, knows of smaller examples that are making a real difference, as well as the larger examples, and how the small examples are important and add up.
Secondly, this is about change happening locally, but it is also about what is happening globally. I have previously quoted, in this House, a saying by a friend of mine, who used to run the Ugandan health service, that “Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs”. It is a powerful expression, and one might say that health is made at home and in the community, and in the workplace and in the school. It also contains the notion that health can be created; it is not just about preventing disease.
Noble Lords may like to know that, more recently, globally, the WHO published the Geneva Charter for Well-being at the end of December, which explicitly talks about the creation of a “well-being society”. So this is a global movement we are talking about, not just a local one—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has continually emphasised, this is about the importance of practical changes at the local level.
I will make two final points. The big one is that when we think about the membership of the ICBs, it is important we have the insiders there—the clinicians and the people who know how the systems work—but we also need some outsiders there. Referring to the debate on the last group, this is not just about different skill sets; it is about different behaviours and doing different things in different ways. Those of us who have worked within the system are bound by the system and think in terms of the system and its regularities.
The sort of people the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is talking about do not start by thinking about the system; they start by basing things on relationships and learning by doing—a point that he emphasised. So there are different ways of doing things, and it is important that, as these boards are constructed, they bring in people with that different approach, alongside the great knowledge and skill that NHS and other clinicians bring to this. I know that we will really achieve success by bringing together insiders and outsiders, and getting people working together and understanding how to do things.
My final point is that this amendment proposes having a person representing or drawn from these groups on the ICB. I recognise the debate that has been going on about tying the hands of local people about what is happening on these ICBs. I understand that as these things get larger not only are you including more voices but also, implicitly, you are including more vetoes. The health service has, over the years, suffered from having too many people with too many vetoes in terms of making change happen.
I understand the complexity and difficulty here, but the final part of my point is to ask the Minister a question. I asked him a question earlier, because—I do not know whether I am alone here—I am not sure that I understand how, in reality, all these bits will fit together and work together in this new structure. I know he committed, in an earlier part of the debate on the Bill, to providing us with a diagram and perhaps more of an explanation of how it will all work. I can see how the complexities of everything we are talking about here can be difficult.
The single point I want to reinforce is the importance of not just having insiders in the decision-making process, but also having more disruptive influences. It is not just about skill sets; it is about different ways of thinking and behaving, and a focus on relationships, not just on systems.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his amendment, and congratulate him and his colleagues on the extraordinary work they have done.
I support the Bill precisely because integration will be key to delivering the health outcomes that we all seek. But I worry that, if the Bill is just rearranging the organisational deckchairs, with exactly the same people in different organisations with different three-letter acronyms, we will not change anything at all.
I think that, over the course of the nearly three days we have spent in Committee and on Second Reading, there is cross-party agreement on the nature of the problem we are trying to solve. In each debate we have had over the last two and a half days, whether on health inequalities, mental health, the social determinants of health, or person-centred digitally enabled care, there has been extraordinary cross-party agreement on the nature of the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we are debating and disagreeing more on the means to the ends than anything else.
One of the means to the ends is local—genuine local ownership and leadership. Like many in your Lordships’ House, I have made the pilgrimage to Bromley by Bow and I have also been to St Paul’s Way. When I first joined the NHS, about five years ago, I was told to go to Bromley by Bow, and I was told by a number of NHS insiders how brilliant it was, but how impossible it was to replicate anywhere else. “Go and have a look at it, Dido,” they said, “because you’ll be amazed and impressed, but no one’s worked out how to spread it”.
What I have actually discovered, as we have heard today from people with far more experience of place-based leadership than I have, is that brilliant though Bromley by Bow is, it is not alone. There are fantastic place-based leaders in communities across the country. It is those local groups and leaders who we owe the exit from Covid to more than anyone else, I suspect.
I have had the privilege of working alongside them. I have been to north-west Surrey with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, but also to Wolverhampton, to the Guru Nanak Sikh gurdwara, one of the first local testing sites for NHS Test and Trace. I have been to Gloucester and spent time with Gloucester FM, a local community radio station that for the first time in its existence got funding to run an advertising campaign to encourage people to come and get vaccinated in the local community. That was the first time it had succeeded in working collaboratively with the local NHS.
I have been across the country in the last two years talking to people from groups who feel excluded. Whether it is the Roma Gypsy community, Travellers, refugees, taxi drivers or faith leaders from a whole host of communities, all have told me—in both my previous role as chair of NHS Improvement and as executive chair of NHS Test and Trace—how in different ways they felt excluded not just from the NHS but from society in general. They also said, generally to a man and a woman, how hard the NHS is to work with when you are from a small, outside local group, as those of us who have worked in the NHS know.
It is with that knowledge base that I wholeheartedly endorse the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—but with a “but”. I have been consistent in the last two and a half days of Committee in being nervous about adding specific roles and experiences to what is now a growing list of characteristics and past experience we would all like to see in this new three-letter acronym NHS entity, the integrated care board.
I would like to post a question to the Minister. It is clear that we need these local voices—the grit in the oyster, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege described it; the difference that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is referencing; people from outside the system—if this new reorganisation is going to be anything more than a rearranging of the deck chairs. How will we ensure that those local voices are genuinely heard in an integrated care board?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Mawson and others, and in so doing congratulate him on his thoughtful introduction. It is clear that one of the most important aspects, and the purpose, of this Bill is to ensure integration at a local level. But the purpose of that integration must surely be—as has been confirmed by the Minister—to improve health outcomes for the entire population. It is well recognised that that can happen only if the social determinants of health in local communities are addressed appropriately and effectively, in a way that our health system has not been able to do to date.
If we accept that to be the purpose, then local integration—that focus on and understanding of the social determinants of health—and responding to local needs must be secured in the organisation of the integrated care systems and their boards. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, and others, to achieve that, one must not only understand, appreciate and hear the local voice, but be clear that the culture that is established in these systems is responsive to those voices and is determined to act on them and the understanding of the local situation—particularly those social determinants that extend far beyond what has been and can be delivered through healthcare alone—and focus on other issues such as housing, education and employment. It would be most helpful if the Minister, in answering this debate, could explain how that is going to be achieved in the proposed construction of the integrated care boards.
Of course, one recognises that Her Majesty’s Government are deeply committed to this agenda. But it is clear that if these boards are not constructed in such a way that they can change the culture and drive, in an effective and determined fashion, a recognition of those social determinants and create opportunities at a local level to address them, much of the purpose of this well meant and well accepted proposal for greater integrated care at a local level will fail.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I did not originally intend to contribute to this debate. However, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his Amendment 41A, which, although modest in scope, has initiated an extremely useful debate and raised a lot of important issues. I do not want to add a lot of material to the debate, but I want to focus on the questions that have emerged from it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for what has been a very interesting and important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for his amendment, and I look forward to further development of the thought process that he has put before the Committee. Of course, it is not new. I started my working life working for Michael Young, the great sociologist in Bethnal Green, and we talked about ethnographic research in our neighbourhoods and places. It was about giving people who lived in those places power and developing their own leadership of what they wanted to happen. Of course, in those days, when he started doing his work, it was about regenerating inner London—the bomb-strewn East End. I had the great privilege of running the Young Foundation: a few years ago, I took a couple of years off from this job here to go and run it, and we were doing exactly the place-based work that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, is completely right: there are many Bromley by Bow-type programmes across the country—and thank goodness for that. If the Minister decides to go on trips to places, Bromley by Bow is of course important. I went there when it started out, when I was the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is quite right: it is brilliant, it is wonderful, it does great work —but why has it not been replicated? That is a question I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, on and off over many years. But there are many other types, and I suggest that the Minister might go to Manchester, Bradford or Nottingham, where there are some brilliant programmes where this place-based delivery of healthcare and other care is thriving.
The consensus breaking out between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is of course that this Bill is an opportunity: how and where in the Bill can that place-based initiative be expressed? Where is it and how can it be encouraged? The King’s Fund did a piece of work developing place-based partnerships as part of the process leading up to the Bill, which was published last year. It has some interesting and useful things which express the sorts of sentiments—but in NHS-speak—that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, talked about today: the importance of connecting communities, jointly planning and co-ordinating services, making the best of financial resources, supporting the local workforce, and driving improvements through local oversight and quality provision. There are certain elements of this which need to be there and need somehow to be built into the Bill, possibly in enabling form, because they mean building multiagency partnerships which involve local government, NHS organisations, voluntary service organisations, social enterprises and the communities themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, rightly asks in his amendment for one voting ICB board member to be nominated by place-based partnerships. That may or may not be a good way forward, but we are trying to do systems change and, whether or not putting one person on a board is the way to do that, it is a very good place to start. So we on these Benches are very interested in how this develops and want to be part of the discussions across the House about how we do that.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, no one is better placed, whether inside or outside your Lordships’ House, to advocate place-based partnerships than the noble Lord, Lord Mawson. I know he will remember that one of my first visits as a Health Minister in 2010, at his invitation, was to Bromley by Bow. What I learned that day made a deep impression on me, so I, like many noble Lords, need no convincing of the case that he and other speakers have made today.
I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has tabled Amendment 165 on place-based arrangements, to be debated by this Committee later in our proceedings, so no doubt we will cover the issues in more detail then. For now, I say that the Government absolutely agree with the importance of having strong place-based elements in ICBs. Place-based structures will play an important role in delivering healthcare services for their population groups and we expect there to be open and clear lines of communication between the board of the ICB and place-based structures.
How is a sense of place given—as it were—tangible substance and meaning? I would argue that we do not necessarily need the Bill to articulate the reality. At a very basic level, an ICB will cover a geographic area. We would expect ICBs to be closely linked to their places via bodies such as health and well-being boards, where they will sit as the successor bodies to CCGs, and local authorities. ICBs will sit on the integrated care partnership as well as the health and well-being boards. Both bodies are vital in bringing together health, social care, public health and, potentially, wider views as well. That will be part and parcel of delivering their duty to involve patients, carers and the public when discharging their functions.
We expect ICBs to have place-based structures in place, but we do not want to prescribe what those structures are. As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said himself, we do not want ICBs to think that place-based partnerships are achievable via a central blueprint, or that a set of instructions from above is likely to be a substitute for learning by doing and local relationships. What we shall insist on is that an ICB sets out the arrangements for the exercise of its functions clearly in its constitution. Different areas have different needs, and I hope it is a point of agreement across the Committee that a one-size-fits-all model would not be appropriate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those thoughts and comments. I also thank noble Lords who have supported this amendment and this very encouraging debate. The purpose of today was to open up a discussion about these issues. They have been very well aired and I think the discussion needs to go further. Certainly, I would like to take further with the Minister and his colleague the discussion around the implications. My concern is to ensure that the significance of place and neighbourhood and that the role of the micro is absolutely clear at an ICB level. Senior colleagues in the NHS where I am working warn me to be very careful about this. The danger is that fine words will be used, but as others have said, this is not about words; this is about understanding the actions that now need to take place to really transform the health service. The micro and the macro need to learn to dance together, and that will not happen unless there is greater clarity on it. It has been a helpful conversation and one that I hope will be taken further.
I have a few final thoughts. It has been good to have colleagues from different parties and very different backgrounds in this discussion, which I have found very helpful. This is not a party-political matter; this is about the next 20 or 30 years of the National Health Service. There are likely to be different Governments and different parties with responsibility, but laying the foundation stones correctly and getting the detail right—it is all about the devil in the detail, in my view—is really important.
It was very interesting to hear bits of the history. It was Lord Michael Young who came to see me, many years ago, in Bromley by Bow, precisely because he got very interested in what we were doing. It was not just that he joined us as a community and became our patron—we have had patrons from different parties; Lord Peyton from the Conservative Party was a patron for many years, as was Lord Ennals from the Labour Party. Lord Young ended up asking me to marry him and his new wife. I had to do the marriage, and eventually the baptism of his child, so there is a long history. Allison Trimble, my former chief executive, was called to work in the King’s Fund precisely to help it understand the devil in the detail of what we were discovering, so this debate brought back many memories for me.
One of the last few things to say is that it is important in this journey that we create a learning-by-doing culture. This culture is very well known to science. In part of my life, I work with Professor Brian Cox, who knows a thing or two about science. I think the reason we get on is that we both understand that science and entrepreneurship are profoundly connected. It is not just the health service, in my view, but the whole public sector that needs now to embrace a learning-by-doing culture that moves beyond strategy and process into learning from the practical things it does and does not do.
Finally, I thank Suzanne Rankin, the chief executive of Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals, and the chairman, Andy Field—Suzanne is a brilliant chief exec and Andy is a rather excellent chairman—for joining in this conversation with the Minister. I also thank colleagues from the hospital, who I think we would agree have been very brave, and who have now, with four local authorities, set out on a journey to lead the way in Surrey on what this might mean when you start to move it to scale. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We come to Amendment 42, where the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 42
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(7) The constitution must provide for one non-voting member to be appointed by the local healthwatch organisations whose areas fall wholly or partly within the area of the integrated care board.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment provides for local healthwatch organisations to be represented on integrated care boards in a non-voting capacity.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group concerning Healthwatch and, although it is important, I shall attempt to be brief.
We debated this, of course, in the Health and Social Care Bill 2012. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Patel, led a debate in which he called for the national Healthwatch to be made independent. He said then that embedding Healthwatch in England in the CQC was a mistake. I agreed with him then and I agree with him now. I would argue to the Government that there would be a big advantage in making Healthwatch fully independent. Of course, I am also concerned about local Healthwatch, to make sure it has enough influence in the new system as well.
It is right to pay tribute to the work of Healthwatch. I think it has done a good job since it has been established. Recent reports of national Healthwatch have been about access to dental care, on which I have an Oral Question in a week or two’s time. It undertook a very interesting analysis of the Government’s social care plans compared with proposals, and compared that with what people had told Healthwatch would make social care better.
Locally, my own Healthwatch in Birmingham has done some excellent work. I particularly mention a recent report on digital exclusion during the pandemic, when there was a sudden shift—like everywhere—towards remote access to care. Birmingham Healthwatch identified five principles for post-Covid-19 care, to ensure that everyone has access to the appointments they needed. This included a commitment to digital inclusion by treating the internet as a universal right. I believe its work has contributed more generally to the way in which this is being taken forward in the system. I think that, under the circumstances it has been operating in—not without difficulty and not without some tensions with local authorities—it has made a good start.
I want to just push Healthwatch on a little further and I want the Government to help. First, I am absolutely convinced that national Healthwatch should be an independent body. I have never understood the thinking that it should be a statutory committee within the CQC. I assume it is because, at the time, the Government were going through one of those wearying bonfire of the quangos that all Governments go through before they set up new quangos, to then have another bonfire a few years later. It just makes no sense. Clearly, they have complementary roles, and I am sure that the CQC takes note of what Healthwatch says, but they are different roles: one is the statutory regulator; the other has a responsibility for raising issues on behalf of the public who use the health services.
The question then arises of how we can strengthen Healthwatch at the local level. Will the systems, the integrated care partnerships and integrated care boards, listen to what Healthwatch has to say? A recent survey of ICS leaders—all there, in position—for Healthwatch England and NHS England shows that 80% would support Healthwatch having a formal seat at the table of the ICB if it were set out in legislation or guidance. What about the other 20%? Should it really be down to the vagaries of local leadership to exclude Healthwatch from those local bodies? I really do not think so.
I do not know if the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in answering, is going to be of a centralist or localist philosophy, or both, but it is always interesting to discuss. He and I have been discussing NHS structure for some 25 years now, and somehow the arguments tend to go on. It would be a real advantage for boards and partnerships to have Healthwatch around the table. It need not have voting members—indeed, I do not think it should. It is doing incredibly good work and has not been given enough publicity or recognition by people in the NHS. This surely is a way in which we can do this.
The Government also need to look at the budgets of Healthwatch England, which is going to have to support extra work and will need to be given more resources. Through local authorities, we need to make sure local Healthwatch has enough resources to deal with the pressing issues and challenges it is going to face. Having said that, our job today is just to encourage national and local Healthwatch to build on what they have done. I hope we can do this in as positive a way as possible. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is now able to speak and I invite her to do so.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is taking part today. He has been involved in a family emergency, which shows how important grandparents are in the care of children.
I have added my name to some of the amendments in this group but support them all. The Bill will be improved if the patient voice is included in both the integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships by Healthwatch, which could collect data from different sources representing patients. There should be co-operation and working together throughout the NHS, co-operation with the CQC and better integration throughout so that standards are kept high across the country.
The recent report, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, also demonstrates how important the patient’s voice is. As Healthwatch is spread so thinly at the moment across England, it will have to be bolstered so that it can do the job. The Bill should set clearer expectations for local systems on the need to use the views and experiences of their local communities to inform decisions. The aim is to establish Healthwatch as an independent body rather than a sub-committee of the CQC. The voice of patients will provide so much first-hand experience, and public involvement is so important to help improve standards throughout the country.
Patients can highlight good experiences and services that need improving. Often, communication needs improving, as does hospital food, which differs across the health service, waiting times, late diagnosis, ambulance provision and many other concerns. Many patients want to give something back to the health service when they have had to use it. Being a dedicated member of Healthwatch could be a solution. I hope the Government will appreciate the benefit of the public working with them rather than against them.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place. I welcome him back and am pleased to hear that things are good with his family. As he mentioned, in 2012 I led on the amendment arguing for Healthwatch to be made independent. I did not succeed—it was defeated by 22 votes—but we had a coalition Government at the time, so I did not stand much chance anyway. I will try again today.
My name is attached to all the amendments in this group. They are the key amendments relating to local and national Healthwatch, and they address public and patient involvement in the Bill. The Bill says a lot about how patients will be centre stage in the whole reorganisation, so it is important that the patient voice be heard. How will we do that?
Amendment 220 is about the independence of Healthwatch England in statute and its ability to get the information about health services it will need to do its job. The Government’s genuine aspiration to establish an effective system of public involvement requires that Healthwatch England be strengthened by making it truly independent. In fact it deserves it; it has grown into its role and proved its worth. Healthwatch England should provide a national vehicle to drive standards of health and social care and identify areas of poor practice. It has a very special mission that is quite different from that of the regulator, the CQC, of which the Government want Healthwatch England to be a committee. Healthwatch England should be the voice of the people, the voice to which the Secretary of State listens, working in close collaboration with the CQC but also able to hold it to account.
Healthwatch England should be the voice of the abused patient—of the forgotten person with dementia on the second floor of a nursing home, of the child with a learning disability who is getting poor care on a children’s ward, of the people waiting for excessive periods for emergency care in an A&E department. When a local Healthwatch or member of the public raises their voice because of a persistent local problem, as occurred in Mid Staffordshire, Healthwatch England must hear it and respond immediately. To do so, it needs to be independent.
Embedding Healthwatch England in the CQC is a fundamental error, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said. Calling it “a committee” is a fundamental error: it diminishes its power and influence. The only people who think a committee is important are the people who sit on it. Having sat on so many of them, I might agree. It has been argued that locating Healthwatch England within the CQC puts it at the centre of regulation, where it can have real power and influence. However, it cannot have power and influence if it is a committee of the regulator. To have power and influence it needs independence and the ability to challenge the regulator, and to have influence with every local authority in England. It must be seen to be independent, not just called independent. Being independent and being seen to be so requires Healthwatch England to be run by a board that has public trust and confidence, meets in public and speaks to the public, not the board of the CQC.
With the development of the ICS, it is even more important that Healthwatch England is an independent voice of patients and the public. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. My name is attached to Amendment 149, but I want to talk more generally about this group. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am very supportive of the work of Healthwatch, at both national and local level. It provides very helpful and important insights about what it is like to be at the receiving end of our healthcare system. We sometimes do not hear quite enough about that. The national-local structure is helpful, ensuring that local bottom-up insights are then reflected in national-level reports.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have found some of the reports produced by Healthwatch recently, and during the pandemic, extremely helpful. I am thinking of its work on mental health—particularly, children’s mental health. It has also done a series of projects on social care that are very relevant to the current situation. One project particularly dear to my heart involved engaging with care home residents and their loved ones, and feeding insights into the development of national visiting guidance—very practical, important work. Another recent report, which I have already quoted in your Lordships’ House, looked at vaccine confidence and, particularly, what might need to be done to help support those communities with a higher degree of vaccine hesitancy; again, Healthwatch does some really important work.
I turn now to the amendments more specifically. In the recent survey of ICS leaders for Healthwatch England and NHS England, 80% of respondents said that they would support Healthwatch having a formal seat on the ICB if this was set out in legislation or guidance. We have already heard the question: what about the other 20%? Should noble Lords have the time, I recommend a quick look at the Healthwatch document and the survey, mapping the relationship between local Healthwatch and integrated care systems. There is a lot of important information in it. I particularly noted in the survey that 100% of ICS respondents said that they would support a mandated seat for Healthwatch on the integrated care partnership. That was one of the main reasons that I wanted to add my name to Amendment 149.
Fundamentally, why I think this so important is that I am not convinced that, in all our important deliberations so far, sufficient weight has been given to what we might call the service user voice or the individual patient voice more generally. These deliberations have, understandably, been very much about structures and how these new integrated care systems will work. I feel that there is scope for the Bill to set out some minimum requirements to ensure that the patient voice is heard at the decision-making table. It is fine to have lots of other sentiments about patient voices but, are they there, and are they heard at that table?
The principle is really quite simple. Patient choice at an individual level—that is, in relation to the patient’s own healthcare—has changed radically. We have moved from a situation where the doctor knows best and will tell you what is happening to the doctor setting out the options and you making a decision with the doctor—almost a co-produced decision. We need to think more about that approach, at the community level, the local level and then the integrated care system level. This will be particularly important in relation to tackling health inequalities because, frankly, if people are not involved in the decision-making or feel that their voice is not being heard, they often do not trust the outcome.
A recurrent theme in our discussions so far has been who should be on what body. We have had those big debates about whether there should be public health and mental health representatives and so on, which are very important, and those conversations still have some way to go, and we have just had this very interesting debate about place-based partnerships and “insiders” and “outsiders”. Again, that has quite a long way to go, but it would be ridiculous if the patient was seen as the outsider; patients need to be front and centre of all this and the reason we are undertaking a restructuring in the first place.
My main plea is that in all our discussions we consider the user voice and how it can be heard. I think that Healthwatch is an obvious way of doing it; it has the existing infrastructure. There may well be other ways of doing it, but that was the reason I was keen to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my health interests as declared in the register; in particular, I chair the General Dental Council, but I should make it clear that I am not speaking on its behalf in Committee.
Almost exactly 35 years ago, I became director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales, which was then the national statutory body representing the interests of the patients and the public in the NHS. Since then, both local and national representation of patients has gone through a series of iterations—indeed, the number of occasions on which I have been sitting on the opposite side of the Chamber from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talking about patient representation seems too many to recount. After community health councils, we went through a series of iterations of which local Healthwatch is the latest version. I admit that when we had the debate which my noble friend Lord Hunt began by referring to, I was extremely dubious about whether local Healthwatch would be able to flourish and the national body be effective. I have to say that my worst fears have not been founded, but it has to be recognised that the way in which it was structured, in particular the late changes introduced by the Government during that legislation, made it much more difficult for Healthwatch, both at local and at national level, to be as effective as it might be.
The context of this debate is the centrality of patients and service users in delivery. Every time the NHS is reorganised, whether it was the reorganisation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, or the reorganisations we have every three years or so, there is always a grand White Paper which says, “Patients will be at the centre of this new structure”, but it is never quite like that. In the new arrangements being brought forward, the Government need to make sure that the local patient voice is represented and articulated and that, at national level, those voices can be aggregated and put forward. That is why this group of amendments is so important.
We have just had a debate which ended up revolving around how many separate interests should be represented on the various bodies that we are creating. I can see the problems if we add and add, and how difficult that is going to be. However, what I hope the Government will take away from the consideration of this amendment and look at before Report is how they can make the patient representative structure within the future arrangements better and more effective. I think that a number of things could be done.
The first is about the budgets. The budgets for local Healthwatch go through a complicated, notional process. It is very difficult to define why the allocations are what they are. It would be far better if it was clear what the expectations were to run a local Healthwatch and to deliver what is needed.
The second thing that can be done concerns the degrees of independence: from the local authority, health providers and health commissioners, at the local level, and from the CQC at the national level. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the problems of Healthwatch England being a sub-committee of the CQC. I understand that the relationship has actually worked quite well, but that is probably because of the good will of all concerned. It might be that, in the future, Healthwatch England has serious criticisms of the regulator. How can it do that, as a sub-committee of that body? Whether formally or informally, you can see the difficulties.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support that. It seems to me that the National Health Service is devoted to looking after patients. Therefore, it is very strange that there is no national voice for patients to speak to it. In a way, Healthwatch England fulfils that—but in a very awkward position.
I do not know exactly the relationship within the constitution of the committee and the CQC. For example, it may be important that knowledge that Healthwatch has goes to the CQC, but it must be much better for it to be independent at every level, national and local, and to not take part in any of the particular arrangements but rather independently give the pure voice of the patients, which it has received, as it were, from the people who have been served by the National Health Service, whether that is complimentary or otherwise, according to what has actually happened. That seems to me to be essential. I cannot think that it is effective to have a National Health Service with no voice to be heard at the centre from the patients.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I quite often buy things online and, a few days after the product has arrived, I often get an email saying, “How did we do? Give us one, two, three, four or five stars.” That can be very irritating, and I suspect that, on the whole, people do not respond, unless the service has either been dreadful or brilliant—that is certainly so in my case. The voice of the patient is far more important than that and, if we are to assess the performance of different ICSs, the voice of the patient is absolutely fundamental to gathering the evidence, using which we can compare their performance.
A few years ago, I had to be in hospital, just for a few days. At the end of my treatment, when I was about to go home, I was handed a little slip of paper. I do not know if they still do this, but it had some kind of snappy title like, “Tell us how we did”. I thought it was totally inadequate, because here was I, as a patient, having had a general anaesthetic, feeling a bit wobbly, but crucially, having had only the experience of that particular treatment in that particular hospital. The beauty of Healthwatch is that it can compare the experience of patients, heard directly from those patients, of a lot of different treatments in different settings. It can bring together the voice of the patient and—absolutely crucially—it has the ear of the people who deliver those services and can authoritatively explain to them where they are doing well and where they are doing badly.
In this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others have got it right in their suggestions about the level at which Healthwatch should have a voice: non-voting membership of the ICB, voting membership of the ICP and, crucially, independence from the CQC. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, put it very well: how on earth could Healthwatch criticise the CQC as the regulator if it is part of it? It is a little bit like asking a civil servant to criticise the Prime Minister, is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others who have spoken have got the level right at which Healthwatch should play its part in this great new world of integrated services. The view of the patient of the experience that they received at the hands of all the health and care services is absolutely crucial to being able to compare the performance of these bodies that we are setting up.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords in their quest in this suite of amendments to underline the important and crucial role played by Healthwatch, particularly at local level, and to ensure that the new NHS structures and processes in the Bill fully recognise this.
Under the 2012 Bill, the noble Lord and others who have put their names to the amendment and who have spoken in today’s debate were all strong advocates of Healthwatch, and clearly remain so today. The concerns deeply expressed then of the Government’s decision to make national Healthwatch a sub-committee of the CQC, and not the independent organisation that it needed to be, have again come to the fore. Amendment 220 would add a new clause after Clause 80, seeking to establish Healthwatch England as a body corporate that provides an annual report of its activities to Parliament; it has the full support of these Benches. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has strongly emphasised, failing to provide for the independence of Healthwatch was a fundamental error that needs to be put right. He set out a particularly strong case, as have other noble Lords this time around.
Amendment 42 to Schedule 2 seeks to ensure that Healthwatch is a non-voting member of the ICB, so that there can be a genuine championing of patients’ voices and views, which many noble Lords have spoken so strongly about today. These are views fed back from evidence and surveys conducted by both national and local Healthwatch organisations. At the very least, it is crucial to seek to ensure—as set out in Amendment 103 to Clause 20—that the ICB is obliged to fully consider Healthwatch reports and that that body leads any local consultations proposed in the ICB forward plans.
Amendment 149 to Clause 21, seeking to ensure that ICPs have a Healthwatch nominee in membership, is also important, given the local Healthwatch links to both the NHS and local authority bodies, patients and clients.
Key questions on how Healthwatch, both at national and system level, is to be funded were raised by my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Harris, particularly about the whole process of allocating funds. This is important in view of the increased role of Healthwatch in the additional 42 ICSs. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Finally, I also endorse noble Lords’ comments on the excellence of the reports produced by national and local Healthwatch organisations. Their guidance on access to social care, mentioned by several noble Lords, and comments on the detailed proposals later in the Bill on the care cap and the recent White Paper, are clear and accessible to service users, and closely examine the impact for them, and for the thousands of people currently waiting for assessment and access to key services. However, those are issues for another day. I hope that the Minister has listened to the debate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, these amendments deal, in their several ways, with the role of Healthwatch both locally and nationally. I begin with Amendment 42, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. This amendment would require ICBs to make provision in their constitutions for a non-voting member to be appointed from local Healthwatch branches.
I lay great importance, as do other noble Lords, on Healthwatch’s work on patient advocacy. However, as I said in relation to other amendments on the membership of ICBs—I know this is turning into something of a mantra—we want to avoid the Bill’s provisions being too prescriptive. It is essential that we provide local leaders the flexibility to design the board in a way that best suits each area’s unique needs. Even a non-voting member risks making the boards less nimble, undermining their ability to make important decisions efficiently. As I am sure the Committee is already aware, the ICB can appoint more members, including a Healthwatch representative, if it wishes, and I am sure many of them will. What is key is that local boards should be able to decide for themselves to appoint individuals with the necessary expertise to address local needs, and we want to allow them as much scope as possible to do so by not prescribing who all those members should be.
That said, I recognise that the growing complexity of health and care demands that we listen to the voice of patients, carers and the public. We want to ensure that they are heard throughout the system. I contend that there is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that patients and the public are appropriately consulted and involved in decisions made by the ICB. I draw noble Lords’ attention to new Section 14Z36, regarding the duty to promote the involvement of each patient, and new Section 14Z44, regarding public involvement and consultation by ICBs.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, as I always do, about the particular need for adequate and appropriate funding of local Healthwatch. If I may, I shall take away the points he made on that issue and others and write to him about them. We would expect Healthwatch to be closely involved with ICBs in carrying out their engagement and involvement duties. On what do we base that expectation? Many systems already have some system-level arrangements in place with Healthwatch. Indeed, NHS England has published guidance, which would apply to ICBs, on working with people and communities that encourages working closely with Healthwatch. Therefore, given that ICBs will already be required to engage patients closely in their decision-making process, and that we expect Healthwatch will be closely involved in that, we consider it unnecessary to require in legislation a member drawn from Healthwatch.
Amendment 103 would alter ICBs’ duties in relation to public involvement to require them to make adequate arrangements for the receipt and consideration of any relevant Healthwatch reports. As I said, the existing ICBs’ duties in relation to patient involvement are already comprehensive, and the amendment could unintentionally limit ICBs’ ability to form relationships with Healthwatch and other organisations appropriate for their area. As was the case for CCGs, ICBs will be required to make arrangements to involve patients in the planning of commissioning arrangements in areas that may impact the manner in which services are delivered, or the range of services available. This will ensure that patients receive appropriate representation where decisions are being made that could affect them.
I previously mentioned that NHS England, in its guidance to ICBs, has encouraged close working with Healthwatch. This guidance comes with the acknowledgement that what an appropriate relationship with Healthwatch looks like will vary from system to system. For this reason, we are seeking to establish comprehensive duties and requirements in the legislation while leaving the specifics of local relationships with organisations such as Healthwatch for ICBs to determine for themselves.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and all noble Lords who have taken part and been supportive of this group of amendments. I very much take what the noble Earl said about the general recognition of the importance of the work of Healthwatch, both nationally and locally, and the way it has gone about doing it. With Sir Robert Francis as the current chair of Healthwatch England, we have someone who commands a great deal of respect and gives the leadership one would expect from a person of that calibre and experience.
What we are looking for, though, is a visible sign of the Government’s intent on the importance of Healthwatch, both nationally and locally. Frankly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested in his very helpful intervention, having the status of being a committee of a regulator does not give the right appearance of the importance and independence of this body. My noble friend Lord Harris is absolutely right that there could be circumstances in which Healthwatch criticised the work of the CQC. Indeed, the more the CQC takes on system responsibilities, the more likely that is.
In relation to ICPs, the Government “expect”. It is a very short journey between the Government expecting something and putting it in legislation—I hope they will give that some thought.
On the noble Earl’s concern about the size of ICBs, given what he said about conflict of interest issues earlier today, he must recognise that the seats will be empty most of the time, as NHS trusts and local authorities will clearly have to excuse themselves from most of the current debates within ICBs, because the boards will be talking about resources, commissioning, the development of services and the forward plan, all of which those organisations will have a direct interest in. That is why the whole structure of ICBs needs looking at again.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for taking back the issue my noble friend raised about resources and the way the money flows down to Healthwatch. There is a suspicion here; I think the money goes nationally to local government and then you depend on local authorities to decide how much they will give to each local Healthwatch. I am afraid we know, as we have seen in other services, that some of that resource tends to get—how shall I put it?—diverted into other areas. I never understood why the Government thought that this was a good way to fund Healthwatch. If you set it up nationally as an independent body, the obvious thing to do is give the resource straight to national Healthwatch to allocate locally. I suggest the Government give that serious consideration.
This is one issue that we will want to bring back on Report, as it is important that Parliament gives a very visible indication to the NHS that we think Healthwatch is doing a great job but we want to see it have more influence in future. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with the new Clauses before Clause 35 in the name of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, restores the duty on the Secretary of State to provide or secure the provision of services to that in the National Health Service Act 2006.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 46, I will speak also to Amendments 168 and 169 in my name. In an earlier group this morning we were talking about democratic accountability at the local or ICB level, particularly in relation to Amendment 23 from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. We were also, through the agency of Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, looking at the risk that people in England could be left without NHS cover. Those amendments were about the ways in which this Bill could go horribly wrong—certainly, I have no doubt, in terms of what the public want, if not necessarily in the unintended consequences of where the Health Secretary and the Chancellor are apparently thinking of taking our NHS.
A couple of hours ago, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talked about how the Government are centralising power, with ICBs having to look upwards to the hierarchies above them. He used the phrase that they will be “beaten up by the centre”. As he was saying that, I was struck that a briefing arrived in my inbox at that moment from the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers and the King’s Fund, which very much focused on that concern about the Secretary of State’s power to direct. It is clear that the Bill will give the Secretary of State enormous power potentially to interfere in the most minute aspects of healthcare locally. That concerns a great many people. I think it is already clear that your Lordships’ House will keep talking about this and, very likely, try to change it in future, but we know we are unlikely to be able to entirely transform this Bill and the relationships between the centre and the local.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, starting with Amendment 46. After many helpful discussions both today and earlier on in Committee looking at membership, structures and representations of ICBs, these amendments take us back to the first principles and ask your Lordships’ House to look at what should be in scope for the provision of NHS services. This is a really valid question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to maternity services, but if I were to pick one of the services listed in Amendment 169, it would be dental services. There are millions of people in the country who cannot access an NHS dentist. The result is a worsening of dental health, which is especially worrying for children and young people. I am sorry to say that, over the years, Ministers have ignored the wider needs of the public regarding dental services. I think the point about specifying the provision of services such as this puts a very particular duty on the Secretary of State to force Ministers to make sure that they are also holding other parts of the health service to account.
The amendments turn our focus on to whether we still have an NHS that is a public health system or one that perhaps is paid for mainly by the public but run by a disparate number of bodies, including unaccountable private companies increasingly not based in the UK. They are particularly important in light of the report today in the press that the Secretary of State is planning to create the equivalent of school academies for failing hospitals and says that there will be a White Paper in due course. Just as an aside, do we need yet more reforms? Surely it would have been better to have a full range of Green Papers with an overarching vision of what the NHS in the 21st century should look like and how the structures should work. We are now waiting for two White Papers, while the passage of this Bill is irrevocably changing the structures of our NHS system.
Today’s announcement rings a number of alarm bells because there is an analogy with the education sector that is quite helpful. I remember that, in the 1990s, academies were going to be free from local authority control and that that, on its own, would inevitably make them improve—but that has not been the case. Various reports over the last 20 years have shown that a number of failing schools taken into multi-academy trusts and free schools have remained low performing. Structures on their own do not necessarily resolve this. Indeed, some multi-academy trusts have failed in their entirety, and one of their issues is the lack of public accountability—because Ministers have direct responsibility in the public realm for academies, and I worry that the Secretary of State may be proposing the same. If I was a senior leader in NHS England, I would be very concerned about that.
I am grateful for the earlier comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the need for Ministers to have the ability to appoint and, presumably, remove senior personnel on ICBs. But would the Secretary of State have responsibility for these academy equivalents and give them the right to access separate funding for capital expenditure and special projects? I raise this because part of the problem that we have at the moment is a diversity of funding mechanisms, structures and strands, which often take the eye of a leader—whether a Minister or one in the NHS—away from the provision of services.
The foundation of a public system was essentially removed by the 2012 Act, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, the Constitution Committee suggested that there needed to be an interim remedy. It is important that we have reassurance that this Bill will not weaken it any further at all. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government want to protect the provision of NHS services, as part of a truly public health service.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving her amendment and other noble Lords for their contributions, particularly on the specific points about particular services, such as dentistry. All three amendments look back to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the National Health Service Act 2006 on the powers and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to the NHS and the services that it provides, restoring certain provisions in the 2006 Act.
Under the Bill, the ICBs and NHS England will have the duties to secure the provision of the services that make up the comprehensive NHS. There are probably noble Lords here today who were Members of your Lordships’ House in 2006. I came in in 2010, just as the equally marathon Health and Social Care Act from the coalition Government got under way, when the whole issue of the Secretary of State’s powers and duties came to the fore. As explained at the time, the aim was to separate the political from the operational responsibility and to better align the language to the reality of the purpose of the NHS, in “securing the provision of services”.
The arguments in 2010 and 2011 were fierce and passionate, centred around the subtle changes in the way that the duties were defined, as compared to the words in Sections 1 and 3 of the 2006 Act. They caused suspicion, confusion and fears that the NHS would be changed forever. These arguments remain a bit of a blur in my memory, but I recall the overwhelming view among leading experts on NHS law that the changes were technical and did not involve any substantial change in practice. We know that, in respect of this role, no change has happened.
I also recall the 2012 consideration of the issue by our Constitution Committee and the compromise recommendation subsequently adopted in the 2012 Bill of what became Section 1(3) of the 2006 Act, as amended:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”
No matter what is in any Act, this is and will always be the political reality.
Currently, the law places the duty on the Secretary of State to
“continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement … in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and … in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness”—
very much in the spirit of the NHS’s founding 1946 Act.
Amendments 46 and 168 seek to continue the 2006/2012 debate. It was claimed about the 2012 Act, and now about this Bill, that the change in wording implies that people will be denied access to treatment from the NHS because, for example, a particular ICB decides to exclude a service and because there is no duty on the Secretary of State to prevent this happening. However, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been denied access to an NHS service or that any service has been refused in general simply because of the change in the wording of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Amendment 169 returns to the same point, seeking to place a duty on the Secretary of State to “provide” a list of services, with some general headings such as ambulance services. But the reality is that this is not how the NHS functions or indeed ever has.
I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about today’s announcement of yet another restructuring on the academy front, but, again, that is a debate for another day.
We could go back on the Secretary of State issue to the 2012 arguments and spend a lot of time on it. While we fully understand the concerns and fears that the current wording could engender among those who suspect a deeper reason for the changes in language, continuing to argue over this issue would not be very productive or get us anywhere. We need to get on with scrutinising the sweeping delegated and Henry VIII powers later in the Bill that our current Constitution Committee and Delegated Powers Committees have expressed such deep concern about.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for bringing forward this group of amendments. As many of the Committee will remember vividly, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has reminded us, accountability for the health service was a topic of considerable debate at the time of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 as it went through Parliament. The constitutional position of the Secretary of State was closely scrutinised and the current wording in the Act is very much the product of those discussions. I remind the Committee especially of the hard work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, who was at that time chair of the Constitution Committee, her colleagues on the committee and many others, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who did so much to develop the current wording of the clause. The coalition Government accepted the Constitution Committee’s recommendations in full.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of the reasons why it was thought appropriate to modify the wording that described the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the health service. As noble Lords will be aware, the idea that the Secretary of State himself provides services has not for many years reflected the real world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly said, and as the Committee will remember, it was decided in 2012 that it was better that the law reflected the reality of the modern NHS rather than retaining outdated language. I do not think that the last 10 years have proved that proposition wrong. The current legislative framework allows some of the health services in England to be provided by entities, such as NHS foundation trusts, that are legally distinct from the Secretary of State. That will continue to be the case and should be recognised in the law.
I understand the concerns that Ministers might somehow avoid being responsible for ensuring the continuation of a comprehensive health service. However, there have been many vigorous debates in Parliament about the NHS in the years since those changes in 2012, and they have demonstrated that there has, quite rightly, been no loss in the strong sense of governmental accountability for the NHS felt by both government and Parliament. Indeed, the House amended the Act in 2012 to put beyond doubt that:
“The Secretary of State retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England.”
That has not changed in this Bill; the wording will remain set in statute.
I would gently caution against recreating the fiction that the Secretary of State provides services directly. It is much better to be clear that the role of the Secretary of State is to set strategic direction, oversee and hold to account NHS England and the other national bodies of the NHS and, occasionally, to intervene—as the noble Lord is doing.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Given what he has said—and I know that we will debate this later—I point out that it is curious that the Government wish to take on a power of direction over NHS England, if that is so. I guarantee that that power will never be used because the Secretary of State’s power of direction never has to be used. Once this is passed, that changes the relationship; NHS England will know that the Secretary of State has that power of direction. Although I have tabled some amendments to try to modify it, I have no objections to the general principle, since I do not think that a quango such as NHS England should be freely floating. But we need to recognise that it is a fundamental change in the relationship to impose that power of direction again.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as I was about to say, the 2012 Act does provide for the ability of the Secretary of State to intervene when that is necessary for the smooth and effective running of the system. Furthermore, we should not exaggerate the extent to which this Bill modifies the 2012 provisions. As the noble Lord said, we will debate the powers of direction on a future occasion but, when we come to do so, my colleagues and I on the Government Benches will contend that the powers of direction, such as they are, are very narrow and specific in their scope. They have been deliberately framed in that way to reflect experience over recent years. I would not be in favour of reopening this piece of drafting, given its history and the effort that noble Lords from all sides of the House made to build an effective consensus in respect of the 2012 Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about dental access. The department is working closely with NHS England to increase levels of service as quickly as possible. Practices are continuing to prioritise patients based on clinical need. Dental practices are now being asked by NHS England and NHS Improvement to deliver at least 85% of contracted units of dental activity—UDAs—between January and March 2022 to provide improved access for patients. These updated figures are based on what many practices have been able to deliver to date. They take into account adherence to the latest infection prevention and control guidance. I hope that this is helpful to the noble Baroness.
I hope also that I have explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, why I cannot entertain her amendments, but also that I have reassured her that the accountability chain between health services, Ministers and Parliament, which lies at the centre of her concerns, remains intact.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her support. She stressed how this is very much about restoring a public health system with full public accountability.
I was a little surprised, not so much by the direction as by the emphatic nature of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, given that it was members of her party who moved the amendments in the other place. To address the Minister’s comments—this also picks up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—we are talking about a significant change in relation to power of direction; a power that we will be discussing further, at great length, and about which we have seen considerable expressions of concern. I come back to the way I framed my speech: if you have more powers, you have more responsibility. If you say, “We covered all this in the 2012 Act—it’s all fine”, once could argue that the 2012 Act did not work out fine, but we are in a new situation, creating very new structures.
Thinking about the success or otherwise of accountability, some issues where we have failed in terms of accountability—and we will see amendments on these later—are workforce planning and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, highlighted, dental provision.
This is about ensuring that people have faith, know who to look to and cannot be fobbed off, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, by this terrible, complex diversity of funding and arrangement structures. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I took part in the public debate in 2012, not in this place but in the public domain, and I have given many speeches on this issue. The complexity must not be allowed to cover over the fact that what people want to know is that the healthcare is there when they need it, and if it is not that they know who to point to.
I will of course withdraw the amendment at this point, but I reserve the right to consider this and come back to it at a future point.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that we adjourn the House for four minutes, until 7.30 pm.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 18th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (18 Jan 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, in the next group of amendments, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 47
“(ea) specialist palliative care services,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that specialist palliative care services are a core service available equitably across all sectors.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, to state the obvious, everyone will die. On average, one person dies every minute, and every 22 minutes a child loses a parent. Dying patients are seen in every part of healthcare, and the vast majority will have some level of palliative care need. I declare my interest as a specialist in palliative medicine over decades, and my roles with different relevant hospice and palliative care charities and being employed through the Velindre Cancer Centre.
Amendment 47 would introduce a specific requirement for clinical specialist palliative care services to be commissioned by integrated care boards in every part of England. Amendment 52 is to inform the debate as it draws on the World Health Organization definition of specialist palliative care. These amendments are strongly supported by Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Together for Short Lives, Sue Ryder and the Alzheimer’s Society.
Let me be clear; this is about specialist clinical services. General basic palliative care should be a skill of every clinician. But, until it is recognised as a core specialty, generic services will continue to view it as an extra and learning will not be integrated across all areas. Educating and training are crucial duties in upskilling others. In the pandemic, palliative care has been propelled centre stage as a driver of good practice. Specialist palliative care is a relatively new specialty, which is why it was not included in the early NHS legislation. The other truth, that everybody is born, was recognised by requiring every part of the UK to have maternity services. That has been reiterated in legislation and in Clause 16 of this Bill, along with dental and other services.
The hospice movement grew up outside the NHS, spearheaded by Cicely Saunders, who realised that bringing about change within the NHS was painfully slow. This has meant that a patchwork of services has developed in the wealthier parts of Britain. In some areas great, innovative integration with community social care is happening. But other areas of enormous need are left with almost no service, or no service at all. Now we depend on fundraising events for people to get expert support for pain and other symptoms, and for psychosocial distress. No one would advocate to have a cake sale so that a woman in obstructed labour can have a caesarean section, so why turn a blind eye to ways to improve the quality of life of those with serious and life-threatening illnesses and support their families? Debate in the other place suggested that palliative care is aftercare; it is not. It is not an add-on just before death. It must be an integral part of care so that problems are dealt with in a timely way, not left to escalate into a crisis.
In Section 3 of the NHS Act 2006, clinical commissioning groups had the same general duties as in this Bill, yet significant gaps in specialist palliative care services persist between clinical commissioning groups. Some populations fare particularly badly: people who are homeless or in prison, BAME groups, Gypsies and Travellers, LGBTQ+ people, people with learning disabilities and those living in poverty, alone or with dementia. Yet the way a person dies lives on in the memory of those left behind.
Marie Curie’s freedom of information requests to English CCGs revealed an average spend last year of as little as £19.02 per person aged over 65. Only 35% of CCGs responding offered specialist palliative care services in all care settings overnight and at weekends, yet such services are known to reduce pressure on NHS services and achieve savings by reducing the number of hospital bed days occupied and unplanned admissions.
Research from King’s College London and supported by Marie Curie reveals that of the 23 integrated care systems in England with published strategies, only six identified palliative and end-of-life care as a priority area. Five mentioned broad bereavement support and only three identified relevant measures of success, such as reduced hospital admissions.
In the pandemic, many hospices hit financial instability head on as fundraising dried up. The government bail-out was essential, and I think that everyone was very grateful. In 2008, Wales had tackled this problem head on, aware that if a hospice folded, the clinical core service would still be needed. With just over £2 per head of population investment, we moved to provide core specialist clinical palliative care through an agreed funding formula, moving to seven-day services and 24/7 advice to any health or social care professional with a patient needing help. These services cover hospitals, hospices and community, with increasing integration reaching areas where no services existed. We instigated a paediatric service and an all-Wales unified patient record across the NHS and voluntary sector providers, which I described last week.
The outcomes that we achieved warrant consideration. To quote one nurse:
“The patients have access to specialist palliative care nurses, advice and experience on the weekend, which is great, and if we weren’t there, they wouldn’t have that, and they’d suffer for it. Unfortunately, people deteriorate and die out of hours. They don’t all die Monday to Friday, nine to five.”
At the south-east Wales cancer centre, specialist palliative care is now embedded in the acute oncology service, whose audit revealed that almost three-quarters of the patients presenting to acute oncology had a level of unmet need in palliative care but were unknown to any services at the time. The majority then had same-day, face-to-face palliative care review or were referred to their local team. In the community last year, there were more than 3,700 patient contacts, over 1,000 being face to face. I remind the Committee that that covers a population of about 1.5 million. Many families have “just in case” boxes to make sure that medication is available, and the ambulance service can link in too.
For cancer centre in-patients, the palliative care audit showed that nine out of 10 symptoms improved during the patient’s stay, including pain, breathlessness, constipation and weakness, and nausea scores fell to zero by day seven. Multifactorial drowsiness persisted in some whose disease was progressing rapidly to death.
In England during the pandemic, specialist teams were in place. They have shown that they can facilitate discharge, support staff having difficult ethical and communication dilemmas, and support patients and families, but a Marie Curie survey of carers of people who died at home during the pandemic found that 76% said that their loved one did not get all the care and support they needed, 64% did not get pain management and 65% did not get the out-of-hours care.
This Bill arrives at a critical moment for improving care. In 20 years’ time, 100,000 more people will die each year in the UK. Demand is set to increase rapidly as our population ages and more people live for longer with multiple and complex conditions. The number of people dying with a need for palliative care is projected to increase by up to 42% by 2040. This cannot be left unaddressed, and the solution is at hand. I hope that the Government will finally recognise that they can improve care without increasing overall cost by adopting Amendment 47, to explicitly require the commissioning of specialist palliative care for local populations.
The NHS promised to support people from the cradle to the grave, and it can now realise that promise. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for laying these amendments and pay tribute to her for her tireless work in the palliative care sector and in your Lordships’ House. I also thank Marie Curie, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder, Alzheimer’s Society and Together for Short Lives for their very helpful briefing.
Clause 16 provides integrated care boards with duties to commission hospital and other health services for those for whom they are responsible. While specific services are highlighted in the clause, there is still nothing for specialist palliative care as currently drafted. There should absolutely be a fundamental right to access palliative and end-of-life care and support services for everyone who needs them. It is vital to restate that palliative care and end-of-life care are not always the same thing.
Hospices, homes and special services at home help children and adults for more than just those last few days. However, far too many people already miss out on palliative care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, set out; estimates suggest that while as many as 90% of people who die may have hospice and palliative care needs, only around 50% will actually receive it. Like many others, I am afraid I know family and friends who were desperate to move to a hospice in their last few days but ended up dying in hospital. In my stepfather’s case it was because of the bureaucracy of the hospital—at the point at which they said it was possible to move him, they said it was too late.
If we can reduce unplanned and potentially avoidable hospital admissions, it would be considerably less distressing for the patient and their families and would also reduce pressure on our hospitals.
With people in the last year of their life in England accounting for some 5.5 million bed days, it is estimated that the total cost of these admissions is over £1 billion for our already pressed acute hospital trusts. I have a friend currently receiving end-of-life care who is also stuck in a hospital. The real problem is the lack of understanding of where and how the specialist services can be provided. That is vital, because otherwise people end up in hospital and cannot get out again.
During debate on a similar amendment in Committee in the Commons, the Minister of State for Health, Edward Argar, indicated that the Government’s view is that everything is covered by aftercare. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is not aftercare. If you have ever seen the brilliant work of palliative care specialists, you will understand that it is real care at a vital time in people’s lives.
I mentioned Together for Short Lives in opening. I have a particular interest in children’s palliative and end-of-life care. One of the things that worries me most at the moment is that people often do not understand that respite care for families looking after young children with very serious illnesses and disabilities has been a vital way of ensuring that they can have some sort of break. They often work 18, 19, 20 hours a day, sometimes with help at home but often, during the two years of the pandemic, with no help at all.
Take the example of my local children’s respite centre, Nascot Lawn. The parents took the CCG to the High Court twice and won, but it closed down. It was not the first. Part of the problem we have with our hospices and other forms of provision is that they rely utterly on public fundraising. The last two years have been a particular problem. For children’s respite and palliative care, it is an absolute tragedy—far too many units are closing down around the country.
In addition, despite a version of the language used in Clause 16, on aftercare, having been in place since the 2012 Act, many CCGs do not currently commission sufficient specialist palliative care. Worse, in the case of Nascot Lawn, the entire onus was put on the local authority because, it was said, it was about personal care. One of my concerns is a muddle between personal care and aftercare, when all these children required specialist nursing.
It is vital that the funding element is looked at. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is right that the NHS always proudly boasted that it was there for people from the cradle to the grave. Sadly, at the moment this is not true. It is the hidden gem of our public health system and we must find a mechanism to make it not hidden but apparent and something that everyone who wants and needs it can rely on in the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this important debate. I strongly support the amendments which would ensure specialist palliative care, which should be available for all adults and children across the country should they need it.
Marie Curie suggests that while as many as 90% of people who die have palliative care needs, only 50% currently receive palliative care. Research reveals that of the 23 integrated care systems in England which have so far published their strategies, only six have identified palliative and end-of-life care as a priority area, as my noble friend has stated.
After long years when my husband had complicated conditions after a stroke, it would have been very helpful to have had some palliative care at the end. He died on a Sunday. The doctor would not come out. He died with me, in an A&E department. The doctor and nurse did their very best, but it was impossible to see his medical notes and the poor doctor was in desperation. It was a difficult situation as he passed away. This is one reason why a plan with some palliative care would be helpful.
I saw the struggles that the parents had when a young cousin of mine aged seven had neuroblastoma. They did everything they could. He was treated in Germany and England; they took him to the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, known for the treatment of neuroblastoma. He had spells in a children’s hospice in Yorkshire and, when in remission, went back to school.
Such parents, of whom there are many throughout the country, need support. I ask my noble friend Lady Finlay, a professor of palliative care, whether this support for parents or nearest and dearest comes under palliative care? I hope that the Government will see that palliative care should be included in this Bill.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while we all treasure the hospice movement and revere Cicely Saunders and her disciples, the grim fact is that there are all too many parts of the country where hospices are lacking and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained, palliative care is limited and inadequate, or perhaps even non-existent. Of course, palliative care, available in every setting, must become a core responsibility of the NHS. We should not displace the hospices and the charitable ethos, but where hospices do not exist—mainly in poorer communities where fund-raising capacity is small—default provision should be made by the NHS. These amendments would secure universal availability of high-quality palliative care.
High-quality palliative care is, of course, not just a matter of technical skills in pain relief and so on. Dr Iona Heath, a past chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has written:
“The whole discipline of medicine has colluded in the wider … project of seeking technical solutions to the existential problems posed by distress, suffering and the finitude of life and the inevitability of ageing, loss and death. Sickness and death have gradually come to be regarded as failures of medicine, even by doctors themselves, rather than inevitable constituents of what it is to be human.”
At a round table on the arts and palliative care, dying and bereavement convened by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing and chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, Dr Viv Lucas—medical director of the Garden House Hospice, Letchworth—said that the role of doctors in this context is not to cure disease but to heal their patients. She said that this implies
“addressing the subjective experience of human suffering and facilitating a process of inner change—not about the technological doing to of the disease-orientated model but of being with, bearing witness.”
The hospice movement acknowledges creative work to be a vital human activity. Through the arts, we can transcend suffering, come to terms with our own mortality and enable our own healing. Artist Virginia Hearth has said:
“The arts offer us a way of making sense of the world and help us to define who we are and who we have been.”
There is an abundance of evidence cited in the World Health Organization scoping review of the benefits of the arts in end-of-life care, through opportunities for communication and emotional expression, reframing of the illness experience, and enhanced human connection.
Equally, the arts can help families watching their loved ones approach death and afterwards. At another APPG round table, the director of Grampian Hospitals Art Trust, Sally Thomson, read out a letter from a woman whose husband had been diagnosed with terminal cancer:
“To be given a terminal prognosis is devastating for both the patient and family. To take away your future, the opportunity to grow old and grey with your spouse and to watch your children grow and thrive. You lose your independence and your sense of self, your purpose and role in life. Yet in the midst of this suffering lies the Artroom. An oasis of positivity and fulfilment providing a different purpose. One of creativity and self-expression. It is a place where the self is rediscovered and allowed to flourish … It’s medicine for the soul and every bit as vital as drugs and chemotherapy. A life-fulfilling experience that has changed both our lives for the better.”
As Dr Rachel Clarke, a palliative care doctor, writes in her beautiful book, Dear Life:
“What I witness, over and over, in the hospice … is that there is nothing more powerful than another human presence … reaching out with love and tenderness towards one of our own.”
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 47, to which I have attached my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her brilliant introduction to these amendments, and the other three speakers who spoke so passionately. We have debated this issue several times, and the time has now come that we should be angry about it. The time has come that we should have palliative care and hospice care being made a part of the NHS as a commitment on the face of the Bill.
I shall read the words of a government Minister in Our Commitment to You for End of Life Care—The Government Response to the Review of Choice in End of Life Care. The Minister, Ben Gummer, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health, said this:
“A universal provision of good care will make possible what we should expect from our health and care system - a universal expectation of a good death.”
He went on to say:
“Cicely Saunders was articulating an ancient truth when she described her mission: that ‘we should see the last stages of life not as a defeat but as life’s fulfilment’. A good death - peaceful, dignified, reflective, compassionate, in the loving embrace of those closest to the dying person - is already a happy end for hundreds of thousands of people across our nation.”
The next line is important:
“In making this commitment, we make that promise universal, so that every dying person in England can live in anticipation of a good death.”
I ask the Minister: when that was written in 2016, was it an empty promise or is it likely to become a reality now?
We do not sufficiently value care for those for whom there is no cure. We do not value the short lives of children and young people who die prematurely and who will never be parents, let alone grandparents. Some Members here may have attended the annual reception held downstairs for parliamentarians by Together for Short Lives and other charities. They are attended by children and young people from the ages of three to 16, some using crutches, some using wheelchairs, some with tubes in their noses to supply oxygen, some undergoing IV treatment and some with IV pumps to relieve the pain. It brings tears to your eyes when you see them, but they all come with smiles on their faces, grateful for the care that they get—professional and dedicated care from professionals and volunteers.
So why do we rely for three-quarters of the funding for palliative and hospice care on the charity sector? Why is it that the Government fund only one-third of the care? Why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, do these charities have to sell cakes at village fêtes and second-hand books, toys and clothes for the money that they so fervently raise? Why can we not find the money?
Sue Ryder commissioned research into the total costs required to fund palliative and hospice care for every patient that needs it. They come to about £987 million a year. I should imagine that the transaction costs of the reforms that we are debating in the Health and Care Bill will probably cost several billion pounds. So it is possible for us to reorganise the health service at a cost of billions of pounds, but we cannot fund end-of-life care for those who are dying—children, young people and older people. We should be ashamed of that.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I am pleased to give my wholehearted support to Amendment 47 and to Amendment 52, to which I have added my name, which compellingly requires the commissioning of specialist palliative care services in every part of England. Throughout my life and work I have often had the privilege of being present with families and communities, supporting people of all ages through the final chapter of their life, so I have seen at first hand the enormous difference that high-quality palliative care can make to their experience of dying, death and bereavement.
However, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, pointed out, 90% of people might need such care, but as things stand at present only about half of them will receive it. What is more, it is all too often those in our most deprived communities who are dying without the help and dignity they deserve.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. I give my very strong support to Amendment 47, to which I added my name, and Amendment 52. The key arguments have been extremely powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others.
My main concern is to make it abundantly clear that I and everyone I know who supports assisted dying also want to see the highest possible quality of palliative care across the country—not some kind of patchwork, but universally. I, like all noble Lords, have witnessed wonderful palliative care but also what I might describe as substandard care of dying people. The difference to the patient and the relatives is unforgettable for everybody involved. I visited a beautiful hospice with a warm and professional atmosphere recently, but there were empty beds because it had not been able to raise enough money from whatever it was—jumble sales, et cetera. It is entirely unacceptable that hospices are expected to raise funds to provide their services.
As I said, I also support Amendment 52, which details the types of services that must be provided as part of this country’s commitment to providing accessible and excellent care. The inclusion of the definition of palliative care as provided by the World Health Organization would ensure statutory recognition for this most important aspect of healthcare.
Finally, we need to accept that top-quality palliative care must involve patients’ wishes being understood and respected. Patient choice is more and more accepted throughout the NHS, but it is most important at the end of life. Central to top-quality palliative care will be the right of patients ultimately to decide how much suffering they wish to bear and when they have had enough. The lack of control under the current law will inevitably undermine the patient experience of palliative care, however devoted the staff.
The great majority of dying patients will die naturally, even when assisted dying becomes lawful. However, the great majority of dying people will live and die better knowing that they will have some control when it really matters—when their suffering is no longer bearable.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, whatever view we take on assisted dying, I think that there is general agreement that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, deserves a great deal of support in her two amendments. The predicament that we find ourselves in is that the Minister will probably reject them and say that the Government will ensure that the NHS prioritises these services in the future. The trouble is that we have been here many times before, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. He mentioned 2016, but in 2015 the Economist produced its last quality of death index, as far as I can find out, which basically said that the UK had the best palliative care in the world, but it was very patchy. I am afraid that the situation has simply not moved on.
So the question is: what should we do? Clearly, it is not going to get better if you leave it to the health service. It treats hospices dreadfully, with continuous late contract signing and short-term contract signing by bodies that should be able to agree three-year rolling contracts with those institutions. The lack of priority that is given suggests to me that, unless we take legislative action, we will not see any improvement at all. That is the quandary for us in terms of collectively agreeing a way forward that makes it clear to the NHS that time is up on its neglect of palliative care. We really must take action.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too have put my name to these amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Because this is the first time that I have spoken at this stage of the Bill, I remind your Lordships to refer to my Second Reading speech and entry in the register of interests for my experience and links around the topic of health. The hour is late, so I shall try to be very brief.
Although Clause 16 currently lists a number of services that the ICBs are required to commission, it fails extraordinarily to include palliative care. We have already heard that current estimates suggest that, although as many as 90% of people who die have a palliative care need, only 50% currently receive that care—only half. I find it somewhat horrifying that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, a Marie Curie survey found that 64% of people who died at home did not get adequate care, with pain management.
Like others who have spoken, I know from personal experience of family members how hard it was for them to get the care they needed at the end of their life. I am sure that everyone here can share examples of exceptional local hospices, especially facing the challenges of the pandemic, that currently have to fundraise to be able to do the work to fill these gaps—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, told us, they sell cakes. It is quite extraordinary. I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the hospices and the wonderful palliative care doctors for the amazing support they give to those who are dying and their families.
Although I recognise the Government’s concerns about overprescribing the list of services that integrated care boards should commission, it seems anomalous for the Bill to proceed with priority given to ensuring that ICBs commission maternity and other services but have no explicit requirement to commission palliative care services. I am sure that this was not the Government’s intention, but I am concerned that the current drafting implies that health services for people at the end stage of their life are less important than health services for people at earlier stages. Surely the end of life is one of the times when care is needed most. I find it extraordinary that we are even having this discussion.
The addition of these amendments offers a unique opportunity to ensure that nobody with a terminal illness misses out on the care and support that they need, both now and in the future. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these amendments, which will help us to ensure that all of us have the end-of-life experience that we would hope and wish for when our time comes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if we were having this debate about any other service in the NHS, people would be aghast. Can noble Lords imagine the response if we said that your access to dental treatment would be determined by the number of books sold; that your access to maternity services would be based on the number of jumble sales held; or that, ultimately, your access to ophthalmology would be dependent on the number of cakes and coffees sold at an afternoon party? These examples are no different from that of specialist palliative care, a service that is meant to be from cradle to grave. The unfortunate reason why the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has had to table her amendment, supported by other noble Lords, is that, for too many years, promises have been given but the services have not been delivered because the NHS does not commission parity of service across England.
I know quite a lot of people who work in the health service who are decent, hard-working and genuine, but the fact is that palliative care is seen by too many as an add-on and not central to the services they are providing. I do not blame them for that because, unfortunately, that is the behaviour that sometimes happens when the NHS does not have a mandate to provide specialist palliative care and people think that the local charity shop funds it. The noble Baroness has had to table Amendment 52 because we need to be clear about what this service is. It is not about just those last few days or weeks; it is not about just putting someone in a hospice. It is about giving psychological and medical care and support throughout a whole process to people with a life-threatening illness or who are at the end of life. This service needs to be commissioned against a clear understanding and definition of specialist palliative care.
I agree with many noble Lords: people across this country have waited far too long for access to specialist palliative care funded by the taxpayer. This does not mean that some of the charitable work would not continue, but such care should be a right and a service, funded by the taxpayer, which says that people will be looked after from cradle to grave.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I applaud my noble friend’s continuing persistence and commitment in seeking proper recognition of the role of specialist palliative care within our health and care services. I speak with around 40 years of clinical and clinical academic experience, first in general practice but mostly in psychiatry, and as a past president of the British Medical Association. Cicely Saunders taught me as a medical student, and she inspired my interest in this area.
Other noble Lords have stressed the shortfalls—I will not repeat them—but we know too that certain groups face significant barriers in accessing palliative and end-of-life care. Marie Curie’s A Place for Everyone report found that this included people living in poverty, alone or with dementia, as well as people with learning disabilities. My own research in clinical practice has included a focus on end-of-life issues, including decision-making, for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Most people with learning disabilities still do not get equitable end-of-life care, despite over a decade of inquiries and recommendations.
Personalising end-of-life care for everyone is in the NHS Long Term Plan. It must surely be enshrined within the duties of the ICSs. We have already heard about King’s College’s findings of a shocking lack of planning by the vast majority of ICSs. That is a problem; it cannot be left to chance. The truth also is that depression and anxiety are quite common among both those who are dying and those who are bereaved. From my perspective as a psychiatrist, I would say that we need palliative and end-of-life care to improve the experiences of both children and adults who are becoming bereaved. We know, for example, that adverse bereavement experiences in children, such as watching a family member dying in pain, are a predictor of difficulties in adulthood, in addition to affecting their educational achievements.
To achieve a comfortable death, it is imperative that the psychological distress of both the person who is dying and their nearest and dearest is understood and attended to, as well as any physical symptoms. This amendment should need no further discussion. Cicely Saunders would be horrified. I hope that the Minister will accept it. It would be a false economy not to go ahead with this provision.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I support both these amendments, and I refer to my interests as laid out in the register as a trustee of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland and chair of the Scottish Government’s National Advisory Committee for Neurological Conditions.
There is evidence, as we have heard, that people provided with early palliative care and support in all settings, as is laid out by Amendment 52, achieve better outcomes and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said, that it prevents unwarranted hospital admission. I would commend the Minister to look at the model in Scotland, where the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care brings together health and social care professionals from hospitals, social care services, primary care, hospices and other charities to find ways of improving people’s experiences of declining health, death, dying and bereavement.
Perhaps what differentiates palliative care from just good care is the awareness that a person’s mortality has started to influence clinical and more personal decision-making. However, I beg to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. This is not about the fact that we are all going to die; it is about life. It is about the care of someone who is alive—someone who still has hours, days, months or years remaining in their life. It is about optimising well-being in those circumstances.
A major problem for people who need and would benefit from specialist palliative care is that they are often referred very late to such services or not referred at all, because such services are erroneously perceived by many other professionals, and the public, as relevant only at the end of life. Unfortunately, access to specialist palliative care is therefore not available to people dying with neurological conditions. Although there has been some progress, most people dying with terminal or progressive neurological conditions die under the care of generalist health and social care teams, in hospitals, care homes or at home. The recent research by Marie Curie, quoted by many noble Lords this evening, points out the patchy access to palliative care, and people with neurological conditions are overrepresented in not being able to access it.
There is a very high level of unmet need. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, we should be angry that end-of-life care is not available—and for over half of people with neurological conditions, I am angry. For those who are receiving support from generalist teams, we know that hospital beds and suitable care packages are extremely scarce, especially as the health and care system seeks to cope with the Covid pandemic and its impact. As a result, we have a problem, and people are facing the end of their life without the support they require.
In a caring society, palliative care should be embedded into this Health and Care Bill. It should be a core service, available to all those who need it. I urge the Minister to support these amendments.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Finlay. In so doing, I would like to put a question to the Minister. In the context of contemporary, 21st-century delivery of healthcare, how can it be justified that palliative care is not considered part of the continuum and has to be funded in a different way? How can it be that those specialists delivering palliative care are unable to integrate it into the broader considerations of delivery of healthcare in their institutions and systems? It seems completely counterintuitive that that continues to be the position in our country. If Her Majesty’s Government were minded not to support these amendments, it would be helpful to understand how they justify that position and justify differentiating palliative care from other services that are rightly fully funded by the state.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I feel honoured to be a fellow Member of this House with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because of her professional and political work in raising this issue before your Lordships.
I want to use a word that has not been used yet in this debate, and that word is “fear”. The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, nearly used it when she said that people are scared. Anybody who has read the reports that say that only 50% of people who need palliative care receive it will feel fear: “Is it going to be painful?”, “Am I going to be able to bear it?” and, on the part of the carer and family members, “Is it going to be terrible for my loved one?”, “Am I going to be able to help them?”, “Am I going to be able to cope?” The physical pain is part of it, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said, the fear and the psychological distress make things a great deal worse. At a time when it is in our power to give people a good death, we are not doing it; that is a disgrace.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the debate today across your Lordships’ House has shown that it is impossible to understand how specialist palliative care can be regarded in any logical, practical or humane sense as something so different. I am sure that the Minister will do his very best to address that in his consideration of these important amendments.
I am grateful to noble Lords for making this debate possible by bringing forward these amendments and making sensitive, informed and often personal contributions to underline the need to ensure that specialist palliative care features in the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for setting out the fact that if we are to say that the NHS is cradle-to-grave, that must absolutely shape how we approach such services. The noble Baroness and others, including the right reverend Prelate, talked about inequality and the fact that, when we speak of specialist palliative care, inequalities are not just in the course of someone’s life but actually to the very moment they leave this world. That really had an impact on me, because that surely is an unfairness too far for us to just stand by.
Taking action could not be more pressing a need. We know that the UK’s population is ageing rapidly. The Office for National Statistics predicts that, in 20 years’ time, there will be twice as many people over the age of 85, while Marie Curie’s analysis for Cardiff University has concluded that the number of people needing palliative care will rise by 42% by 2040. This is a challenge to our society which will not go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we should be able to live our lives in anticipation of a good death. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the difference of witnessing a good death, as opposed to a death that is less than what it should be.
It is important to say that, even before the pandemic, experts at the Royal College of Physicians, the Care Quality Commission, the health service ombudsman and Compassion in Dying were all sounding the alarm on how those approaching the end of their life, and their loved ones, did not, in so many circumstances, feel supported to make the decisions that faced them and that it was impossible to turn away from. They did not know what choices were available, and, sadly, were not given an honest prognosis.
The amendments in this group offer dignity to the greatly increasing numbers who will need this care, and would bring in moral and well-evidenced measures essential to providing the tailored care that is needed in the final stages of one’s life. This includes sharing information about a person’s care across the different professionals and organisations involved in that care, and providing patients and their loved ones with specialist advice, 24 hours a day, every day of the week—which expert practitioners, including those at Cicely Saunders International, have been crying out for.
My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Howarth, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others underlined the work, role and contribution of the hospice movement, and also spoke about their incredulity at the reliance on charitable funding. Who in this Committee can be surprised at that feeling? I hope the Minister will be able to speak to that absolutely crucial point because, even before the pandemic, many hospices were suffering from poor decisions from clinical commissioning groups, poor practice, and a lack of support and recognition of the vital role that they play. That impacts on the individuals who so sorely need their services.
Marie Curie reported that 76% of carers who lost a loved one during the pandemic felt that they did not get the appropriate care that they needed. This is an opportunity to fix the problem. Every day, pandemic or none, the quality and personalisation of specialist palliative care will dictate how dignified and comfortable —or not—the end of a life will be, and how much of a burden will be borne by the carers and loved ones: whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us, those left behind are adults or children. These amendments seek to get it right, and the feeling of this Committee could not be clearer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, as we reach the closing minutes of today’s debate and reflect on the wonderful contributions from across the Committee, perhaps it is fitting that we also talk about the final chapter of life, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke very movingly today, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Hollins and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Fraser, who spoke about their own experiences. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for pointing out the 42% figure, which is very important to recognise. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the engagement we had prior to this debate and for her helpful engagement with our officials and the Bill team. I hope that will continue.
What is interesting about this is that when I was younger, we as a society found it very difficult to talk about death. I was once told by my parents that the British find it very difficult to talk about death, except in faith groups. It is interesting that, over time, as we have become an ageing society, we are talking, as a matter of fact, about death. We talk about our wills, financial planning, and planning for care at the end of our life. It is appropriate that we recognise this. The fact is that, nowadays, when we look at the hospice movement, we do not think of it as a quaint little service or a charity; we think that it provides an essential service to help someone at the end of their life, and we recognise the difference between palliative care and end-of-life care.
I hope that I can reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring that people of all ages have the opportunity to benefit from high-quality, personalised palliative and end-of-life care, if and when they need it. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Scriven, for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, talked about the role that the arts play in helping those at the end of their life, which he has talked about in a number of discussions we have had on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, he made the point that while you want to see the state do more, you do not want to push or squeeze out the hospice movement, as we need the right balance.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken tonight and who shared their personal experiences and the passion and, indeed, anger that my noble friend Lord Patel referred to. Really, we are at the point where enough is enough. I would love to address every point individually. I greatly appreciate the Minister’s commitment in giving me access to his Bill team and to officials previously and I will take up that invitation with zeal because I will come back to this on Report. I can say now that I will divide the House on Report because enough is enough. We cannot carry on with the lack of action and the continued jumble sales, cake sales and everything else.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me about the support for children. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed out, the cost of putting this right, if you work it out, is less than £20 per person across the population. It is really low. Yes, of course, it involves children. I would like to finish with a tribute to a little boy called Stevie. Stevie told me that he was going to die when his goldfish died. His goldfish died. He then asked that we promise not to give him any more injections. We said: “Fine, we will not give you any more injections, Stevie, we will keep everything controlled.” His third point was for his parents to come in. He made them sit down and hold hands across the bed and promise to never argue again. He died shortly afterwards.
For all those children, all those adults—all those thousands of people—who are dying every minute, we must make sure that we meet their promises, that we give them good care and that they have good symptom control and good psychosocial support as they are dying and that their families do as well. Enough is enough. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 20th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jan 2022)
“(j) fracture liaison services to identify people at increased risk of fragility fractures and prevent future fractures.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures equity of access to Fracture Liaison Services for people with osteoporosis.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 50 is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, underlining the cross-party interest in and support for this vital issue. I am grateful to them. I note my interest as co-chairman of the APPG on Osteoporosis and Bone Health. I also support Amendment 101B in this group, on mental health, and much look forward to the debate on the other amendments.
Amendment 50 is, at heart, about equality of access to services for people with osteoporosis. If accepted, it would end the current appalling postcode lottery which means that so many people are suffering unnecessarily from the pain and distress of avoidable broken bones. It will do this by making the provision of fracture liaison services—FLS—one of the core services that an integrated care board must consider for the people for whom it has responsibility, alongside dental and ophthalmic services and others.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 50 and will speak also to Amendment 57. I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Osteoporosis and Bone Health. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for leading on this cross-party amendment.
Osteoporosis is a condition which can cause much pain and debilitation to many people, mainly women. Prevention is important and this is a condition which needs treating by a fracture liaison service. This service should be available to and in easy reach of patients who can be frail and elderly and whose bones can be easily fractured.
I would like to bring to your Lordships’ attention the case of the local hospital which serves the north part of North Yorkshire, a very rural area: the Friarage Hospital, Northallerton, which, sadly, over the years has been downgraded. It used to have an excellent orthopaedic unit; the senior consultant was a brilliant surgeon who unfortunately had to go back to South Africa. He was the brightest and the best. The health service needs leaders, and both staff and patients need up-to-date equipment for satisfactory outcomes. Now there is a visiting consultant, who wanted a DEXA scanner to save his patients the long journey to James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough. Many of the patients are elderly and frail. Transport can be a problem. The consultant did not get his DEXA scanner, which diagnoses osteoporosis. I thank the Minister for looking into this case after I tabled a Parliamentary Question.
The problem is upgrading with new equipment. This generally goes to the large hospitals. Women’s orthopaedic wards always seem to have to fight for what they need. A good fracture liaison service, which patients can reach, helps prevention of ill health and without doubt has benefits for everyone, especially the frail and elderly. If they are to be treated in an accessible clinic, near their homes, it must have the correct equipment and well-trained staff. I think it was Winston Churchill who said, “Give them the tools and they will do the job.” The big need at the moment is finding and retaining trained, dedicated, enthusiastic staff. They are the National Health Service’s biggest asset; without them, the job will not be done.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, follows on well from Amendment 50, and I would like to say a few words on that amendment. It requires that
“health services are available in a community setting where possible, in order to improve access.”
At the moment, weekends are becoming very difficult in rural areas, such as the one where I live. From Friday afternoon to Monday, there is no GP service. On a Sunday, a young woman I know went with an eye infection to the nearest A&E department only to be told that it was not an emergency and she should wait and go to her GP. She did so and was given some eye drops, which were not the answer. When the eye infection worsened, she rang 111. They sent an email to the GP, as the infection had spread to both eyes. She was then sent to the eye clinic at the same hospital that had sent her away from A&E. She was off work for two weeks. Only if the correct treatments are available quickly can infections be treated and days off work saved.
The correct antibiotics for infections are so important to stop resistance to drugs. We also need a first-class pathology service, with test results coming back quickly. I do not think the public always realise what an important job these services do. I hope the failing health service in rural areas can be revived, where it is desirable to have a service in the community near where people live. We need the specialist health services as well—which may be miles away from rare diseases, serious accidents and illness. Wherever the best treatment is, the relief of being treated by experts who know what they are doing is unbeatable.
Will the Minister agree that there is a lot to do to get the health service back on the road post Covid-19? We all want to see it thrive. Thank you.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 57, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has mentioned, is also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I declare my interest as a director and controlling shareholder of the Family Hubs Network Ltd, which advocates for family hubs and advises local authorities on how to establish them. I am also a vice-president of the LGA.
In speaking to my Amendment 57, I would point out that in Chinese medicine you traditionally saw the doctor when in health. They were paid a retainer to keep you that way and, if you became sick, they would not be paid until health was regained. This speaks volumes about alternative health paradigms to our own. Even if we never go that far, the prevention of disease and the maintenance of health should be an overriding priority for the health service.
In placing the duty to prevent the development of poor physical and mental health directly under the duty to promote the NHS constitution, it is my intention to make it a similarly fundamental duty. Prevention is always better than cure. Yes, prevention is already mentioned in the Bill, for example in Clauses 5 and 16, and elsewhere in Clauses 20 and 59. However I do not consider that it is given sufficient weight, particularly given concerns shared with me by members of the Family Hubs Network.
Family Hubs Network members work with existing integrated care systems and note that the main issue faced by these ICSs is the management and throughput of the frail, elderly population to address bed-blocking and the onward delays to elective surgery. Hence they can lean towards an acute hospital reactive care model. Family Hubs Network members are already seeing the consequence of this with, for example, few if any ICS strategies focusing on population health through prevention and early help, especially for children and families.
Indeed, more and more ICSs are seeing community-based contracts swallowed up by the acute hospital conglomerates. They rarely, if ever, hold the necessary cultural understanding of community care, prevention and early help, and their interests do not lie in these. Children’s health services, which would ideally be delivered in the community, can be drawn into acute hospital structures which are more reactive than preventive in nature. Yet in some cases these very same services, such as continence, speech and language, allergies and others, are being delivered in community settings, close to families, through integrated family service hubs. Given that many of these health needs are also psychosocial and practical, accessing them from such settings enables families also to receive local authority-commissioned early help. This surely is integration in action.
My amendment also specifies that health services should be available in the community where possible, to improve access and help prevent conditions from worsening. A local-by-default approach would cut down the number of patients required to make prohibitively long journeys when a service could instead be delivered in a primary care or local authority setting. We need a reverse Beeching for healthcare, where we reopen community hospitals. Out-of-area specialist mental health hospitals, which remove people from the social networks which help them get better more quickly, were in the news again this week. Local units have closed and there is a lack of care in the community, even though this is a far less expensive option and the setting in which many prefer to be treated.
Returning to the issue of our ageing population, a reactive care model is completely unsustainable. Unless we focus on preventing big-ticket items such as diabetes, depression, anxiety and dementia—the list is endless—the cost of providing healthcare will keep going up year on year, by even more than it already does. A preventive paradigm would ensure greater ruthlessness about educating parents and healthcare workers about the psychotic effects of high-strength cannabis, for instance.
The eminent professor, Sir Robin Murray, recently said:
“I think we’re now 100 per cent sure that cannabis is one of the causes of a schizophrenia-like psychosis. If we could abolish the consumption of skunk we would have 30 per cent less patients”—
this was in south London—
“and we might make a better job of looking after the patients we have.”
In 2019, Murray’s research team reported in the Lancet Psychiatry their finding that south London had the highest incidence of psychosis in Europe and singled out cannabis as the largest contributing factor. He expressed concern that some liberal-minded parents would rather see their children smoking pot than drinking, without appreciating the potential associated dangers and the social and economic costs. These multiply with skunk, which is several times more potent than the drug they might have been used to in their day.
It is not just parents who need educating, including about higher-strength forms: experts say that cannabis addiction is treated by health professionals as a low-risk soft drug, yet, since 2005, there has been a 777% increase in the number of those aged 55 and over who need treatment for it. When cigarettes’ contribution to the development of lung cancer was firmly established, action to prevent smoking was taken despite it being fashionable and popular—more than 60% of adult males smoked; now that number is approaching 15%.
When there is incontrovertible evidence that something harms mental or physical health, a duty to prevent would mean that such damaging ignorance was no longer allowed to prevail. Ditto foot-dragging on access: mental health care in the community has been talked about since we began to close asylums in the early 1960s, yet it is still in the NHS long-term plan. I am keen to hear from my noble friend the Minister why prevention should not be given prominence as a duty in the Bill.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I really appreciate his remarks about Professor Murray’s work and his interpretation of it.
This is a Bill about integration, but how much integration will it actually achieve? We have spoken many times about wanting health and social care to work better together, but there is a difference between collaboration and integration. The former achieves two separate systems that, while better aligned in, for example, their information sharing, still operate without particular reference to the other. Those who use both systems continue to straddle a divide between the two and, too often, fall between those gaps.
Integration, on the other hand, speaks of synergy and of systems that enable one another and close the divide between the two, so that people can move between them without the terrifying leap of faith that currently exists. This is what will truly make a difference for those who use these services.
Unfortunately, the Bill in its current form will struggle to bring about this true integration. It requires the production of only a health outcomes framework, which will simply entrench the divide between health and social care, as both will continue to pull in different directions with different objectives, which are often conflicting.
Currently, health and social care sectors work towards two different sets of aims: social care is led by the well-being objectives of the Care Act 2014, whereas the NHS is led by various objectives set out in documents such as the NHS constitution, the NHS Oversight Framework and the NHS Long Term Plan.
An integrated service would mark a major shift in how the two systems view their role in supporting those who use their services. For example, it could see the NHS adopting an approach that was informed by ensuring the independence of its patients in a similar way to the principles that lead the provision of care and support. The greatest problems have been caused when health and social care start to gatekeep their domains: I have had to speak too often about the abhorrent placement of people with complex needs in in-patient units far from home, as a result of catastrophically poor alignment of health and social care support to meet their needs locally. I declare an interest as chair of the Department of Health and Social Care-appointed panel to oversee the discharge of people with learning disabilities and autistic people who are detained in long-term segregation.
I want to thank Mencap and Skills for Care for briefings on my amendments in this group. My Amendments 85 and 88 would place greater emphasis on the provision and quality of social care services and on the integration of health and social care services. I also declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. This is relevant because occupational therapy is a health profession that is equally at home in the NHS and in social care, and because occupational therapists have a role in tackling long-standing health inequalities through community rehabilitation and in prevention.
The history of health and care integration is littered with a natural reflex towards health and the pressing political priorities of the day. The ICB is primarily NHS focused and will hold responsibility for strategic planning and monitoring of services against the needs of an ICS population, but the answers cannot all come from health alone. We are in danger of missing an opportunity.
A duty to promote integration must include adequate provision for both health and care by taking a holistic approach. The outcomes from one will impact significantly on the other. Viewing the duty to promote integration through a health lens alone limits our understanding of what social care has to offer—think back to the debate on my noble friend Lord Mawson’s amendment on Tuesday. In some areas, integrated care system planning seems to focus mostly on integration within healthcare and not on integration between and across health-led provision and social care. At present, provider alliances are largely acute trust led.
Let us take discharge co-ordination as an example. It is currently suboptimal, with too few care co-ordinators, a lack of social care representation and feedback in assessment decisions, and a neglect of the resources and expertise of voluntary and independent providers.
The staffing context is complex. According to Skills for Care, there are 17,700 organisations providing or organising care, delivered through 39,000 establishments. Some 41% of those are residential, 59% are non- residential and 68% are CQC regulated. More than 6,000 organisations have fewer than four employees. That is a very broad church of employers. Not only does it make it much more difficult to communicate but social care lacks the infrastructure of the NHS to disseminate and co-ordinate.
My amendments propose strengthened provisions for ICBs to consider how integration benefits and can benefit from social care. My Amendment 89 would require ICBs to develop and publish a health and social care outcomes framework at least every two years to ensure that health and social care services are properly integrated.
ICSs present an opportunity to co-ordinate services, improve population health and plan on a system-wide basis to attract and retain staff with the right mix of skills. The ICS role should therefore ensure that the right staff skill mix is available to deliver this singular vision, a vision of person-centred and outcome-based care through multidisciplinary teams operating with and around each individual. Integrated care would mean that people would only have to tell their story once to receive high-quality, joined-up and seamless care. The approach each system takes to workforce planning will rightly vary to meet local needs and requirements, but that does not mean that their workforce plans cannot be measured against a joint outcomes framework. In collaboration with partners, Skills for Care has developed principles of workforce integration which address the above points.
The aim of this amendment is to ensure that health and social care do not pursue two different sets of objectives but work to a common aim to underpin transformation. I ask the Minister to reassure the Committee on these points. I believe these amendments will be helpful.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks with such knowledge and authority on these issues. I will speak to Amendment 110, but first I will make some comments on the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and my noble friend Lord Black.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, highlights the difficulties that those of us living in rural areas have. I regret to see the downgrading, in particular, of the Friarage Hospital in Northallerton, where my father, for one, was treated to great effect. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I know that the Minister is familiar with these arguments now, because he very kindly spent an hour with his team listening to me on these issues. Whereas before, national health policy used to recognise and measure rural health policy, particularly as regards rurality and sparsity of population, those markers have now gone.
The House will be familiar with my work with the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I regret the fact that, whereas my father and my brother in their time would have been rewarded by the number of patients that they had on their list, and by the distance they had to travel from the surgery to visit patients in their own homes or when called out to an emergency, that has now gone. Much of the bread-and-butter income, as I understand it, for dispensing doctors and pharmacists in rural areas is made up from dispensing. So a separate argument to be had on another day is how, from the beginning of April, I understand, those reimbursements are going to come under the cosh. I will just leave that with my noble friend; I will ask for a separate meeting with him on that. I pay tribute to the work that dispensing doctors do in rural areas under these pressures and I am delighted to be working with them in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Black spoke eloquently on osteopenia. There is a cohort of people—mainly women—who, like myself, are diagnosed with osteopenia. I had not been in the House very long when, having broken one bone six months previously, I broke another. I was sent to the fall clinic where, unsurprisingly, we were mostly women being tested to see how likely we were to have a fall and break a bone. When my noble friend said that many women could die within a year of breaking a hip, I recalled that I was told that I had an 11% chance of breaking a hip. The good news, I suppose, is that I have an 89% chance of not breaking a hip, and that is something I cling on to.
I was put on a course—as I am sure others have been as well—of very strong vitamin D tablets. Since I completed that course, I have had no further treatment, but also no recommendations as to how to prevent the condition—in my case, and I am sure in the cases of other women—deteriorating into osteoporosis. I will just leave the Minister with the thought that, given the seriousness of the condition, those who are on the cusp of descending into osteoporosis itself should perhaps be given greater guidance.
Amendment 110 is intended as a probing amendment, and I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has lent her support to it. I am very grateful to her for that. We had many debates on domestic abuse in the context of that Bill, now an Act, but domestic abuse remains a scourge in our society. While it is recognised as a crime, it is most often manifested initially in a GP’s surgery, not at a police station. In the context of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, describing the Bill as essentially an integration exercise, I believe it is important to see and recognise a victim of domestic abuse in a safe place or a safe haven—in a setting with trusted professionals, such as a GP’s surgery.
I am sure that the Minister will share my concern that there is currently no training for GPs or other health professionals enabling them, or expecting them to be able, to spot or treat an individual suffering from mental or physical abuse or to instruct them on how to engage with the police. Does he share my concern that that is indeed the case? I understand from Anne Marie Morris, my honourable friend in the other place who moved this amendment at that time, that Devon is the only health system to have a dedicated individual on the CCG board and a health and care strategy for victims of abuse. That strategy has improved health and care outcomes through training and other interventions. Surely, this should be rolled out nationally for other local health services to benefit from.
While it is welcome that the Government have agreed to take this issue into account—and I understand that the amendment was agreed in the Commons—I urge the Minister and the department to go further. ICBs should be mandated to have a strategy to deal with domestic abuse. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, if it is not mandated, it probably simply will not be done. Additionally, the role of the domestic abuse and sexual violence lead on the ICB is essential to spearhead the work in this area and to provide essential expertise. As there is only such a lead at the moment in Devon—who does fantastic work which can be seen first hand, and has been seen to help a number of related pilots roll out in that area—I would like to see this work rolled out throughout the country.
Amendment 110 therefore sets out a duty to prepare a strategy to support victims of domestic abuse using the services set out in that amendment. It asks for various consultations to take place not only with the local authority for the area within the integrated care board but with the domestic abuse local partnership board and other persons whom the integrated care board considers appropriate. I humbly submit that this is a gap in the Bill at the moment that Amendment 110 would fill.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 297J in this group, but I will preface my remarks by returning to the purpose of this Bill. The stated purpose of this Bill is to promote integration of health and care services in order to reduce health inequalities and to promote better outcomes. I have chosen, in this amendment, to speak on the issue of HIV and AIDS services. I have spoken in previous debates about access to sexual and reproductive health services such as contraception and abortion. They are two services which we would do well to look at in considerable detail, because they are services addressing issues that cannot alone be solved by the National Health Service. They are services which will only be solved by not only integration but collaboration between health and social care. Having, like many Members of this House, discussed these issues for many, many years, I come back to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the other day, that we are trying to seek integration and collaboration between two fundamentally different services. One is organised as a national and essentially top-down system, and the other is organised on a local and democratically accountable basis, with a completely different ethos.
At this point it is worth us taking advantage of the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and noting what he said the other day about the National Health Service. He said—and I paraphrase—that one of the best ways to ensure that the National Health Service does what we expect it to do is to ensure that it has resources, and he is absolutely right. Would that people took the same attitude to social care—but they do not, and in the matters of both sexual health services and HIV services, we see in graphic and demonstrable terms the failure to do just that.
Turning to HIV services, it is important to note that although, overall, we have a very good story to tell on HIV in this country, and a reasonably good story to tell in the last few years as we are on a path towards the complete ending of transmission by 2030, we do have some problems. Last year, the number of people living with HIV in the UK rose to 106,000. In 2020, the number of people being tested at clinics decreased by 30%, and more so in black and minority communities, where late diagnosis, with all its complications, remains stubbornly high. However, there was a very great increase in online testing. HIV is an area in which there have been and will be, over the next few years, huge technological changes in diagnosis and treatment, which the NHS and social care should be up to speed with if we are to get to the stated aim of ending transmission by 2030—which we can do. The problem is that, at the moment, we have an increase in the rate of late HIV diagnosis—it was up to 42% in 2019—and we know the concomitant costs that that presents for the health service.
Anyone who has spoken to anybody involved in HIV services, be it in social care, local authorities or the NHS, will have heard exactly the same story since 2012. Just look at commissioning. HIV testing in sexual health clinics and community settings is commissioned by local authorities; HIV testing in GP settings, where it is clinically indicated, is commissioned by NHS England; HIV testing in GP settings as a public health intervention is commissioned by local authorities; HIV testing in secondary care, where it is clinically indicated, is commissioned by CCGs; HIV testing in secondary care as a public health intervention is commissioned by local authorities—keep with me, my Lords. Home testing, which is increasingly popular, is commissioned by local authorities and by Public Health England, for some periods, at some times in the year. Is it any wonder that it is a mess? We are not taking advantage of any of this and we are letting people down. The fragmentation in this area—even for people who have HIV, who are some of the savviest patients the NHS comes across and who are up to speed, sometimes in advance of their clinicians—is really difficult and does not make sense on any level; it does not make sense on a public health level or an individual level. I do not need to go into great detail, as noble Lords can work out for themselves all the consequences of that.
It is quite interesting to talk about one piece of work that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV/Aids did. We did some in-depth research in south-east London, where there are some of the most advanced integrated care services for HIV. Even there, where there is very high prevalence and they know, largely, what they are dealing with and the populations where this is the biggest problem, they struggled to make sense of this fragmented commissioning picture.
I am not asking that all this funding be put into the NHS—most definitely not, because we all know that once money goes into the NHS, it never comes out again. I think there is a case to be made for increasing budgets, not least the budgets of local authorities, which have been slashed, in order for them to carry on doing what is important, which is getting to people long before they are anywhere near being any kind of medical priority.
What I am asking for in this amendment is a formal duty to collaborate. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that that is not necessary, but we cannot carry on as at present: we are badly wasting resources when we should not be. We have enough knowledge in this Committee of the levers that make decision-makers and commissioners change what they are doing, not least when they understand that there are new and more efficient ways to meet the needs of the population. I propose this amendment with no great sense of hope, but, if he does not accept it, I hope the noble Lord will at least understand that we cannot continue with this inefficient way of dealing with known issues. We must stop failing people when we could be sorting out the issues.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 101B, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is a fundamental amendment to remedy the shocking imbalance between the provision of mental and physical healthcare. As was said in the debate last week, people with mental disorders who receive treatment are a minority—35% of children and 40% of adults—while for people with physical illnesses, the vast majority get treated. This is not parity of esteem; in fact, I think it is one of the greatest cases of discrimination in our public life. There is only one way to remedy it, which is that the funding of mental healthcare has to rise faster than the funding of physical healthcare. In other words, the fraction of NHS funding devoted to mental healthcare has to rise—it is a matter of simple logic. This is such a fundamental point of principle that it should be put into law.
The increase does not of course have to go on for ever, but only until the inequality has been eliminated and mental health is treated like physical health. In the words of the amendment, the rise should continue until
“people coming forward with mental health problems are as likely to be offered treatment as people with physical health problems”,
and, of course, to receive it within a period of time appropriate to their problem. Only then will we have achieved parity of esteem.
The amendment is a statement of principle. As we know, there are always problems of definition and interpretation with statements of principle, but such statements are common in our statute law. This is a sector, in financial terms, as big as the police service, and it is right that there should be legal principles governing it. If we want to secure justice for the sector, it needs a statement of principle. This is a stronger statement than any of those discussed last week, but if this is what we believe, it is what we should say.
The main argument for the amendment, as I have said, is one based on simple equity, but there is also a strong economic argument. Mental illness is mainly a disease of working age, while physical illness is mainly a disease of retirement. Half of all working-age disability and absenteeism is due to mental illness, so when we successfully treat mental illness, the savings to the economy and to the Exchequer are massive, especially when compared with the economic savings from the majority of physical healthcare. These economic savings were a key argument that led to the establishment of IAPT, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, from 2008 onwards, and they have been verified in what has happened since in that service.
There is also another very important source of savings: savings to NHS physical healthcare. Psychological therapy has been shown to reduce the cost of physical healthcare for people with comorbid physical conditions. This can be seen in a major nationwide controlled trial done recently, which provided IAPT treatments to people with long-term physical conditions such as diabetes, CVD and COPD. This trial found that, within a year, the savings on physical healthcare covered the total cost of the psychological therapy—so the mental health service is saving money for the physical healthcare service. As a result, this approach is now being rolled out nationally.
So mental health is a classic case of spend to save, and extra spending is desperately needed. Some of it would fill the massive gaps in existing services, including for severe mental illness, and some of it would provide services to key groups of people who are barely helped at present, many of whom were referred to earlier in this debate.
First come the tragic children who fall below the CAMHS threshold, who are sometimes assessed and sent back home as not sick enough, but who desperately need help. For these young people, the Government are developing mental health support teams in schools, but the rollout is incredibly slow and the services also need to include a much higher level of expertise.
Then there are millions of people whose lives are wrecked by addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling and who need psychological therapy. There are the victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, who have already been mentioned, and other forms of violence. So many of our social problems have a strong mental health component. There are good, evidence-based psychological treatments which NICE recommends for these problems, but they are not provided. They should be provided. Extra spending on mental health could massively improve our society.
There is one further point in the amendment. If we spend the money, we need to know what it is achieving. In IAPT we know the progress of 100% of those treated, but in most parts of adult and child mental health services we currently have very little quantitative data on what is being achieved. That has to change, so universal routine outcome measurement should be a reasonable quid pro quo for extra funding, but the extra funding is crucial. It is not enough to talk about parity of esteem. We must have a clear statement of how to recognise it and the funding principles to achieve it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments with an emphasis on Amendment 101B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, whom it is a pleasure to follow.
Last night, I went to the ballet and saw “Raymonda”, which has been placed in the context of the Crimea. It reminded me that Florence Nightingale took a hammer to a store-cupboard to get food and blankets for some of her patients because nobody knew what was inside it. She went on to be a leader in sound data for health- care, recognising that without data we could not plan for the future. This amendment emphasises measuring the outcomes of mental health nursing and other mental health interventions in order to ensure that we learn from practice and develop best practice cost-effectively. That is why I have put my name to Amendment 101B.
We need to look at similar patterns for care to those for physical illness. For example, the onset of paranoia and delusions which threaten the safety of an individual or those close to them could perhaps be equated with a suspected cancer where you wait for two weeks for an initial diagnosis. How many people are sectioned under the Mental Health Act for assessment because they have not managed to get an out-patient appointment for assessment earlier? I believe that is an example of discrimination against people with severe mental health problems. If we could get parity of access for assessment, it would be an extremely good beginning. I recognise that there are other physical and mental health problems that are less urgent, but I use that as a comparison.
Yesterday at a meeting concerning mental health reform after the pandemic, the Minister for Care and Mental Health Gillian Keegan and the chief executive of Mind were panellists. At that meeting, it was noted that investment in NHS mental health services currently increases year on year, largely due, I think, to action under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. It was £11 billion in 2015-16 and is £14.3 billion today and it will continue to increase, including an additional £2.3 billion by 2023-24. It was said yesterday that the Government will ensure ICBs will increase spending on mental health in their area in line with growth in their overall funding allocations to meet the mental health investment standard. To address backlogs, the Government have published their mental health recovery action plan backed by an additional £5 million to ensure that the right support is in place. This illustrates that the Government are committed to the improvement of mental health services. The amendment would place a duty to monitor this investment and evaluate its effectiveness. I hope that the Minister feels able to support the principle behind the amendment and will meet those of us interested in this area to try to find a summary solution to the issues we are raising on parity not only for mental health care but for the care sector that has been outlined so comprehensively by my noble friend Lady Hollins.
All the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, concerning osteoporosis could be made for drug-induced psychosis, schizophrenia and other severe mental illness problems. I hope that this Committee will be able to influence an amendment to the Bill that will ensure that the monitoring outlined in the amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, will be taken forward.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 50 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but I want to say how much I agree with Amendment 297J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about the mess we have between local government and the NHS on sexual health services in general and the HIV services that she mentioned.
My view is that local government has a choice. It either accepts that it is part of a national service here and agrees to earmark funding allocations, or the service will have to go back to the NHS. The current situation is not working. Some local authorities are having to take on the responsibilities of others because some local authorities are not spending sufficiently. There is a movement of people, largely into the big cities, and it is an unfair system. We have to do something about it.
I also support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her Amendment 110. Anyone listening to the debates during the recent passage of the domestic abuse legislation would have noted that one of the big challenges is the lack of integration among local agencies. I am afraid the NHS is a part of that and the noble Baroness’s amendment would give a very clear indication to the NHS that we expect more of it.
I have no doubt that, in winding, the Minister will say that Amendment 50 is not necessary because there is already a general duty on the NHS to provide fracture liaison services and the department is doing all it can to encourage the NHS to implement them. However, the dilemma for us is that the positive outcomes from those services have been known about for many years, yet progress in moving to the standard adoption of them through the country is very slow indeed.
As far back as 2010, the Royal College of Physicians produced an audit of the quality of clinical care of patients who had fallen, had a fracture and had been seen in a hospital emergency department. It reckoned then that only 32% of patients with a non-hip fracture received an adequate fracture risk assessment. Just 28% were established on anti-osteoporosis medication within 12 weeks. As a result, the Department of Health incentivised primary care services to initiate these treatments for relevant patients, but, by the end of the first year of that scheme, fewer than one in five patients were receiving the treatments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate and it made me think of Aneurin Bevan’s original vision, which incorporated the concept of dealing with the problem and then secondary prevention in rehabilitation and concepts of convalescence. After this debate, I am tempted to go back and read again In Place of Fear, because it is a very short book but it is worth reading.
There seems to be a theme coming through here really strongly. If we do not integrate these services and pull them together, we will never get not only the primary prevention but the secondary prevention which, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, highlighted, is so important. You do not just fix the problem; you prevent the next set of problems coming along.
I was slightly alarmed to note that in 2018 alone, there were over 6,000 deaths attributed to falls. A lot of those were on stairs. They were just simple trips on steps, yet they resulted in deaths. It took me back to when I worked at the Westminster Hospital, which, of course, is no longer across the road. Somebody tripped on the steps of the Tate and subsequently died from a head injury after hitting the concrete. One sees that at stations and so on, too, and we now see it with these scooters, where people scoot into trees and lampposts.
Anyway, to return to the subject of the amendments, the reason for my Amendment 100 is precisely to promote that rehabilitation and remind everybody that rehabilitation is not just a medical and nursing issue. It involves many different professionals, and volunteers quite often, at different levels. A rehabilitation plan at the ICS level could provide the co-ordination required, across different settings and services, to properly support early discharge from hospital, provide access to multidisciplinary teams and incorporate the psychological support that is needed. At the moment, things are organised in condition-specific medical silos, and we have already heard about the fragmentation of provision.
We need to respond more effectively to the needs of people with long-term conditions. When we come to measure outcomes, it is much easier to immediately measure the outcomes of an intervention. The outcomes from long-term secondary prevention are much more difficult to measure and quantify, particularly in a population that has multiple pathologies. So there has been poor data collection in part because it has been very difficult.
A simple example is that NICE guidelines suggested that over 1 million people with COPD every year should be referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, but only 15% are referred. We need to understand why. These are people who are breathless. They are getting chest infections and becoming oxygen dependent—so the consumption of NHS resources goes up. After a stroke, people have very marked rehabilitation needs in many different areas. That may be physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and so on, going much more widely.
We also have a problem with our housing, because many people are not in accommodation that is suitable for them to go to when they are discharged from hospital. It has been estimated that there are 10,000 people in hospital at the moment who do not have a suitable home to go back to—hence the problem of where they go after hospital. So it is not only about providing a social care workforce to go in. We have already debated last week the problem of housing.
I do want to speak specifically to Amendment 51A in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. That is about having responsibility for every person present in an area. If we take the south-west, which is dependent on tourism, it goes from relatively low populations to absolutely bursting at the seams with holidaymakers. We have all seen it. These areas have an additional problem: when people are on holiday, their guard is down, they are less vigilant about what they do and they are less risk averse. Going back to falls, they are much more likely to have a fall or an accident. People fall off cliffs, fall down surfaces and so on. All of a sudden, in the tourist season, these people are at higher risk of something going wrong. They often go away and forget to take their medication, or they take something that interferes with it and end up with different side-effects and so on. They put a huge pressure on the emergency services in the area, so I am quite concerned at the way the funding might flow, in the way this Bill is written. We could inadvertently find that some areas are incredibly pushed at certain times of the year because of the way the population moves. I hope that will be taken into consideration.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the impressive, high-calibre tour d’horizon from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I rise to support the importance of proper and full rehabilitation as in Amendment 100, again supported by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Perhaps I should have declared, at my last intervention in Committee, that I speak as a vice chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties—I apologise.
Very briefly, an annual plan, as in Amendment 100, would ensure that rehabilitation is explicitly integrated. Rehabilitation spans many disciplines, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. It is what enables those who have degenerative diseases, strokes, cancer, autism and learning difficulties, to name only a few, to communicate—how essential is that for even minimal well-being?—as well as helping people to, for instance, swallow without choking and stay alive. As ever, it is the vulnerable who suffer when these structural underpinnings to ensure joined-up, consistent care are not there. I hope the Government will adopt these amendments.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for arriving a little late for this debate. I hope that your Lordships will allow me to add my voice of support to this group of amendments.
We all come to this Bill with the same intentions and belief that collaboration and integration are the future for a health and care system. This group of amendments tackles the uncomfortable reality that, despite everyone’s best intentions—both in our NHS and in local government social care and even in the private sector—to collaborate and deliver integrated care, we are not doing that. A number of these amendments practically point at ways in which we can move from the rhetoric to practical change.
I particularly support Amendment 101B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. As a great economist, he is pointing us in the direction of an economic structure and nudge that will force us on to a path to do what we have all talked about for a long time, which is to create parity of esteem between mental and physical health. We debated the importance of mental health in great detail last week, so I do not wish to repeat that, but I want to add my voice to that of the noble Lord in supporting his amendment because it is very practical.
By creating a ratchet that gets us on to a path whereby inch by inch—week by week, month by month and year by year—we start to close the gap between physical and mental health provision, we would start practically on the path that we want to go on without creating a funding hole. This would allow the NHS and our overall health and care system to go step by step at an achievable pace, while recognising that we come out of the Covid pandemic with such enormous physical health waiting lists that achieving parity of esteem will be even harder than it was two years ago, so it is even more important that we force a mechanism in. The second element of this amendment would also force outcome measurement.
This is a very smart and simple amendment. I know that my noble friend the Minister cares deeply about this agenda, as does the Secretary of State, and I urge them to adopt it.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests in healthcare equipment. I have added my name to Amendment 50, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, demonstrated clearly, as have others, that it simply cannot be said that the amendment is unnecessary.
The recent report on fracture liaison services from the APPG on Osteoporosis and Bone Health makes important reading. It shows clearly that the health and independence of tens of thousands of older people who suffer from osteoporosis are threatened by great inconsistencies in accessing vital services and treatment. Far too many people are suffering multiple fractures before their condition is properly diagnosed. Much unnecessary pain is caused and more permanent disability results from failures to diagnose osteoporosis in thousands of cases. Those failures add significantly to the future costs of the NHS and care system than would have been the case with early diagnosis.
The Committee has already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black, of the significant cost savings to the NHS where a fracture liaison service is in place. The Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that extending fracture liaison service provision to cover the whole population would require a modest initial investment of about £27 million in England and £2 million in Wales. There should be much more long-term cost-benefit analysis of provision such as this, and it would more than justify those sums of expenditure.
There are many examples in preventive healthcare where focused interventions dramatically improve outcomes for patients and cut long-term costs. We need to raise awareness of conditions such as osteoporosis, provide more education and training for healthcare providers about diagnosing it and increase support for people who suffer from it. Osteoporosis is a long-term condition. It is more prevalent than many people realise and we should all recognise that a spinal or hip fracture is equivalent to a heart attack or stroke in terms of its clinical implications. Fractures are often preventable through use of pharmacological treatments supported by lifestyle modifications, which include appropriate exercise and smoking cessation as well as nutritional supplements such as calcium and vitamin D.
There needs to be much greater public awareness of how to maintain or improve bone health, particularly for the most at-risk populations. The introduction of integrated care boards will provide an opportunity to better co-ordinate and integrate fracture prevention and osteoporosis care. It is currently too dispersed across different parts of the system, as so often our short debate on this group of amendments has shown is the case. For fracture liaison services we need universal access. We need a clear mandate from government that the new boards have a specific responsibility to provide fracture liaison services for the whole population.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear from the number of noble Lords wishing to speak in this debate that this group of amendments is extremely important. I want to speak particularly in favour of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about integration, which she put before us so eloquently.
In the 40-odd years that I have been working on these issues, I have never heard anyone say anything other than that collaboration would be a lot better than the current situation and that collaboration between health and social care is absolutely vital. Everyone always says that, and in recent years we even have had the hope that, when the Department of Health changed its name to the Department of Health and Social Care, we would begin to see more movements towards integration. Sadly, little progress has been made.
If one asks any patient about integration between health and social care, they think that it already exists. Most patients have absolutely no idea about different jurisdictions, how one sorts out a medical bath from a social bath or how different pots of funding ensure different points of view. That is, of course, until the patients start to find their way around the system in the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, brought so amusingly to mind. The lack of incentives to integration in the Bill are disappointing. I have not seen anything in it that will stop 15-minute visits by overworked and underpaid care staff or any ideas about integrating services and having much better integrated budgets—still less about data sharing. Those are all the things that we need if we are truly going to move to proper integration.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us, at a time when waiting lists for the NHS are growing longer by the minute, should it not be a priority to ensure that no one stays in hospital longer than they have to by having discharge procedures that provide a seamless transition and making sure that the all-too-frequent readmission because of inadequate co-operation between the NHS and local authorities does not happen? We hear that care jobs are unfulfilled and that requests for care are turned down because of staff shortages. Local authorities struggle to recruit enough workers to meet increasing demands. No wonder that that is the case when one can earn more by filling shelves at Sainsbury’s.
A truly integrated service would mean that, the minute that someone is admitted to hospital, plans should be being made between health services, social care and the often-ignored but often significant voluntary services about what is going to happen on discharge. Sadly, the usual pattern is for a conflict to emerge, usually on a Friday afternoon, between a hospital ward desperate to empty beds and social care services inadequately prepared or even informed. What happens? The person goes home, the care services are not adequate and so the person is readmitted to hospital. I know someone in my local area in Herefordshire, an elderly lady who has been admitted 14 separate times since last July, and still care services to keep her adequately at home are not provided.
The Bill is a failed opportunity because we are seeing social care once again as the poor relation, the tail-end Charlie, that is considered after everything else is settled. Social care could be at the heart of a levelling-up agenda if we had a vision for its workforce and the impact that it has on the health of a community in the broadest sense. Care providers could be encouraged to diversify their businesses to reach out creatively into the community by providing tax incentives, for example, or reductions on business rates. If we want a high-skill, high-wage economy, what better place to start than social care, with its huge workforce badly paid but certainly not unskilled? Those skills could be developed by providing training, and retention could be dealt with by better career progression and recognition of qualifications. It is sad that we are not looking at practical ways in which to develop that integration in the Bill.
Fixing social care requires two things: money and better integration. We will come on to money later in the Bill. For the moment, I hope that the Government will give proper recognition of and acceptance to the amendment on integration in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I had intended to put my name to them; I apologise to the noble Baroness for being so slow off the mark. I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
Both these amendments, in their different ways, go some way to righting what I consider to be two big wrongs inflicted on local government in the past, where responsibilities have been transferred to it but have not had their funding sustained into the future. The first was the closure of long-stay hospitals in the 1980s and 1990s. When I was a director of social services, I was the NHS’s favourite person when building provision and making available services for people coming out of long-stay hospitals. After a few years, I and my many colleagues became forgotten men and women because the money that was transferred was never maintained in real terms over a couple of decades.
Fast-forward to the 1990s and the setting up, with much enthusiasm, of the Roy Griffiths community care changes. These enabled the Government to get off the hook of an expanding social security budget. It was another repeat performance: the money was not maintained in real terms in the longer term. What we saw in both cases was local government having to pick up the tab without support from the Government—successive Governments, that is; I am not making a party-political point—to ensure that those services could be maintained for the people who became the responsibility of local government.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, remind people that there is an obligation to make sure that both health and social care produce good outcomes for the people who are now primarily the responsibility of local government, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, gently reminded us, has been underfunded over a long time in terms of maintaining these services. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, is another righting of a wrong and we should all get behind it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 85 and 88 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
We must be clear. The previous two speeches highlighted the elephant in the room: you cannot have integration on a sustainable basis unless you reform health and social care together. We have to be honest with ourselves that this Bill is predominantly about the reform of healthcare.
That was highlighted eloquently in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in response to my noble friend Lady Barker, about who should commission sexual health services. These have been lobbed to the side of the commissioning silo but it should be about how to break down this silo so that we have joint and sustainable commissioning around outcomes, rather than around which silo or which part of the health and social care framework should deal with it. It is the elephant in the room, but we are where we are so we must make this Bill better knowing that that is the real issue.
This is about three little words: social care services. It is clear to those who understand health and social care that the Bill has been written predominantly through the lens of healthcare. I do not blame anybody for that but clearly this is a healthcare commissioning reform Bill, with a little tinkering with the structure, and does not deal predominantly with those people who do not understand social care—unless they are asking for an NHS long-term care package, when the argument tends to be about not the care provided but the funding, including who is going to fund what part. That is when it affects people’s outcomes. Those three little words are really important, which is why the noble Baroness’s amendments are important. If they were accepted, the Bill would actually say that social care service and health outcomes are jointly important.
It is important that this is about integration. The noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Hollins, said that there is a significant difference between collaboration and integration. You can have two people collaborate but, if their silos send them in different directions, the outcomes will not be joint. The real issue is how we bring about integration. It will not solve all the problems but it will help to bring about the first stage of integration if you have a joint framework on outcomes for which both healthcare and social care are held accountable. That is why Amendment 88 is so important.
The Bill’s intention goes in the right direction but the three amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will significantly help in that journey. They will not solve the problems fully but they are an important way to say to people who work in health and social care that they will be held responsible for the outcomes of individuals, whether their needs come under healthcare or social care. That is why I support these amendments.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 101B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. Before I speak to it, I want to say how much I agree with the sentiment expressed by noble Lords on all Benches that true integration will be achieved only if the Bill is as much about social care as it is about health. It is such a fundamental point that I wanted to underline it.
I see Amendment 101B as an important continuation of our deliberations last week on parity of esteem because “parity of esteem” are simply meaningless words unless they are reflected in the provision of funding. First, like the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, I acknowledge the welcome fact that NHS England has met its commitment to ensure that the increase in local funding for mental health is at least in line with the overall increase in the money available to CCGs through the mental health investment standard. It is also welcome that, from 2019-20 onwards, as part of the NHS long-term plan, that standard also includes a further commitment that local funding for mental health will grow by an additional percentage increment to reflect the additional mental health funding being made available to CCGs. I recognise all of that.
But—and it is a big but—the investment standard relates only to CCGs, and that total spending had already declined in 2019-20 compared with 2018-19 as a percentage of total NHSE revenue spend. Also, given the urgent need for healthcare, which, as other noble Lords have said, has been much exacerbated by the pandemic, this amendment would help strengthen the consideration of mental health services when large amounts of money are announced for Covid recovery—this is welcome—but it all falls outside the remit of the mental health investment standard.
We need to know how much of the money is currently going to preventive and community services—prevention is the overarching theme of this group of amendments—as opposed to acute services. We also need to know whether the spending increases we are seeing are simply because crisis services are so in demand; indeed, they are overwhelmed in some cases. We know from a recent survey by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that two-fifths of patients awaiting mental health treatment contact emergency or crisis services, with one in nine ending up in A&E. That is not a sustainable position.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been an extremely rich and informative debate on a diverse set of amendments. My contribution will be fairly brief, but I want first to reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the elephant in the room. He reflected on many other contributions about the lack of real integration of health and social care in the Bill, and the way the Bill is essentially written for health. I do not disagree with that identification of that elephant, but a second giant creature in the room is being ignored—let us call it a mammoth—which is the lack of adequate funding and numbers of people for health and social care. That means that those silos are seeking to defend their funding and resources, and reserve it for what they see as their core functions. They therefore find it very difficult to reach out and stretch into new areas even where that would have huge net positive impact overall.
To reflect on a couple of other things, I heartily endorse the call from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for a reverse Beeching for the NHS with the reopening of community hospitals. I am not sure whether he coined that phrase; I might borrow it, if he does not mind.
I will also comment on Amendment 51A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, about emergency services going to everyone in the area. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is in his place. This very much ties in with an amendment that he spoke to on Tuesday. He told a tale, which I will not repeat, about a case in which someone was denied a treatment in a neighbouring area that they desperately needed because of arguments about which area they were in. This is potentially a huge problem with the structure we are creating that has to be taken on board. Amendment 51A deals with the responsibility, but of course there also have to be funds to go with that responsibility.
It has not got a lot of attention, but I also commend Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the duty to promote rehabilitation. When we talk about dramatic medical interventions—the high-profile stuff—it is generally acknowledged, but always as an afterthought, that the person who has had that big dramatic intervention will not suddenly be cured tomorrow, in most cases. There is a long process of recovery. Indeed, I have put on my reading list Recovery: The Lost Art of Convalescence by Dr Gavin Francis, which has been glowingly reviewed in many places. That is something we all should be thinking about a lot more.
Finally, I come to Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to which I attached my name because, as the noble Baroness said in her introduction, this is something that we have addressed again and again in the police Bill and the Domestic Abuse Act, but it is very acutely an NHS problem. I draw on an article from the Nursing Times on 24 December. It is an account of a nurse, who was called Claire in the article. When she was going through a checklist with a patient that had been provided by a charity—this was something extra added in from the outside, not core NHS—she realised that she herself was a victim of domestic abuse. She had said yes to more of the questions than the patient had. That is a demonstration of what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said: training is not given to medical professionals to see what is happening to themselves and to their patients. Maybe it is added in because a charity has managed to get something into the system, but it will certainly not be across the system.
We hope we are doing this Bill for the long term—although perhaps we are not so certain, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—but we have to note that this is happening in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. I note that the NHS sexual assault referral figures for the first half of 2020 dropped significantly. That also picks up a great deal of domestic abuse, yet online searches for domestic abuse were up by 350% in the same period. We have an NHS that has been forced to focus on the Covid-19 pandemic, often drawing away resources that might have started to deal with domestic abuse anyway. We have a huge rise in the problem. Considering the moment we are at now, it is crucial that domestic abuse is in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this is an enormously important debate because it deals with my favourite word in health and care: prevention. Prevention is so important because it is cost effective. Although successive Governments give more and more to health services, no Government will ever be able to give enough to the NHS, because we have an ageing population and innovative medical interventions are getting more and more expensive, unless we do things differently and more cost effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, outlined one very good, cost-effective intervention. It is an excellent example of something that has absolutely powerful evidence of its cost effectiveness but which is not being undertaken everywhere. I would like to know what evidence those areas that are not using fracture liaison services have that their way of doing it is better and more cost effective. I do not think they have that evidence. It is an example of where if you do not mandate it they will not all do it, and then they will not be spending their money effectively. I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
It is also very important that we prevent not just the second fall but the first, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said in her very important intervention, including what she said about tourist areas, which is very significant, people do die from falls. I had a very old friend who recently did. It was the first fall. I am afraid that person died because he had internal bleeding that nobody spotted. It is really important.
My noble friend Lord Rennard mentioned something really important that is pre-primary intervention: health education. If you know that you are likely to have good, strong, healthy bones from weight-bearing exercise and a diet that has enough calcium and vitamin D, you are much less likely to have the first fall. Fortunately for the Minister, that is beyond his remit. I am sure he is pleased about that, because he has quite enough to do. The Department for Education should listen to that.
My noble friends on these Benches have highlighted some other areas where effective prevention services are not being done properly. I think we were all struck by the chaotic situation that my noble friend Lady Barker highlighted; something really has to be done about that. A lot of good has been done but a lot more could be done, and, again, it would be cost-effective.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has suggested a very cost-effective intervention. If we diagnose and intervene on mental health issues early then we can prevent all kinds of more severe mental and physical health problems. I support the ratchet method that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, referred to of increasing the amount of funding that goes there. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, rightly listed the number of times that the Government have put more money into mental health services, the question is: have they kept up with the demand and the backlog? I do not think they have.
We have an opportunity in the Bill to improve our measures to prevent ill health, as well as treat it, which is of course more cost-effective, especially when services are delivered by small social enterprises working at community level. I have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, because I believe these prevention services should be available as close as possible to those who need them most. If that does not happen then the people who need them will not access them, and health inequality will continue.
That is particularly important for those communities where health inequality is at its worst and where preventable diseases are most prevalent. For example, the services might include healthy weight management services, therapies to address less severe mental health conditions, and alcohol and drug addiction services, in addition to the usual GP services. The population groups are not just those in poverty but marginalised groups such as homeless people, those in temporary accommodation, refugees, Gypsy and Traveller communities, and others who may not be plugged into regular services, and that includes those in rural areas.
Many of these services are delivered very effectively by social enterprises or charities, where any surpluses are ploughed straight back into more services. Many of them also provide weekend services, which were mentioned as lacking by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. Boards that do not ensure the survival of such services are really missing a trick that would help them to deliver their duty to level up health inequalities, because these organisations are usually very close to their communities and know exactly what is needed and where. They are not constrained by the regulations or the culture of large organisations, and are therefore more flexible and fleet of foot, and therefore very cost-effective.
On rural areas, I shall give your Lordships a brief example from my noble friend Lady Jolly, who lives in a very remote part of Cornwall. She says:
“We have a satellite surgery in our local village, it is in the ground floor of an old cottage. The pharmacist visits once a week, and a practice nurse visits once a week. When she is seeing a patient they have to switch the radio on so that no one can hear the conversation”—
because of patient confidentiality. In that village you have to drive 20 miles to reach a GP. That is the sort of place where we really need community access to health services of all kinds. It would be nice to think that the ICB would be aware of that and act accordingly, and it might perhaps be worth putting a duty in the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an assortment of amendments that are all linked to the core of the Bill, which is about integration. The issues, as ever, are about whether it is appropriate to place such a detailed level of specification in the Bill, and where.
Amendment 50 seeks equity of access for fracture liaison services. In many ways the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Black, supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt and others, is about the balance between a national mandate and local delivery in order to ensure that there is equity of access—in this case, for fracture liaison services. I would be interested to learn how the Minister believes such a thing could be implemented and assured, and in how we can best express that in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, covering issues around prevention, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, and talking about what we mean by integration and how we make sure that it is more than just a word. I remind noble Lords that we have a forthcoming paper on integration as part of the overall package of the Bill, and a social care paper as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned culture and attitude. I think it is very important to recognise that you can change structures and have legislation but you have to make sure that the culture and attitude are right across the system. I say to noble Lords that we fully sympathise with the intentions and I hope I can offer some reassurance.
In my departmental job as Minister for Technology, Innovation and Life Sciences, I feel very strongly that one way to drive integration is through better use of data across the system. Even before we look at integrating with social care, the NHS as it is at the moment is not sharing data well across the system. There are still a number of inefficiencies. I really believe in the digital transformation agenda and will give a quick example of that.
Just before Christmas, at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, I had my annual check-up in two parts. One part was an ECG at a local community centre; the second was supposed to be a telephone conversation with a consultant a week later. When the phone call came from the consultant, he started talking and I had to stop him. I said, “Have you seen my ECG results?” and he said, “No. What ECG? When was that?” I said, “This is all part of the same appointment. Can I now give you the date and time when I had it so you can look at the results?” “Don’t worry about that,” he said, “we’ll just have to make a new appointment”.
This was at a time when the NHS was under extreme pressure, as it is every winter. That shows the challenge. Even though we have been talking about the integration of health services since 1948, we still have these problems. That is why I believe so strongly in the digitisation and data-sharing challenge. It is not just because I am a geek and love technology; it really can make a difference, save money and lives and mean a more effective service all around.
I start by addressing Amendment 50 on fracture liaison services. Fracture liaison services and fragility fracture prevention are recognised by NHS England as critical to both healthy ageing and elective recovery. Within its high-impact restoration strategy, NHS England recommends that all systems optimise the secondary prevention of fragility fractures. NHS England is working closely with stakeholders to support the implementation of secondary fracture prevention services where they do not exist already and to support sustainability and quality improvement where services exist. Once again, this will rely on good data being shared across the system.
There are already duties in the Bill to require ICBs to commission such services. As fracture liaison services aim to identify people at risk and therefore prevent future fractures, their provision would already be covered in Clause 16 under new Section 3(1)(h), which places a duty on ICBs to commission such services or facilities for prevention, care and aftercare as the ICB considers appropriate. As I hope noble Lords will agree, it would be inappropriate to be overly specific in setting out the services to be commissioned as part of the new Section 3 that would be inserted by Clause 16, given the wide range of services the NHS needs to commission. However, I hope I can give assurances to noble Lords that NHS England will continue to monitor this and ensure that ICBs are commissioning effective fracture services. I hope we continue to drive this data being shared appropriately.
I turn to Amendment 51A. It makes sense that people should be able to receive emergency treatment wherever they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, alluded to. We believe that is already the case. Once again, data would make a huge difference. If I am in Newcastle and fall off my bike and am taken to hospital, and if I have an existing condition, would it not be great if the clinicians when they triage me could know about it? I have asked my local GP practice to share my data on the app and it still has not done it. The mechanisms are there but the culture and attitudes are a huge challenge for whichever Government are in power.
The Bill confers a power on NHS England to publish rules that determine the people for whom each ICB is responsible. Those rules must make sure that everyone registered in the area, or everyone who may have need of services, is looked after. The Secretary of State may make regulations expanding that responsibility or creating exceptions where necessary. This was the case with existing CCGs and will continue under the ICBs. I hope I can reassure your Lordships that these regulations will be replaced to ensure continuity in this between CCGs and ICBs,
I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and his amendment. I also thank him for sharing his wisdom and his experience of family hubs. It is incredibly important. We agree with the spirit behind Amendment 57. We fully agree that, generally speaking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, prevention is better than cure. One of the things that I have been reassured by in my early conversations in my role as a Minister for Health is the number of people in meetings who have said that they want to move towards a focus on prevention. That is not avoiding cure. We have to tackle cure, of course, but we can avoid a lot of that and save resources and time and promote better health and healthy living if we focus on prevention.
There are also duties in relation to the improvement of services for the prevention of illnesses as well as a duty to obtain appropriate advice, which expressly includes a requirement to seek advice from people with expertise in the prevention of illness. The NHS is already working hard to prevent ill health but, once again, we have to make sure that, in this prevention, people are all talking to each other, we are learning from best practice, and ICBs and trusts are learning from each other. As a number of noble Lords have made clear in their contributions in Committee, the issue is wider and social prescribing, for example, and other issues are really important.
Commissioners have also developed good practice, including funding alcohol care teams and tobacco treatment teams in hospitals, and expanding the diabetes prevention programme. This was re-emphasised in the NHS Long Term Plan, which contained commitments for the NHS to focus on major causes of ill health such as smoking, poor diet, high blood pressure, obesity and alcohol and drug use.
I remind noble Lords that prevention is not simply also a matter for ICBs. It involves local authorities and sometimes law enforcement authorities. It is a multiagency approach, led by local authorities but with ICBs, the NHS and other agencies playing their role.
I acknowledge the point that my noble friend made about cannabis and young people and I will write in more detail about that rather than take up time now. But we also have to look at such issues in the round. For example, in the United States Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute wrote that a lot of drug enforcement or anti-drug policy disproportionately affects young black men who then get thrown into the criminal justice system. How do we tackle that? One of the interesting conversations I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was about his experience as borough commander in south London, an area that my noble friend mentioned. He gave the example that young black men in possession of drugs were far more likely to be picked up than a white middle-class male or female.
We have to make sure that we look at this as a whole. When we look at the tackling inequalities strand that we all feel so strongly about, we have to make sure we get the right balance. It is, of course, very difficult on a case-by-case basis but we have to be aware of unintended consequences.
On the integration duty, we are sympathetic to the intent behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and support greater integration between health and social care. We hope that we can make sure that stakeholders work together and that, with all the papers, we are able to push through this integration.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I hesitate to take the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, away from her, but she is talking about putting a duty for this integration in the Bill. That is the way forward. Assurance is not the point here. I think we have gone past the point of needing assurance. We have been assured about this for years. This is about the duty.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I was just about to come to duty, so I thank the noble Baroness for hurrying me along.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I do not think that the Minister really understands. Yes, there may be a duty on local authorities. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is basically a duty to promote integration. At the moment, the Bill says that:
“Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to securing that”
health services are provided in an integrated way. The amendment says “and social care”. It then justifies at what point that integration must be done. Why does the Minister feel that not putting this in the Bill somehow strengthens the main aim of the Bill, which is to look at the integration of health and social care for individuals who are going through a health and social care episode?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Bill complements these existing duties by placing an equivalent duty on ICBs to integrate the provision of health services with the provision of health-related services and social care services, where this will lead to improvements in quality or reductions in inequalities. Taken together with the wider introduction of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships, this gives the NHS and local authorities the best platform on which to build new ways of working. New provisions in the Bill will also complement and reinvigorate existing place-based structures for integration between the NHS and social care, such as health and well-being boards, the better care fund and pooled budget arrangements. We will, of course, be listening throughout the passage of this Bill to other ways in which we can facilitate the NHS, local authorities and others to work together to deliver integrated care for patients and the public.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am sorry and will not delay the House much longer, but this is a really important point: the heart of the Bill.
As the Bill is written at the moment, the only integration that the integrated care board is responsible for is to ensure that health services are integrated. That means integrating primary, mental health and acute. It does not say that it is for the integration of social care. That is exactly what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. As this is written, is it not the case that the duty in the Bill is for the ICB to secure that only health services are integrated?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the reasons for the introduction of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships is to give local systems, both NHS and local authorities, a platform on which to build new ways of working. That includes social care. If the noble Lord feels that this duty is not explicit enough or that we should bring it out, we should have further conversations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The architecture is very curious regarding why we must have an integrated care board and integrated care partnerships. It has never been clear to me why the Government have not attempted to set up a health and care board to bring those services together. We know that the funding systems will be different and that there is a clear difference between free at the point of use and means-tested social care, but surely that is what an integrated board, jointly owned by the NHS and local government, with councillors at the table not officers, is trying to sort out. Why have we ended up with this nonsense of a structure? We are carrying on with health and well-being boards as well. That is the great puzzle here.
If the Government are not willing to move on that, we must come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. By splitting it, you then must say to the integrated care board, “Ah, but in your duties, you must ensure that you integrate with social care as well.” It really is a mess. The Minister said earlier that this is what the NHS wanted. Yes, this is an NHS Bill designed by NHS managers with a focus on the NHS. I do not know why it is called a care Bill, because it has nothing to do with care.
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the Minister responds to that, can I amplify what is being refused here by the Government? As I understand it, he is trying to rely on the Care Act to get local government to co-operate and integrate care with the great elephant, the NHS. This is asking a minor player to take on a major player with far more resources. Amendment 89, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, makes the NHS come back every two years about the outcomes. That is a fairly modest challenge to the NHS and I fail to understand why the Government cannot simply accept that in principle and then negotiate the drafting.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I am so sorry to delay the Minister again, but briefly. After we have pushed this Bill through Parliament, we will have an integration Bill and a White Paper and legislation on social care. When we have had this, those and those, can we come back to this?
Lord Kamall (Con)
These are all building blocks. I thought that might get a laugh.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, ICPs were the idea of the Local Government Association, and we want to ensure that they work with the ICBs. Also, we must recognise that local authorities are accountable to their local electorates and fund many of the services for which they are responsible from local taxation. While we encourage local authorities and the NHS to work together as much as possible and pool their budgets where it is beneficial for local people, we are not mandating this, as this would probably require significant shift in how local authorities are held accountable for managing their money. One of the reasons why we have this strange ICB-ICP partnership is to ensure that it is at the right level and, beneath that, to have the health and well-being boards at place level. I sense the strength of feeling in the Committee, and I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, giving a wry smile.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I love this debate—it is brilliant—but it makes the point that this is an ideal opportunity to pre-empt a later Bill and get on with the job now where it belongs. Given the strength of feeling in the Committee, if we cannot reach a solution to this, I will bring it back on Report.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I feel for the Minister in his position. He is right: people observing our proceedings will see us laughing, but in practice this is really serious. I talk to colleagues in local government who receive endless requests from the NHS to turn up to meetings and they do not go, and why? It is not because they do not think that it is important, but because local government has been hollowed out over the last 10 years to the point where it has very senior management and front-line staff, and does not have large numbers of people in the middle doing middle-management planning jobs that exist in the NHS. That was the reality before Covid and is the reality now. Each of those building blocks that the Minister is putting in may be some great stepping-stone to a nirvana for the NHS, but they are just another obstacle for local government. It is so important that we in this House are not tied to constituencies or particular areas of importance. Speak truth to power—to the Government. We are building something unsustainable that will not work.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her sympathy for my role. Debates like this are important. They give the Government a measure of the strength of feeling on particular issues. It would be blind for me not to acknowledge the strength of feeling and the support for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. As I have done with some of the other issues discussed in this debate, I will take this back to the department and call a meeting of those who are interested, as we did for mental health, and hopefully we can have a discussion to find a way forward. I thank noble Lords for expressing the strength of their feeling. It is very helpful to know where we can focus time and resources as we try to get this Bill through and ensure that it is workable and leads to the integration that we all want to see.
I will also add that NHS England intends to assess ICBs, as I does CCGs. This may not be reassuring, given some of the strength of feeling about NHS England’s drive behind the Bill. The CQC will also make assessments of ICSs and systems, and part of that will be to consider how health and social care are working together.
I will now talk about rehabilitation—not of my career but of health. Our intention with this legislation is to establish overarching principles and requirements, while allowing ICBs space and discretion. This means avoiding being prescriptive, wherever possible. I am sure that noble Lords acknowledge that. Looking at the duties on ICBs that are relevant here, the first—in Clause 16—requires an ICB to arrange for the provision of the listed services it considers necessary to meet the needs of those for whom it is responsible. This includes aftercare which, in turn, includes rehabilitation. The ICB is also required to develop a joint forward plan, setting out how it will meet the health needs of its population—which should consider rehabilitation. ICBs are also under a duty to seek continuous improvement in the quality of care. That of course has to include rehabilitation. We hope that, without legislating for the production of a separate annual plan, ICBs will be required to provide, and improve provision of, community rehabilitation services.
I turn to Amendment 101B. I can assure noble Lords that the Government fully support the increased focus on mental health spending. I thank noble Lords who met with me earlier this week to discuss some of the issues around mental health and how we make sure that it gets the profile it deserves. We are trying to move towards parity between mental and physical health, and indeed all other types of health service. If I may, I will leave that there for now. If we have to continue the conversations about mental health, those who were not invited to this week’s meeting might like to drop me an email to let me know if they are interested in joining the meetings, and I will make sure that the Bill team invites them.
I am trying to get through this as quickly as possible. Turning to Amendment 110, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for the conversations we have had on inequalities, particularly in rural areas. A number of noble Lords alluded to this. I should also like to record my thanks to noble Lords in the Committee and in the other place who have campaigned so strongly on this issue. We have listened. The amendments already accepted in Clause 20 have directly addressed the need to consider victims of abuse, including victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Clause 20 ensures that integrated care boards and their partner NHS trusts and foundation trusts set out a joint forward plan for any steps that the ICB proposes to take forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, we also have to make sure that this is not seen as just an NHS issue. We want to make sure that we work more widely with all agencies in the area to tackle these issues. For these reasons, we do not feel that a separate strategy is necessary in the Bill. Also, the accepted amendment is more comprehensive. It covers all forms of abuse. There are also duties on CCGs to consider the needs of victims of violence, including a joint strategic needs assessment. CCGs must respond to these, and this will be transferred to the ICBs.
Under the Government’s new Domestic Abuse Act, local healthcare systems will be required to contribute to domestic abuse local partnership boards. It is also worth noting that the Government are undertaking wider work to protect and support victims of domestic violence. Clearly, further action is needed beyond the NHS. In particular, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will require action from across government, and we will ensure that this work is aligned as much as possible.
The proposed amendment would place a requirement on ICBs to have a domestic abuse and sexual violence lead. We agree with the principle, but we think we can do this effectively through existing legislation and guidance, as set out in the Government’s recent violence against women and girls strategy. My department will engage with ICBs and partnerships to make sure that we have appropriate guidance.
Beyond ICBs, there is a huge opportunity for ICPs to support improved services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and other forms of harm through better partnerships. I hope that I have given noble Lords some assurance about this.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, even by the standards of your Lordships’ House, this has been an exceptional debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that this is a really important set of amendments which go right to the heart of the Bill. They cover a remarkable range of issues. I, for one, am profoundly grateful to all the speakers who have taken part.
I think we all have some sympathy for my noble friend the Minister. He will have heard a number of messages loud and clear. I would like to mention the powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, with her very important personal insights on the issue of fractures and the problems in rural communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, gave us a comprehensive view of the integration of services. It certainly struck a chord with me, as I am currently grappling with the problems faced by an elderly friend who is seriously ill and for whom these issues are very real and distressing. My noble friend Lady McIntosh told her own story of osteopenia, which underlined how vital early diagnosis and treatment are.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I think we all welcome his comments on data and digitisation. These are obviously good, but it is not just about data or monitoring, nor about building blocks, however important they are. It is about structures and obligations, and about effective integration being written into the Bill.
I am afraid that the elephant in the room, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is still sitting out there. The Minister will have seen the strength of feeling of the House. As he said, there should be further conversations, which I think everybody would welcome. Otherwise, these issues will come back on Report.
It is essential that we tackle the issue of bone health and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, this Bill is the right place to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, summed it up superbly. We have known the benefits of proper prevention for a very long time, but progress has been at a snail’s pace. There was no answer to that point. In purely economic terms, as well as for the care of individuals, this is—in the vernacular—a no-brainer. If we do not make progress, we are letting down patients, taxpayers and the NHS.
I hope we can make further progress on all the points that have been raised by noble Lords in this extraordinary debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“3AA Duty of integrated care boards to commission approved treatments(1) This section applies where—(a) a treatment has been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,(b) an integrated care board has not arranged for the provision of that treatment under section 3 or 3A, and(c) a clinician has recommended that treatment for a person for whom that integrated care board has responsibility.(2) The integrated care board must arrange for the provision of that treatment to the person for whom it has responsibility.(3) In subsection (1) “clinician” means a medical professional employed by or acting on behalf of an NHS Trust, NHS Foundation Trust or primary care service from whom the integrated care board has arranged for the provision of services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an integrated care board to arrange for the provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak particularly to Amendments 54, 74 and 97 in this group. I warmly thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt, for lending their support to all three amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for supporting Amendment 74. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his historic work prior to the setting up of NICE; it was a great contribution that deserves to be recognised.
We are all aware of the procedure that, when a medicine is approved, it goes through two processes. First, it goes to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, known as the MHRA, a body which checks whether a drug is safe and effectively does what it says on the tin. It then goes through a separate process run by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, known as NICE, which looks at cost-effectiveness and value for money. After those two hurdles have been passed, the medicines should, theoretically, be accessible to anyone. That is very clear in the NHS constitution, which explains that there is a legal right for people to have access to NHS NICE-approved drugs if it is right in their particular circumstances that they should. Indeed, the NICE guidelines say very clearly that there should be automatic adoption within 90 days of approval, if clinically appropriate and relevant.
For a drug then to be prescribed, it must not only have been approved by NICE but go on to the approved list of drugs in the local health authorities, called a formulary. The problem is that somebody must put the drug on the formulary and, currently, while in theory there is a system under the NHS NICE guidelines, this does not actually happen. Sadly, this results in a postcode lottery where some areas have the product on their formulary and others do not. Sometimes this is a process failure, but sometimes it is to avoid budget overspends. Therefore, I would say that it is at the patient’s expense that they are deprived of the drug.
To give an example of the problem, there is currently a drug for multiple sclerosis that patients are still waiting after 150 days to see go on to the formularies in around 25% of the local health systems across the country. There is a state-of-the-art flash monitor for type 1 diabetes, but the uptake across the country varies between 16% and 65%. What is most worrying is that those parts of the country with the greatest levels of deprivation have the lowest level of uptake.
I make a plea to the Minister: in my view, ICBs should be required to ensure that all NICE-approved medicines and devices are available and promoted to their population, because the cost of these drugs is covered by the VPAS reimbursement scheme agreed between the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry. If a treatment is unavailable in one ICB footprint, they should be required to commission the required treatment from another ICB. The Government should also promote uptake through the ICBs of NICE-approved medicines and report uptake of new medicines annually.
Amendment 54 would require an ICB to arrange for provision of a NICE-approved treatment to any patient whose NHS clinician has recommended it, even if that treatment is not otherwise available to patients in that ICB area. Amendment 74 would require ICBs to ensure that all NICE approvals are available and promoted to their population via a publicly accessible format, normally online, and to report on their uptake annually. Amendment 97 would mandate integrated care boards and healthcare providers, notably hospital trusts, to update their formularies to include all NICE-approved medicines or devices within 28 days of market authorisation, to ensure they are available for healthcare practitioners, through either their physician, for example, or prescribing pharmacist, to make available for suitable patients.
I thank those who submitted briefings to me while I was preparing for today, notably JDRF, which makes a number of recommendations on this issue, particularly in regard to type 1 diabetes. These aim to reduce inequalities, remove the postcode lotteries to which I referred and make sure that treatments, such as those for type 1 diabetes, are uniformly available across the piece. I also thank EMIG, a pharmaceutical trade association for small and medium-sized companies, for its briefing. It says that the uptake of NICE-approved medicines is critical for NHS patients to benefit from the latest and most promising innovations. Finally, I am grateful to Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which submitted a briefing that again supports the conclusions reached. Among the proposals it highlights is the introduction of a modifier to take account of the severity of a disease and efforts to more fairly consider uncertainty in the evidence for highly innovative and complex treatments for rare and severe diseases, including through greater use of real-world evidence.
On this small group of amendments, I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has to say in connection with her neat, simple amendment, which would strengthen what we are proposing to do here. I urge the Minister and the department to address these postcode lotteries and make sure that NICE does not just make the guidelines but ensures that treatments reach the formularies and ultimately the patient in question. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 54, 74 and 97, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and Amendment 163, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I too pay tribute to the historic work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, prior to the setting up of NICE.
While it is not an interest in the formal sense, I declare that I have autoimmune disease and have experience of being on the NICE rheumatoid arthritis care and treatment pathway for 19 years, which has been regularly updated by NICE over that time. Where it has been applied in full and from diagnosis, patients have found it very beneficial and, with new and more effective drugs being approved every few years, many are now in remission. I pay tribute to the consultants trying to do their best for their patients and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Versus Arthritis helplines which support RA patients in navigating their way through access to their NICE treatments when these have been blocked.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her introduction to this group and for explaining the problem with the formulary list. She is right that this should be addressed formally. However, I want to focus on some of the commissioning practices on NICE-recommended treatments, including those on the formulary, in the current CCGs, because I believe these explain the need for the amendments in this group.
In May 2014, the High Court ruled that Thanet CCG could not disagree with NICE guidance merely because it disagreed with it, even when there is no statutory duty to provide that treatment. This specific case was about access to fertility treatments for a woman who was about to undergo bone marrow transplantation to put her severe form of Crohn’s disease into remission. NICE’s 2013 clinical guidance recommended that
“oocyte or embryo cryopreservation as appropriate”
should be offered
“to women of reproductive age … who are preparing for medical treatment for cancer that is likely to make them infertile”.
This was not cancer, and the CCG’s own policy was to not grant funding unless there were exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My noble friend Lord Patel has had to leave because of pre-booked travel, but he has given me the honour—and it is an honour—of having his brief speaking notes, from which I would like to start, and then move on.
Before I get on to that, I think it is important for us to remember that NICE was set up to establish the evidence base behind what we do. Before NICE was established—and I have worked with Deirdre Hine, who was very involved in setting it up when she was Chief Medical Officer for Wales—people were doing things because they had always done them and because they liked doing them that way, with no evidence base, and often they were doing things that made situations worse, not better.
As Lord Patel wanted to stress, clinicians have a strong belief now in evidence-based healthcare, and guidelines are critical to ensure high and consistent levels of evidence-based clinical practice across the NHS. The guidelines developed by NICE can be adapted to the local situation, and they are also under review. I should declare that I have served for three years as vice-chair of the group looking at ME/CFS guidelines, and it was very instructive to see the depth to which everything was explored and the rigour of the processes; to the point that, when we were asked to review again some papers, we went back to the beginning and reviewed them all over again. Interestingly, in doing that, we slightly downgraded their scoring, rather than upgrading it, which is what had been expected. I was really impressed at the rigour of the process, including the health economics impact.
That experience has been behind the push to make sure that there is compliance. My proposed amendment would be a way of assessing compliance with the guidelines as predetermined and set out in the NHS mandate. The mandate could select a few that would act as proxy markers across the piece and include a date line, so that their implementation across the country could be benchmarked. It would not increase the workload, because it could draw on existing sources of data in the NHS. As the Minister has said, data is our key to understanding and unlocking things.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in her comprehensive introduction to this group of amendments, spoke about type 1 diabetes and highlighted that, in some areas, the adoption of continuous glucose monitoring is as low as 0%, whereas in other areas it is up to 20%. There are a couple of other emerging areas; one is in atrial fibrillation, where direct oral anticoagulants have made warfarin a drug of the past. Yet the variation between clinical commissioning groups’ adoption of the guidance is quite horrifying. There is a threefold variation in prescribing, so there are areas of the country where a lot of patients are being denied an intervention that has been shown to be beneficial compared to what was done before.
We have already alluded to another emerging area: the new biologics. On the face of it, they are very expensive, but they are often remarkably effective—they can revolutionise the management of some diseases. We have a budgetary problem here, because the NHS budgets are year-on-year, and the face-value cost of the new biologics is very high; but if you look at the whole lifetime cost of healthcare interventions then they come out much lower. Take the example alluded to, of Crohn’s disease, and consider the cost of someone having their bowel removed, who might then end up on total parenteral nutrition; it is not only the cost of that nutrition but the costs in all other domains in their life, and the lives of their family. In comparison, the new biologics can rapidly get this disease’s process under control and revolutionise things.
The proposal is to give the CQC the powers routinely to address the adherence to guidelines—that would be specified by the NHS mandate, so a national standard could be set—and introduce a reporting metric using current data sources as a starting point to establish a benchmark. I want to stress, as I know does my noble friend Lord Patel, that we are not advocating for guidelines to be mandatory—that would not be right, because each patient is different and individual—but we are asking for a system to be introduced that gives powers so that there can be scrutiny of whether the guidelines are being adopted, because their adoption would narrow the gap in inequalities. We both feel that we need to commit to address this in this important legislation, because it is a way of achieving tangible action to ensure equity in access to quality in healthcare.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the three amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to. I was the first Minister for NICE, going back to 1999. At that time, we were confronted with a paradox which continues to this day, which is that, although the NHS is full of innovation and we have an incredibly strong life sciences sector and industry, the NHS is also very slow to adopt those innovations. NICE was developed to speed up the introduction of effective new medicines and devices. Right from the start, we had a problem with the NHS being reluctant to implement its recommendations and, within a few months of it starting, a regulation had to be put through which required it to implement them within 90 days. That has been slightly modified since, but none the less, it is still in being. The NHS has become very adept at finding ways to get round this through the various blocks that have been put in at CCG level—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, explained clearly the kind of blocks, devices and bureaucratic machinations that are put into place.
The result is that we continue to be very slow to introduce proven new technologies and medicines. NHS patients are very disadvantaged compared to patients in most countries. It then impacts on pharma and the devices industry—I think that pharma is more reluctant now to introduce medicines and develop R&D in this country as a result.
The Minister knows that there is an agreement—it is called VPAS at the moment—whereby NHS expenditure on drugs is capped and industry pays rebates if the cost goes over that cap. Given what I have always thought to be an imaginative agreement and given that industry is essentially underwriting some of those additional costs, surely there must be a better way to approach this which would allow the NHS to implement NICE recommendations enthusiastically, rather than essentially putting into place blocks.
I doubt that we are going to spend two and a half hours on this group of amendments, but these are just as important as the last group, because they go to the heart of whether NHS patients get access to the drugs, devices and technologies that they should. At the moment, they do not. I hope that the Minister might be prepared to take the amendment away. Legislation is the only way that we can see of leveraging the kind of change we need.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I was delighted to add my name.
Perhaps I may remind the Minister of his very first session at the Dispatch Box. He confirmed to your Lordships that the Government had full confidence in the processes at NICE. In a follow-up letter to me he wrote:
“The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent body that develops authoritative, evidence-based guidance for the health and care system to drive best practice. NICE is one of the few organisations with a remit spanning the NHS, public health and social care, meaning it is well placed to provide a system-wide perspective and support Government priorities for the health and care system.”
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 74, to which I have added my name. I was one of the successors to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a Health Minister responsible for NICE. I pay tribute to his sterling work in establishing it. However, I encountered the same difficulties as he encountered with the NHS speedily taking up NICE recommendations and had to wrestle with this same problem.
I had a long and slightly exhausting chat with the chief executive and the chairman of NICE about what they could do to help the NHS implement their recommendations. We arrived at a concordat, and the NICE people went away and developed a rather helpful system for enabling the NHS to prepare for a NICE recommendation and to implement it. As far as I am aware, looking at the NICE website, it still has that system in place, so it is not as though NICE is simply putting its recommendations in the public arena and leaving the NHS to get on with it; it has done its level best to produce a way of helping the NHS to prepare to implement those recommendations.
What I do not understand is why we have not moved faster over time to recognise that more action needs to be taken with the laggards within the NHS to make this happen. I think that one method is captured in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
If NICE is so important and it is so important that the NHS implements its recommendations, that ought to figure in the regulator’s assessment of the performance of those NHS bodies. I can see no reason it should not, and I wonder whether the Minister could tell us a little more than I know—and more, I suspect, than the Committee knows—about the current position on the failures of NHS bodies to pursue NICE recommendations. Do the Government accept that the regulator of these bodies should take account of their ability and willingness to implement NICE recommendations? Perhaps the Minister could clarify some of those issues. If he cannot clarify them today, perhaps he could write to us.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but, animated by the contributions of colleagues who, like me, were there at the conception of NICE, I thought I would offer a couple of contextual remarks to this group of amendments, supporting their underlying motivation, which is to ensure the spread of best practice as fast as possible across the National Health Service.
I was also motivated by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, who spoke earlier about the Crimean War, to recall that this is not a new problem. The world’s first controlled clinical trial took place in 1754 on board HMS “Salisbury”, when the Royal Navy was trying out the use of citric fruit—in lemons and limes—to combat scurvy. That experiment showed that scurvy could be tackled with lime juice, and it took the Navy 41 years to mandate its introduction more widely—fortunately, just in time for the Napoleonic Wars, which is why some argue that, contrary to Winston Churchill’s dictum that it was “rum, sodomy and the lash” that contributed to the Navy’s success, it was in fact lemon and lime juice.
The point is that this is not a new problem. We have been grappling with this but, despite that, we have seen the remarkably quick adoption of new clinical practices over the last two years during Covid, as new randomised control trials, following in the wake of the 1754 example, have shown the benefits of treatments such as dexamethasone. My point of context is that we need to be clear, if this group of amendments is to advance, about the terminology incorporated in the amendments. These will inevitably be, if they find their way into the Act, litigated against in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
In the drafting, there is reference to the marketing authorisations given by NICE, although I think it is the MHRA that provides marketing authorisations. There is a clear distinction to be made between the technology appraisals NICE undertakes and the development of guidelines. Although a number of noble Lords have referenced the importance of the guidelines, it is worth saying that a quick look at the NICE website reveals there are 1,591 guidelines, pieces of advice, quality standards and all the rest of it—most of which have not been subject to the full cost-effectiveness and affordability assessments that the gold standard technology appraisal performs. Before there could be a legal mandate for those guidelines, there would be some very significant methodological considerations for NICE. Without those, the risk is that mandating those guidelines would take resources away from other parts of needed care, such as mental health and community nursing—Cinderella services that have not been subject to those same processes.
We should also recognise that, vital though NICE is, the bigger contribution to the diffusion of best practice will probably be made in other ways. Certainly, reporting could help. Although one amendment makes the perfectly reasonable proposition of an annual report from integrated care boards on their adoption and uptake, that still feels a slightly 20th-century solution. If you go to Oxford University’s superb www.openprescribing.net, you can see your own GP practice and your own CCG’s prescribing patterns against the national norm, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, for the DOACs, the anticoagulating medicines. Those technologies are already available, and the role that clinical pharmacists are now playing, including the thousands of new clinical pharmacists hired to work alongside GPs to improve their prescribing habits, is also likely to have an important influence.
Finally, there is this question of whether, just occasionally, conflicts of interest might arise on the part of prescribers or clinicians over the medicines or devices being used. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has drawn attention to this in her important work, and that is perhaps something the House might return to at a later date.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene at not too much length. I welcome these amendments and am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for bringing hers forward. It enables us to touch on a subject which those of us involved in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act will recognise. This is a short version of the debates we had then, but it gives us an opportunity to update a little on those and me an opportunity to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench a few questions arising from that. We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who clarified some of the terminology, which saves us going wrong. But I want to do a bit of clarification about some of the amendments as well.
The timing of this is terrific. We are discussing this today and NICE published the outcome of its methods review yesterday, so we can respond immediately. My starting point is to applaud NICE for having taken up and accepted the proposition that there should be a modifier in relation to its appraisals and assessments on severe diseases. We can argue about the precise detail, but it has taken that up.
Secondly, randomised control trials are terribly important but they are not the whole story. NICE has rightly accepted it should look at more real-world evidence and that, too, we can welcome, but it leads me directly to a question. Part of that real-world evidence, and one of the reasons it is not going directly to NICE, though NICE can use it, is the innovative medicines fund. NHS England published its proposal for the innovative medicines fund in July and said that it would consult on it, but it has not done so yet. My first question to my noble friend is therefore: when will NICE and NHS England consult on the innovative medicines fund?
The third point on NICE’s methods review is that it will take account of the wider impacts of the treatments it appraises. That is terribly important, especially given the present opportunities for personalised medicines and gene-based treatments, when one looks at how these can impact substantially on people’s lives from a relatively early stage and the contributions they can make to society and the economy. That is all good news.
The press release from NICE, however, did not draw specific attention to where it had proceeded in a way that its stakeholders did not support. It has maintained a reference-case discount rate of 3.5%, although NICE itself admitted that there was evidence that a lower discount rate would give significant benefits. It said that there would be wider implications for policy and fiscal complexities and interdependencies if it were to do this, which I think means “The Treasury said no”. We need to think very hard about whether a discount rate as high as 3.5% is appropriate for NICE’s application of its appraisals. I ask my noble friend, though he will not be able to give me the answer to this: who is telling NICE that it cannot adopt what it regards as the evidence-based discount rate for the appraisals it undertakes?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on that basis, I have seen it said elsewhere that NICE has referred to its “national stakeholders.” I can only assume that they are Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Given NICE’s remit, it might be the Welsh Government as well, but the noble Lord may well be correct. We are all surmising, but I think we are probably not too far off the mark. It gave us an opportunity to respond to that.
So far as the amendments are concerned, the proposition that approved treatments should be adopted by the NHS is a proper one. What, of course, has not been brought into the debate is that the world has moved on, even in recent years. NHS England has taken what I think is an appropriately substantial interest in the approval of treatments, the uptake of treatments and their adoption by the NHS. When it started out, people said, “Oh dear, NICE is going to approve a treatment and then NHS England is going to tell people not to use it because it is going to cost them a lot of money.” In fact, we all agreed in the debates on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill that there was everything to be said for NHS England, NICE and the pharmaceutical industry working together early, proactively, for the planned introduction of new medicines, including taking account of their cost. That is an NHS England role, not a NICE role. NICE does gold standard appraisals, but it does not take responsibility for the fiscal consequences of those appraisals, so all these things need to be put together. The pricing decision should not be something that comes out at the end.
One of the things I have been going on about for a decade or more—actually, 15 years—is that we should not end up in a position where there is an effective medicine that is properly approved by the MHRA and authorised for use; clinicians can use it and they know it is the right thing for their patient; but, because of the absence of an appropriate pricing decision, the answer to the patient is “no”. We should not arrive at that position. With NHS England and NICE working together with the pharmaceutical industry, we stand a better chance of the answer not being “no” in those circumstances as long as the resources are, indeed, available.
I do not think, on the face of it, that we should be legislating to change the medicines mandate from where it is now. My noble friend Lady McIntosh, in introducing her Amendment 54, referred to devices. The amendment does not refer to devices, but it should refer to devices. My further question to my noble friend the Minister is: when are we going to get a proper funding mandate on devices, which I think I was promised during our deliberations on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill but we have not yet formally had it? Some good work has been done on some devices each year, but I am hoping that we will get a proper funding mandate on devices.
On formularies, my noble friend did not actually refer to the British National Formulary. Of course, NICE has had responsibility for the BNF for about seven or eight years, and even if it is not a legislative method, there is everything to be said for the NHS and clinicians looking to the BNF and NICE’s role in the BNF.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, were quite right about the adoption of NICE guidance and standards on the use of them in clinical circumstances. However, via the regulator—the CQC—we already have a process by which the CQC looks at quality standards produced by NICE and incorporates what NICE itself isolates as the essential aspects of the standards that, in order to provide safe and effective care, must be reflected in the practice of a health provider.
My question to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is: if she thinks that is not sufficient, how much further should the CQC actually go in adopting quality standards? At the moment, it has compromised and said, “We will take the essential steps, because those are a few, generally about five, specific things that we can look at to see whether they are being done, in which case, okay; or are they not being done, in which case it clearly needs improvement, or may not be meeting the standard.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
The noble Lord asked me a question to which I feel obliged to try to respond, but I really want to answer the question with a question: does the CQC have enough powers to benchmark as it would want to do, and to publish those benchmarks? I hear the concerns of my noble friend Lord Stevens in relation to fear of litigation and how that is an objection to the amendments, but I am also quite worried that that is potentially a way of avoiding adopting the guidelines themselves, thereby inhibiting a change in practice and a move to best practice.
While there are sources of information that those who are very health-literate, IT-literate, and so on, can access to establish their own benchmarks about what is happening, many people, particularly those in the most deprived areas of the UK, do not have any knowledge of even where to begin looking for these things. That was the motivation behind the amendment: to try to make sure that in the poorest and most deprived areas, people would still be able to access this. That would drive up standards gently but would not create a mandated requirement that a NICE guideline is adopted, for the reasons I outlined previously.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I can see that my noble friend is eager to come in but I will conclude by answering the noble Baroness. I am not an expert, but I think the CQC has the powers—since it presently does it—to take account of the NICE quality standards and to incorporate specific indicators from those quality standards as part of its regulatory review. If the CQC was to attempt to introduce large-scale application of the guidance as a question in a regulatory review, I do not think the issue would be whether it had the power to do it, but whether it would make the headline conclusions it reaches in relation to healthcare providers increasingly difficult to interpret. At the moment, they are relatively straightforward to interpret. There is a small number of specific indicators in relation to services provided and they are either doing them or they are not. With guidance, it becomes much more complicated and many more value judgments have to be applied about the circumstances in which they are or are not complying. So, there is a real difficulty in going far beyond where we are now.
I will listen with great care when my noble friend the Minister responds to the questions I have asked.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, subject to the economic difficulties. As I listened to the local Baroness, Lady Brinton, I wondered whether the amendments might be strengthened by some reference to the timescale in which they must be implemented. That might have some beneficial effect for many people who are waiting.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments, which relate to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE. I thank all noble Lords for tabling these amendments and for their contributions today, which certainly expanded my knowledge of the subject, as I am sure they did across the Committee. The debate has shown that there is a need for change, as I am sure the Minister has heard, to better equip the National Health Service to provide the patient what they need when they need it.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke clearly about hurdles that must be overcome, whether they are bureaucratic, process, budgetary or administrative. All these hurdles get in the way of the end result: meeting the needs of patients. That, I believe, is what this debate is focused on.
NICE is well recognised as a partner to our NHS. Its objective approach and evidence-based analysis rightly gain respect. However, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said—he can now be called the first Minister for NICE—although the National Health Service is full of innovation, it is also slow to pick up on it; that point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That begs the question: what kind of partner should NICE be to the NHS? Is it going to be an enabling partner, or will it frustrate at times? Of course, we all want to see NICE in that fully enabling capacity.
However, beyond what NICE approves in terms of treatments, pathways or otherwise, there must be procedures for it to implement and connect effectively to patients’ needs. We know that no system or set of procedures will ever be perfect; we have heard that today. Understandably, therefore, as the Minister has heard, pressure and a will for change—in a positive sense—is contained in these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about how important it is to have evidence-based healthcare and to have known guidelines and see them complied with, as is right and proper.
There are cautionary considerations to note in this debate; we have heard some of them. One is whether it is wise to put what in some cases appear to be operational requirements in the Bill. I am sure the Minister will address this. The new world is certainly paying a lot of attention to flexibilities. We want to make sure that anything contained in the Bill does not inadvertently work in another direction.
My understanding is that NICE guidance is mandated, in effect, with the guidelines somewhat less so. Amendment 54 contains a proposal to reinforce the intention that, once a treatment has been properly assessed and recommended, all patients should be able to gain the benefit. We know, and we have heard in this debate, that this does not always happen, and that clinical commissioning groups follow different policies. However, in considering the amendment at face value, it is important that we consider what impact this latitude might have. I am sure we are all keen not to accidentally invoke some kind of fallout, such as taking away all leeway from commissioners. At present, they can depart if they can set out an objective case for doing so; for example, with requests for certain drugs and therapies through individual funding requests.
Similarly, it would be unfair if a patient could cross an integrated care board border and receive a treatment that was not available in another ICB area. That would seem inadvertently to achieve what we do not want to achieve: the worst of a postcode lottery. Equally, if we have locally based approaches, the reality is that some localities will differ in their priorities and services. I know that we will return to this topic many times in our consideration of the Bill because the care that patients receive should certainly be equitable and fair and not based on where they live.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both to the amendments and in making wider points about NICE. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Gillian Leng, who recently stepped down as chief executive of NICE after a number of years.
I turn to Amendment 54. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we all want NHS patients to benefit from proven and cost-effective treatment; no one would want otherwise. That is why we see NICE as playing a vital role in supporting patient access to new treatments. I have heard the criticisms from previous Health Ministers, who were responsible for NICE. I sometimes feel in debates such as this, when I am with former Health Ministers, that it is like a special edition of “Doctor Who”, with previous regenerations. I hope we do not create a fracture in the space-time continuum. NICE recommends the vast majority of new medicines for use by the NHS. In fact, in 2020-21 100% of new medicines were recommended by NICE and many thousands of NHS patients have benefited from access to some of the most cost-effective treatments as the result of its work.
Another interesting thing is that when a decision is made and it is difficult to access medicines, patients will get frustrated—rightly so, given that they know it is available or maybe has been recommended. At the same time, on the global stage NICE has a well-earned reputation. It is one of my three priorities; I have mentioned technology, the second is life sciences and the third is international health diplomacy—how we use our position on health as part of UK soft power. One of the institutions people across the world look to and want to learn from is NICE. NICE is looking to be at the centre of a number of global networks on the issues where it has a reputation.
NHS England and clinical commissioning groups are already under a statutory obligation, under Regulations 7 and 8 of the snappily titled National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Constitution and Functions) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (Functions) Regulations 2013, to fund any treatment recommended by NICE through its technology appraisal or highly specialised technologies programmes, usually within three months of guidance being issued. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, mentioned, NICE also operates a separate medical technologies programme, which supports faster and more consistent adoption of medical devices, diagnostics and digital products.
I assure noble Lords that these funding requirements will apply to the ICBs once established. Therefore, we do not see the amendment as necessary at this stage for clinicians to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for pointing out some of the unintended consequences and scope of such amendments. I remind your Lordships that, since April 2021, NHS England’s medtech funding mandate has supported faster access to some of these innovative technologies recommended by NICE.
I know that I am going to try to reassure noble Lords on a number of things but, on Amendment 74, I hope they note that the funding requirement on ICBs for NICE-recommended treatments goes even further than the requirement to promote what the noble Lords propose in the first part of the amendment. This will ensure that clinicians will continue to be able to prescribe NICE-recommended treatments for their patients.
The second part of the amendment would replicate existing arrangements that are in place to measure uptake and use of NICE-recommended medicines. Since 2013, NHS Digital has published an innovation scorecard that reports uptake of medicines that NICE has recommended in the last five years at a national and local level. Data on the uptake of NICE-recommended medical devices is not currently reported in the innovation scorecard as it has been more complicated to collect. However, I assure noble Lords that work is under way, by both NHS Digital and the Accelerated Access Collaborative, to address this gap. The Government consider that it is more appropriate and proportionate that this information is collected and published by a single national body using an agreed methodology, not by multiple organisations that will each have different ways of measuring and presenting the data.
On Amendment 97, I can tell noble Lords that NICE works closely with the MHRA—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for pointing out the distinction —which issues marketing authorisations to ensure that licensing and appraisal timescales are aligned wherever possible. The NHS in England usually funds any treatment recommended through NICE’s programmes within three months of positive final guidance. We believe that three months is a realistic framework for providers to prepare for and introduce a new technology, and I hope I can assure the Committee that NICE and NHS England already work closely to facilitate the adoption of recommended technologies as quickly as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, again alluded to, there is a high level of transparency in the operation of local formularies. Formularies have their own public websites, which list the selected medicines and associated guidance, and area prescribing committees publish the minutes of meetings, which identify the medicines added or removed from formularies. We believe that there is therefore no need to publish an annual list.
Although healthcare providers are encouraged to use local formularies when prescribing, they are not restricted to them. The decision as to what to prescribe lies with the prescriber, who will act in the best interests of the patient. Indeed, some of the correspondence I get as a Minister for Health often refers to when people cannot get access to a medicine that is not recommended, but the clinician has the authority to suggest that that medicine can be available to the local area.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sure the Minister is right about how this system is meant to work, but there are far too many examples of clinicians seeking to prescribe medicines that have gone through the technology appraisal and then finding that CCGs have set up the various devices that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned to delay or stop it. Does he recognise that CCGs are engaged in a process of seeking to delay implementation for as long as possible? Will this be accepted under ICBs or will it be tackled?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue. I should be honest; I was not aware of the suggestion that CCGs often delay and whether that situation will be transferred to ICBs. I ask noble Lords whether I can look into that situation further to understand it more. I simply say that I was not under that impression.
Lord Warner (CB)
When the Minister is looking into that, will he also look at the issue of the usual suspects? The problem that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, probably encountered—I certainly encountered it—was that many of these areas that are slow to implement NICE recommendations are the same areas where overall performance is pretty poor. There is an issue here about whether we can clearly identify the laggards and take action with them, rather than have a generalised look at the performance of particular areas.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Perhaps I may suggest, following the interventions of both noble Lords and their experience of being Health Ministers and of NICE, arranging a follow-up meeting with them to discuss this matter in more detail so that I can understand the situation more. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, I have been in this job for only four months and am still learning an awful lot. In fact, I am learning far more in this Committee than I have in my first four months. That shows that sometimes there is no substitute for learning on the job.
NICE has a suite of more than 300 guidelines and, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, more than about 1,900 medicines, spanning the whole of health and social care. It makes dozens of recommendations that can be complicated. We do not think it proportionate or feasible to require compliance with NICE guidelines but, given what I have just mentioned, I should like to consult previous Health Ministers with experience in this area and perhaps have further discussions to see what is relevant in the future.
I shall end with the CQC reviews of ICSs. We will look more broadly at the entire system of how the ICS areas are performing. A requirement for the CQC to specifically consider compliance with NICE guidelines as part of these reviews risks adding a considerable burden to this process. I can, however, assure the Committee that the Government expect the healthcare system to take NICE’s recommendations fully into account, subject to what noble Lords have told me about the performance of some CCGs. I am also aware that NICE works closely with system partners to support implementation where possible. It is probably best henceforth for me to have those conversations with the two noble Lords and any others with experience of this matter. There are more than two former Health Ministers in this House and we should have those conversations.
Let me see if I can answer some of the specific questions. As regards VPS—how do I put this in the most diplomatic way?—I have been asked to look at that issue. The industry has complained, for example, because we also have therapeutic tendering at the same time as expecting this. I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for asking me to look into this issue in further detail. I have asked what would happen, for example, when some of the life sciences companies ask whether it makes the UK less attractive in some ways. I am assured that it does not but I am looking into this issue as part of the life sciences aspect of my portfolio.
I think that I have covered all the questions but all that I ask at the moment is to let me have further conversations. That is probably best. In that spirit, I ask noble Lords to consider withdrawing or not moving their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate and for the number of issues that have been raised.
At the outset, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, highlighted and a number of us focused on the hurdles—as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, described them—to be overcome. However, there has been a lot of focus on the problems of the budgetary challenge. It would be incumbent on my noble friend the Minister to meet not just with the two noble Lords he highlighted but the drafters of the amendments: myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who sat so patiently through the whole of today’s proceedings and had to leave before this discussion was reached. As he had such success in the mental health meeting, I hope that we replicate that and take up a number of the issues raised here.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, to move Amendment 56A—or the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, moving Amendment 56A?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might put in a slight plea to the Committee on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low. He has sat patiently through this debate for a long time. He was expecting that the other amendment would be moved and, on realising that it was not, has made every attempt to return to his place as fast as possible.
Amendment 56A
Lord Low of Dalston
“116C Primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilitiesNHS England must make arrangements for the assessment of the need for primary ophthalmic services by people with learning disabilities, including access to sight tests, and ensure primary ophthalmic services are commissioned to meet those needs.”Member’s explanatory statement
Under Schedule 3 of the Bill, NHS England retains its powers to make arrangements for the provision of primary ophthalmic services itself or direct Integrated Care Boards for such provision. This seeks to improve eye care for people with learning disabilities.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
Right on cue, my Lords, I am rising to move Amendment 56A, which seeks to improve eye care for people with learning difficulties, as they are much more likely to have a sight problem but much less likely to access primary ophthalmic services, including access to NHS sight tests. The Bill offers an opportunity to seek improvements to an often-overlooked area of primary care: namely, primary eye care or ophthalmic care. Schedule 3 to the Bill contains amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006, regarding primary ophthalmic services: that is to say, commissioning of NHS sight tests and more.
Primary eye care is vital for the health of the nation. We know that half of sight loss could be prevented but is not because people do not go for sight tests as frequently and regularly as they need to. Many people are living with sights problems that could be picked up and treated quickly if people were going for regular sight tests. We also know that our hospital eye clinics are overwhelmed and are one of the busiest outpatient specialities. There were delays to treatment prior to the pandemic, but now these have been greatly exacerbated as a result of the pandemic. Work is under way to look at how primary eye care can add capacity to the system through an NHS England eye care transformation programme. Just like their colleagues in general practice, dentistry and pharmacy, there are optometrists and dispensing opticians working in primary care who have the clinical training to provide early and ongoing support to patients but do not have the chance.
Supporting primary eyecare makes sense in very many ways. However, we know that, as with other areas of healthcare, there are inequalities in primary eyecare. Some parts of the population are not accessing regular sight tests, even if they might be eligible to have them free under the NHS. In 2018, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Eye Health and Visual Impairment explored this issue, particularly for people with learning disabilities and people who are homeless. This work was supported by the APPG on learning disabilities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, supports this amendment, but she has not been able to stay to join in the debate.
The APPGs on eye health and visual impairment and on learning disabilities took evidence from the charity SeeAbility. People with learning disabilities are much more likely to have a sight problem but much less likely to access NHS sight tests. Vision problems in people with severe learning disabilities are so high that researchers have said that this population should be considered visually impaired unless proven otherwise. SeeAbility’s work in special schools found that more than four in 10 children had never had a sight test. In other studies, it was found that half of adults with learning disabilities had not had a sight test in all the recommended period. SeeAbility found that many children were attending hospital eye clinics for routine eye tests.
A recommendation that the APPGs made in 2018 that there should be a sight-testing and glasses-dispensing service in all special schools is now being taken forward by NHS England, which is excellent news. It will reach around 130,000 children and help address and prevent avoidable sight loss, as well as reducing the need to use hospital eye clinics. Once the proof of concept phase is completed in 2023, it is understood that a new special schools scheme will need to be legislated for to provide for an additional service to be added to the National Health Service ophthalmic services contract through an amendment to regulations. It is hoped that at the appropriate time the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will ensure that the special schools eyecare service has the legislative authority that it needs. The commitment by NHS England to this service is commendable, and it must continue with that commitment as these children deserve an equal right to sight. This is something we will all want to follow closely.
However, the APPGs went further in 2018 and also recommended that there is a continuing need to improve eyecare outside special schools for people with learning disabilities. There are an estimated 1 million people with learning disabilities in England. The APPGs noted that the tariff for primary eyecare acts as a disincentive to carry out sight tests within optical practices when seeing adults or children with more severe or profound learning disabilities, despite this group being at most risk of having a sight problem. This compares poorly with other areas of primary care, such as the GP annual health check for people with learning disabilities, or special needs dentistry. The local optical committee support unit’s learning disability eyecare pathway, which is endorsed by SeeAbility and Mencap, can be commissioned by clinical commissioning groups to provide more targeted, longer and adjusted optical appointments for people with moderate to severe learning disabilities. However, it has been commissioned in only a few areas in England and it really needs to be countrywide.
Eligibility for NHS sight tests under secondary legislation has also missed out people with learning disabilities from the exclusive list of eligible groups—that is, children, older adults, people in receipt of certain means-tested benefits and high-risk groups such as those with a family history of glaucoma or diabetes. This places the burden on the person with a learning disability to work out whether they are eligible in other ways. For that reason, no data is collected on how many people with learning disabilities access NHS sight tests in the community. For the purposes of this debate, this is a straightforward amendment that bolsters NHS England’s existing commitment to the special school eye care service across England’s special schools. It reminds us that all people with learning disabilities are in need of particular attention when it comes to eye care.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the section on primary ophthalmic services in the National Health Service Act 2006 by introducing general powers to make arrangements, in Section 116A, and to publish general information, in Section 116B. The amendment would supplement that with a new Section 116C, which would simply oblige NHS England to make an assessment of the needs of those with learning disabilities for primary ophthalmic services, including access to NHS sight tests, and ensure that services were commissioned to meet those needs.
The amendment’s national focus is needed because the local discretionary approach to introducing the aforementioned LOCSU learning disability eye care pathway by clinical commissioning groups has not worked. It exists in only six areas of the country when it really needs to be available across the country as a whole. The amendment would allow for the possibility of extending eligibility for NHS sight tests to all people with learning disabilities once the evidence was reviewed.
The Bill clearly envisages that the Secretary of State and NHS England can work together and both can exercise powers to improve primary ophthalmic services, with NHS England having a clear national oversight role. The amendment is supported by three existing NHS England objectives into the bargain: first, the programme of work to address the health inequalities of people with learning disabilities; secondly, the programme of work to improve community eye care and reduce the unnecessary use of hospital eye clinics; and, thirdly, the commendable work in primary optometry of the special school eye care service.
There may be those who would say that no population needs to be explicitly prescribed for in primary legislation and that matters can be left to the discretion of secondary legislation and directives. However, the health inequalities experienced by people with learning disabilities justify putting them in the Bill. People are dying of avoidable health issues at least two decades before their peers. We cannot have a situation where people are living without good sight and even going avoidably blind because NHS services overlook their needs. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 112 and 17 others that are in my name. I am very grateful to the three noble Lords who have added their names to these amendments. These are terribly straightforward; it is the same point in a number of different contexts. As we put it in the explanatory statement, the amendments
“would require Integrated Care Boards to work with the four primary care services … when preparing and revising their five year plans, in the same way they are required to work with NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts.”
It is a very simple, straightforward point and a matter of proportion. It is appropriate to give a similar level of influence and respect to primary care as we give to acute services.
I will mention that there are some practical difficulties —obviously, there are many more primary care services than NHS trusts—and come back to that at the end. If it is not obvious enough that we should do this, I want to pull out three points about why this is so important; I expect that others will mention other points. I am talking here about GP surgeries, as opposed to the other three services, although I totally endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Low just said about ophthalmology services.
First, if it is true, as Members across this Committee have argued for however many sessions it has been, that a large part of the future is community-based, then alongside public-health figures and their clinical work, it is primary care—nurses and others, not just doctors—who will be the essential guides and specialists to help all those place-based, arts, non-clinical and inequalities-busting activities that we have talked about for a considerable part of this debate. They have that key role.
Secondly, I was dismayed by the way the Government criticised GPs recently. Primary care is under enormous pressure and I do not understand why the Government chose to do that. A large part of the problem is that there are simply not enough primary care specialists of all kinds, including GPs, and I do not think any progress has been made towards the promised 5,000 extra GPs. Primary care is under enormous pressure throughout the country and, while I greatly welcome the focus in the Bill and in government policy on waiting lists, I believe that it will be here in primary care that we will see the real battle for the future of the NHS. It is really important that we give those who are doing so much in our services the respect, influence and prominence that they deserve.
My third and perhaps, in some ways, biggest point is that primary care is changing very fast in all kinds of ways; it is an area where there is enormous innovation. As the Royal College of GPs itself says about the role of the GP, there is a place for one-off consultations—a place for the GP on the railway station, or wherever, where you can have a very quick consultation—but there is an even bigger place for the sort of continuing role based on the relationships between a GP and their patient that we are familiar with traditionally and which I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, described so well in describing her father as knowing his patients “inside and out”. That relationship, however, is not just with individual patients; it is a relationship with the community. Many GPs have taken that role, but more are taking on the role of a relationship with their community.
Some GPs are rewriting this role so that it is more of a public health role in some ways. There is Sir Sam Everington at Bromley by Bow, whom the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, mentioned in his great, eloquent speech on our last occasion in Committee, and others such as Dr Gillian Orrow, who is bringing together groups in the community and leading Growing Health Together in Horley. Others are taking on wider roles, such as Dr Laura Marshall-Andrews in Brighton. People are thinking about their role in a very different and important way and I apologise for giving three southern examples—they happen to be ones I know very well, but I know that this sort of innovation is going on around the country. More generally, of course, we can think about social prescribing and the way that that is changing primary care.
Here is the really big point: these doctors, nurses and others in primary care are acting as clinicians, of course, but they are also agents of change. They are the animateurs, the facilitators enabling local health-creating activity. For that reason, we need to have people like them fully engaged in the planning and all the mechanisms of the new NHS structures so that they can have the influence needed for the future.
I come back to the practical note I made at the beginning. Of course it will be difficult to engage primary care appropriately in every way and there might not be the same structure and arrangements in every part of the country, but it is really important that we get these primary care inputs into the five-year plans, their monitoring, planning and discussion so that they can really influence what will happen in the future. I understand that the Royal College of GPs is in discussion with the Department of Health. I urge the Minister to encourage his officials to find a way to make this obvious thing, which needs doing, work. It is vital that we do not disfranchise a key and currently quite largely demoralised sector or, as importantly, lose their valuable contribution.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 117 and 218 in this group. I have also put my name to the series of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, but I start by endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Low, had to say. I hope the Government will come back sympathetically in relation to that.
My Amendment 117 would ensure that primary care professions would have mandated roles within integrated care partnerships, with members appointed by each of the four practitioner committees: the local medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical committees. Secondly —and this is very consistent with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—this would ensure that, in preparing their annual strategic forward plan, the integrated care board and its partner trusts and NHS foundation trusts would need to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees and publish an explanation of how they took account of those views when publishing their plan.
I have the same arguments as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and I will not repeat them because he put them so well. History has shown that, even when clinical commissioning groups were nominally under the control of GPs, they often found it very difficult to get the rest of the system to listen to their issues and concerns. I agree with the noble Lord that there is now so much pressure on primary care that there is a great risk that they will be ignored in the work of the ICBs in particular. That would be a great pity. It is not just GPs, but the other parts of the primary care world. The noble Lord, Lord Low, already referred to ophthalmologists and opticians, but there is also this conundrum about the ability of pharmacists to take some of the load off the system but there is also often the inability of the local NHS to talk to them and embrace them sufficiently.
I hope the Minister will be sympathetic. If he says that he is not willing to tell ICBs that they must embrace representatives of the local committees then there is now a clear conflict. He is saying that it is up to the local ICBs to decide, but it has become abundantly clear that NHS England is giving out very heavy-handed guidance about who should be on ICBs. I would make this point to him: you cannot have it both ways. Either you leave it up to ICBs and withdraw this guidance, or Parliament has a role and a right to determine the governance arrangements. The action of NHS England in being so heavy-handed, such as saying that local councillors cannot serve on ICBs, means that the argument he put forward really does not stand up any more.
I move to my Amendment 218. On this one I must remind the House of my membership of the board of the GMC. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the crisis in workforce issues generally, which I am not sure we are going to get on to today now. In relation to GPs, it is very apparent that not only do we have a chronic shortage but there is a grossly inadequate distribution of GPs throughout the country. Recent data, published by NHS England in November, shows that the primary care network covering an area in Gloucestershire described as 4PCC and comprising Cadbury Heath, Close Farm, Hanham and Kingswood had an average list of 1,138 patients per full-time equivalent GP. There are some others with similar figures. At the other end of the scale, Shore Medical primary care network in Dorset had an average list of 7,317 patients per full-time equivalent GP. York Priory Medical Group PCN had an average list of 7,154 patients per full-time GP and the Marsh Group PCN in Kent had an average list of 7,040 per full-time equivalent GP. These are huge disparities and there are many other areas that have average lists of under 1,600 and plenty with averages of more than 6,000.
The situation is really reminiscent of the situation before the start of the NHS. That is why in 1948 the Medical Practice Committee for England and Wales started work. It was charged with ensuring equitable distribution and, to a large extent, I believe it achieved its objectives. It was abolished in 2001 and I had better confess to the House that, I am afraid, I took through the legislation abolishing it. However, we were at the start of a massive expansion in the workforce at that time and felt that at that point the kind of bureaucratic way in which the MPC worked probably was no long fit for purpose.
We have a real problem here and confirmation of the dire situation was provided recently in research by the University of Cambridge’s department of primary care. A team including Dr Rebecca Fisher found that the significant GP workforce inequalities I have talked about are increasing and that workforce shortages disproportionately affect deprived areas. If you look at the situation in deprived areas, practices often have lower CQC scores, lower quality and outcome framework performances and lower patient satisfaction scores. Patients in those areas often have shorter GP consultations despite the fact that they have more complex health needs.
General practice is paid according to how many patients they have, with an adjustment made for the workload associated with those patients. Since 2004, the global sum allocation formula, known as the Carr-Hill formula, has been used to make that adjustment. However, Fisher argues that the consultation length is a flawed proxy for need and that the formula has long been widely acknowledged to be incapable of accurately weighing needs associated with socioeconomic deprivation. In 2020, after accounting for need, practices serving deprived areas received about 7% less funding per patient than those in non-deprived areas.
There is also the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme. This offers trainee GPs a one-off payment of £20,000 when joining a practice in an area that had long-standing difficulty in getting more doctors. However, this has not made a significant difference and clearly is not the answer to this enormous problem.
In the amendment—and I am very glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness—I have proposed the creation of
“the General Medical Practitioners Equitable Distribution Board”
as a first step. I envisage the board being invested with discretionary powers of negative direction, as was the MPC. It would consider applications from primary care networks, and they would be expected only from adequately doctored, or more than adequately doctored, PCNs. It would be a way of intervening in the market and making it more difficult to appoint GPs in those areas that are already very well supplied with doctors.
I accept that this is not the only approach, but it is an approach that has worked in the past. Frankly, I do not think that we can carry on without some major intervention to try to spread the load, because it is clear that all the odds are stacked against you if you are in an area of high deprivation where there are many more patients per GP. You get burnout among the professions and things become very difficult indeed. It looks as though financial incentives are not the answer. Clearly, we need to get more GPs into those areas to lessen the load, and then improve the quality and outcomes. I hope the Minister will be prepared to take this back and give it some consideration.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hesitate to rise. I had not originally intended to participate in this debate, but I feel obliged to speak and make some general points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and his powerful and compelling arguments for his amendments. I declare an interest: the House will be well aware that my son, who is 43 years old, has a learning disability and is autistic, so I have some experience of the arguments spoken about by the noble Lord. I have also been a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Disability for more than a decade, and I know of the fantastic work that SeeAbility has undertaken for its membership for many years.
I want to say something, because this group of adults has suffered dreadfully over the past two years, particularly during lockdown. They do not have the privilege of being at school or in early college education and being looked after by the system. I hope the Minister and the whole NHS system will agree with the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, including the suggestion that these services should be available. I assume that making ophthalmic services available in schools and colleges is one of the easiest things to achieve. However, it is not so for adults with a learning disability and autism who have just left school and are at that age when nobody cares about them anymore. That is where the problem occurs.
I had enormous difficulties. I do not want to speak about myself in any way, because I am more than able to argue my case, find out where services are by ringing people and looking at services on the internet, and challenge when I face difficulty. I challenge more now than I was when my son was younger. I am also well attuned. I speak regularly with organisations on the ground that work with the parents and carers of people with learning disabilities and autism, so I know fully how much they struggle to ascertain and obtain information about ophthalmic care.
I want quickly to share the experience I had with my adult son. All his appointments were cancelled for nearly a year. I could see that his eyesight really suffered. He was not able to co-ordinate his way even around his own home where he is very comfortable. I had to push them hard. It was suggested that I should speak to the nearest ophthalmologist and look for these services. I admire all these services, which are trying hard to work with the NHS in the absence of patients being able to go to hospital for ordinary services, but they are not equipped or trained. They do not have the necessary equipment to produce the best results or give effective services to the people who need them. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, it is grossly unfair when there is sight and all someone’s eyes need are a little attention to make a fundamental difference and enrich their life. It is really important that the Government take the noble Lord’s amendments on board with the same passion that he argued with. I hope they also understand the passion of the millions of parents, carers and service users who stand behind him.
I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their leniency over this interruption.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have attached my name to a whole raft of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hunt. I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who has explained powerfully and passionately why primary care in one area is so important to the health and well-being of people. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for introducing this suite of amendments with such a graphic and powerful explanation of why primary care, particularly for people with learning disabilities, is also important in relation to ophthalmology.
I wanted to put my name to these amendments, because they go right to heart of the purpose of the Bill. Let us be clear about the purpose of the Bill. Its purpose is to integrate healthcare to improve health outcomes and to reduce health inequality. You cannot do that if your focus is purely on the acute sector. The acute sector is the repair system. It is not the part of the system that can really deal with the prevention and innovation that keeps people out of hospital. I am sure that was never the intention of the drafters of the Bill, and I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention. However, the way the Bill is written, the power emphasis is with the acute sector in monitoring, reviewing and strategic plans.
I am sure the Minister will say that that is not the case, but the way the Bill is written it is the acute sector that will have the power over who sits in the ICB and whose plans they are. So I say to the Minister in a very friendly way that the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hunt, and I have been involved in the management and leadership of health in different parts of the system. I was involved in acute and primary care myself. When I came into the health service, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, was so powerful and mighty that he was the chief executive of NHS England. It was the same with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I feel in very esteemed and very grand company.
However, the point we are trying to make is that the real way in which healthcare works and how it is developed is that the acute sector is very powerful, even at place. If you do not give a voice and power to primary care, you will not have the innovation and the change that you require. These amendments are a way of trying to make sure that the purpose of the Bill at least moves faster and is eased by having that primary care voice right at the heart of the ICB, and, being statutorily in the Bill and having been there right at the beginning in the planning, monitoring and evaluating, being able to determine what is happening. That is what these amendments are about, nothing more. They are not amendments that should be deemed difficult or trying to slow things down. They are genuinely helpful amendments.
I say very gently but powerfully to the Minister that he really needs to incorporate these amendments. If he cannot incorporate and accept them now, the Government need to come back with a set of amendments that really crystalise the role of some great primary care people, whether they are in GP surgeries, ophthalmology, pharmacy or dental, who can actually help with the purpose of this Bill, which is to improve health outcomes, integrate healthcare and reduce inequalities. It is vital.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 218, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name. Before I get down to that, perhaps I could make a few remarks about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the other remarks that have been made.
When I was sitting in Richmond House as a Minister, we had a description for the chief executives of the acute trusts. They were called “the barons”. When the House of Lords Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, took evidence on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care, three or four of them—I cannot remember exactly how many—came in to give evidence. Their opening salvo was, “We need 4% a year real-terms increase every year, stretching into the future”. I suspect that culture has not changed that much since I was around in Richmond House, and it has to be changed—forcibly if necessary—if we are actually to deliver the sustainability of the NHS.
Since 1948, the acute hospitals have been magnificent in laying down the law about how much money they need. Even when money was short, they were pretty good at it. My personal experience as a Minister was that, if I wanted the go-to people on change, I would go to the GPs. They were much more flexible and willing to have a go at doing things differently. We need to bear some of that in mind.
About 90% of people’s encounters with the NHS are with primary care, not with acute hospitals. People’s vision of the NHS is those encounters. I just want to mention an encounter my wife and I had over vaccinations which illustrates some of this. Our very efficient, local general practice was fast out of the starting blocks and we had two jabs very quickly. Some months later, we were both individually approached by two NHS acute trusts, which shall remain nameless. They asked us when we were going to get round to having our vaccinations. There was absolutely no contact between these two parts of the NHS. One part had no idea that another had dealt with the patients perfectly satisfactorily. This is what we are up against. The least we can do is accept the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
I turn to Amendment 218. I will not repeat the arguments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The numbers speak for themselves. In any service that claims to be national, it cannot be right to have such a wide range in the per capita workloads of GPs. After all, these doctors are the gatekeepers of patient access to specialist diagnosis and treatment. They should not be required to handle case loads that vary from around 1,000 to more than 6,000 patients. Such variations are likely to create significant variations in patient treatment outcomes.
I will make two further brief points in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. First, there have been many worthy amendments tabled about the long-standing, serious problem of health inequalities. Many places with the most serious health inequalities are places where the patient load of GPs is very high. So the patients with the most need of clinical attention and help have the doctors with the least time for individual attention. I have to say, that is a brilliant piece of public policy that we have managed to develop.
My second point relates to the Government’s worthy aspiration to level up the quality of life in many neglected areas of this country. We now have a Secretary of State for Levelling Up, and no doubt we eagerly await the game plan he has for living up to his title. A fairer share of the national supply of GPs would be a tangible piece of levelling up in many of those deprived areas. Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered a move in the direction of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as a useful part of their levelling-up strategy? I hope the Government will give that consideration on those grounds alone.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I have some brief points to add in support of my noble friend Lord Low’s Amendment 56A, which the noble Lord set out so clearly, and also in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is very clear to me that primary eyecare has lagged well behind other areas of primary care in terms of any commissioned schemes for children and young people who are not in special schools and for adults with learning disabilities.
My experience with my son sound very similar to those described so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. The similarities are quite extraordinary, and my heart goes out to her. This week my son went to see the optician. He is visually impaired; he has a learning disability and autism. Fortunately for him, the optician responded well to the request for some reasonable adjustments to be made—which are required by law, but perhaps not well understood in local high street opticians.
Some years ago I did some research with SeeAbility, and together we created a visual, word-free resource. I declare an interest here, because this was with the charity I founded and chair: Books Beyond Words. We created a story called Looking After My Eyes and I read this with my son before he went to his optician’s appointment yesterday. It helped him and it helped the optician. But we need targeted improvements in optical care for everybody with a learning disability across the country. For this reason, I thoroughly support my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the wake of such a hugely powerful group of contributions, mine is very much a supporting role and I will be brief. I can only endorse the contributions to the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and what we have heard about why it is so urgent. I will speak to Amendments 112 and 218, to which I have attached my name.
I attached my name to Amendment 112 because, as I was looking through the amendments, it struck me as such a crucial one. It was one that, even at this stage, it was really important to have four signatures on to show broad cross-party support. I am afraid I did not go for Amendment 113 and the rest of the list as well, on the grounds that I thought my name was there enough already, but I think the rest are—if not technically, certainly practically—consequential on Amendment 112.
After I had done that, I received a briefing from the Royal College of General Practitioners, writing also on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Association of Optometrists. I will quote one sentence. The college says:
“We think this is a classic example of where secondary care is at the centre of decision-making, while GPs and primary care are ‘consulted’.”
I think that reflects what the noble Lord, who has a great deal of expertise, said, and this is one amendment that is a total no-brainer.
Moving to Amendment 218, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, outlined the technical background to this and the statistics. The only thing I will add is that many think tanks, including the Health Foundation, the King’s Fund and the Nuffield Trust have produced information about how extreme the variation in availability of GP services is and how much effect that has on inequality. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, if the Government have a levelling-up agenda, this also is surely essential.
The reason I was personally attracted to this amendment is that in my days as Green Party leader I travelled around the country a lot and quite often ended up meeting GPs, very often talking about public health issues. I encountered so many desperately hard-working, utterly committed people who were exhausted and felt that they could not retire or cut back their hours. They were wearing themselves to the bone because no one was coming to replace them. I felt that I needed to stand up and speak for those people.
Sometimes people think of this as something that affects rural or remote areas. However, the Norfolk Park health centre in Sheffield nearly closed last year because, after extraordinary efforts, it had been unable to find an extra partner to come in. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, knows, this surgery is a fairly modest bus ride from the centre of a major city. It is a purpose-built health centre and only eight years old, but it could not find a GP partner to come in. Eventually, after a great deal of public campaigning, the surgery remained open. That is a demonstration of just how broad this problem is, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there are parts of the country—broadly the wealthier parts—that have expansive GP coverage.
Something has to be done, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am not sure that the proposal here is exactly the right way forward. We often say that something needs to be done, but we really need to see something done here. As with so many of the amendments that we discussed this morning, the Bill we have before us is the chance to sort out an urgent problem that must be sorted out.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I would like to say a few words and will start by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on all his amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, that these are not contentious. In fact, I do not think it would harm the Government at all to include these amendments in the Bill. They are trying to reinstate the primacy of primary care.
We all know that the glamour is not in primary care but hospitals—you have only to see where politicians like to be photographed; when they produce newsletters, they are always pictured in a hospital with a very sophisticated piece of new machinery that that hospital has bought. It is understandable, because that is so easy to recognise. With a photograph of a GP in a consulting room, you do not know quite where this is, who it is, or what he is doing. One can understand why the media goes for the picture of the hospital, because that is what people recognise.
In this debate and these amendments, we know that the absolute foundation of the NHS is primary care. It is so important and we have to build its primacy. I am a child of primary care; I grew up in it. My father joined the NHS in 1948. He welcomed it and thought it was a marvellous innovation. I had a very happy childhood as Dr Camm’s daughter; I had status in the community. Then I segued into being Mrs Cumberlege and my status plummeted—because I had married a farmer. We celebrated our wedding 61 years ago last week, so have had a diamond wedding. My husband said to me, “Julia, what do you want?”, and I said, “Well, it is a diamond wedding”. He delivered, and I was just delighted.
I will not extol the virtues of my father’s practice, but want to think of the role of the GP in the future and how it has already changed. In our practice, all the GPs are now part-time. They are men and women, and they have other lives to lead. None of them is a full-time GP, and that makes continuity of care quite difficult, because you are never quite sure whether they will be there or not. If you want an urgent appointment, of course you can get one, but it will probably not be with your GP. So that has changed.
There has been another change. My father built a health centre. In fact, it was the county council that built it, but he put all the pressure on to build it, and it was called the “health centre”. Today, it is not called that; it is called the “medical centre”. That is because the doctors are transactional. They just do what is in front of them. Health is not part of their remit, and it is our community that provides the health. It is the church which has the social work and provides a huge amount of the social services for our community. So things really have changed.
A very good paper was produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, in June of last year, The Power of Relationships: What Is Relationship-based Care and Why Is It Important? It is such a good paper, and I recommend that noble Lords look at it before we have the debate led by noble friend Lady Hodgson on relation- ship care and what it means. The statistics show that people live longer with relationship care. They are happier. We have some really good evidence, but I shall talk about that when we come to that amendment.
I have been working with Sir Cyril Chantler, whom many people in this House will know. We have been talking about community hubs. We think they are a very good way of moving forward and getting together not only doctors but social care, voluntary organisations and all the community facilities to ensure that they are in a hub. We know that, with integrated services and boards and the work that is going on in integrated care, the populations are enormous. We have to break it down a bit to make it more accessible to people. The next time we have a chance to debate this matter, which will be in the context of relationship care, I shall talk about community hubs with populations of about half a million. We are already establishing maternity hubs. I have said to them, “No, not maternity hubs—you’ve got to make them community hubs; you’ve got to bring in all the other resources that are in the community, because they’ve all got something to offer, and we would all benefit.”
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think seriously and work with his colleagues to try to ensure that these amendments, or very similar ones, are introduced into the Bill, because we need to ensure the primacy of primary care. I am afraid that it is not there now; it is all about hospitals.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I am delighted that her status has now gone up again because of her ennoblement and all the excellent work that she has done. We really benefit from her knowledge and wisdom in your Lordships’ House.
I support the noble Lords, Lord Low and Lord Crisp, and want to make just one point. Correct me if I am wrong or if I am out of date—I am sure that some noble Lord will if I am—but I think it is the situation that if an acute hospital overspends, the NHS bails it out, whereas social care and primary care cannot overspend because nobody will bail them out. I think that says it all.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways we are drifting back to 1946, when the NHS started on three legs: hospitals, services such as health visitors and ambulances provided by local authorities, and services that were contracted out, such as GPs, dentistry, ophthalmology, pharmacy and so.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate for once again increasing my understanding of some of the challenges within the system, in addition to briefings I have had thus far. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his patience and his just-in-time mode of operation and, more than that, for his contribution to the debate today. We appreciate that people with learning disabilities experience a higher prevalence of visual impairment than the general population, and that this prevalence increases with the severity of the learning disability. Children with learning disabilities are, for example, 28 times more likely to have a serious sight problem, and over 40% require glasses.
NHS England continues to responsible for the contracting of the NHS sight testing service. This will eventually be transferred to ICBs. Sight tests are widely available across the country through our very dedicated primary ophthalmic services workforce. Those eligible for a free NHS sight test include children, those on income-related benefits and those at particular risk of eye disease. We expect that those with severe learning disabilities should meet the eligibility criteria in other ways, and for these reasons we do not believe that, at this moment, extending eligibility further is necessary. Where those with learning difficulties are unable to access NHS sight tests on the high street, hospital eye departments also provide routine eyecare services and ongoing care. Children are usually referred on to hospital eye services via visual assessments delivered by specialists in special schools. Others are referred by GPs, school nurses or high street practices. We have also seen the development of special pathways in some parts of the country that cater specifically for adults with learning disabilities and we want to make sure that, via the NHS England central team, we share best practice on a national level, so that all regional teams and all ICBs can benefit from learning from the local initiatives and pilots.
NHS England also tells me that it recognises that more needs to be done to ensure equality of access. That is why the NHS long-term plan committed to ensuring that children and young people with learning disabilities, autism or both in special residential schools have access to eyesight, hearing and dental checks. In order to fulfil this commitment, there is a proof of concept programme building on the work by SeeAbility in London, which was launched in 2021, to provide sight tests and dispense glasses on school premises. My honourable friend the Minister for Care is due to make a visit to one of the schemes.
I now turn to the amendments on primary care providers. I understand noble Lords’ interest and that it has been widely acknowledged that CCGs, for example, are dominated by trusts, particularly for acute care. I take the gentle encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to understand that more, and particularly to make sure that the voice of primary care providers is heard. That is also the Government’s ambition. We support the idea that primary care should be integral to ICB planning, which is why at the moment at least one member of the ICB will be nominated by primary care providers in the area.
We all know that primary care service providers are predominantly independent entities that hold contracts with the NHS, unlike NHS trusts and foundation trusts, which are largely statutory entities. If all types of primary care service providers were named in the Bill, it would mean that every provider in the area of the ICB would have a duty to contribute to the development of the joint forward plan. We do not believe it would be a feasible option for all primary care providers to contribute to the plans, but I acknowledge the points made by noble Lords about how we can raise the profile and contribution of primary care providers.
I turn briefly to Amendment 117. We agree that it is important to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees, which is why we already have a provision under new Section 14Z52 to introduce a duty to consult anyone the ICB and its partner trusts consider appropriate when preparing the plan. There should also be a summary of the views expressed by anyone consulted and an explanation of how those views were taken into account. We expect members of the primary care sector to be consulted and their views summarised in this way. We understand that NHS guidance will provide for that.
We also want to allow ICBs to focus on arranging safe, high-quality care, and making an additional, explicit requirement in the Bill does not align with our desire to reduce the bureaucratic burden on ICBs. I understand that this is all part of the general debate about whether, if we accepted every amendment about who should be on the ICB, it would be more inflexible and unwieldy. These are conversations we should have in the round about the priorities for ICBs, what should be mandated, what should be in guidance and what the ICB’s duties are expected to be. I hope that we will have those conversations in the round so that we can come to some sort of consensus across the Committee.
Lord Crisp (CB)
The amendment in my name specifically requires ICBs
“to work with the four primary care services … when preparing and revising their five year plans”.
It does not specifically ask for a seat on the ICB. That is a different request. I hope the Minister understand that and will respond to it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification and also for the advice he has given me in my first few months in this job. I do appreciate his experience. I will take the noble Lord’s point back and make sure it is clearly understood by the department when we consider how we respond to it. We believe in working with appointed ICBs, but we expect primary care to be consulted.
NHS England has also stressed the importance of ensuring that there are robust place-based structures in place. We hope that the ICB will exercise functions through place-based committees, where a wider group of members can take decisions, and we expect that primary care, including individuals from medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical committees, will be particularly involved at the place-based level under the principle of subsidiarity. We will have some influence on the drafting of the forward plan of the ICB. Additionally, guidance that NHS England publishes for ICBs will include the commissioning of primary care at the place-based level.
Lord Warner (CB)
I have listened very carefully to what the Minister is saying in response to these amendments but, at the risk of being a historian again, is he aware that influence on key decision-making in the NHS is diminishing for primary care in general and GPs in particular? If we go back to 1990 and the GP fundholding changes to the NHS made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, if we move through the Blair years of practice-based commissioning and go to the changes by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, with clinical commissioning groups, these are three examples where GP influence on decision-making—strategic, local and tactical—is very considerable.
As far as I can see, that has been diminished in this Bill and they have been put back in their box without a lot of influence on key decision-making. They are poked down at the local place level. That is not right. What the Committee is saying needs to happen in the NHS. The Minister must go back to his department and talk through what is happening here, because it is diminishing the role of the GP in particular.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the Bill came because this is what the NHS wanted. But we must be clear who in the NHS wanted it, and it is obvious that it was the senior chief executives at the local level and NHS England. No wonder primary care has been completely squeezed out of it. Listening to this debate, it seems to me that the proposals from NHS England never had any scrutiny. Ministers just accepted this and, because NHS England does not engage externally, there has not been the testing that you would normally get, and we are having to do it now. Frankly, the wheels are falling off. It is tempting to invite the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to come in, because clearly CCGs were all about putting primary care in the driving seat. This seems to be removing them altogether and it is worrying.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in response to that, may I say that when I was shadow Secretary of State for several years, GPs consistently told me that if only they were given the responsibility, they could do it so much better than primary care trusts? So we gave them the responsibility in ways that were very like the locality commissioning that was the endpoint of the GP fundholding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. To be fair to them, there was less money, but no sooner did they take this responsibility than NHS England said, “Hang on a minute, you’re not doing what we’ve told you to do.” It took about 18 months, perhaps slightly less, before NHS England effectively said, “You have no further autonomy. You’re going to be in the sustainability and transformation plans,” which are the forerunners of ICS. I do not think that the clinical commissioning groups ever got the chance to do what they were asked to.
We have now reached the point where, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly says, they are being written out of the script, but they are not complaining, which is very interesting. They are not complaining because they do not want to be responsible for the budgets; they want to be responsible for the patients. They always said that they wanted to decide how locality commissioning should be done and the good ones have put tremendous things in place in terms of population health management, patient pathways and commissioning linked to those patient pathways. That is why, if we can do something with this Bill, it is to retain all that locality commissioning with GP input. But be prepared for the ICS, the big battalions, to go away and fight with the barons in the big hospitals.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Anyone else want to come in? Look, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and friendly advice, however put. Actually, I appreciate their passive-aggressive demeanour, in that way. I know it is all well-intentioned and that noble Lords speak from experience of previously tried schemes. The main point here is how we make sure that primary care is better represented and not dominated by acute trusts. I do not think I am going to have the answers to convince noble Lords completely or even partly tonight. Therefore, this clearly needs more discussion and for me to go back to my department, but also, once again, us to have another discussion on these issues between now and Report.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, can I quickly intervene? Of course, it is absolutely right that one should learn from history. But looking to the future, I just wonder whether the Minister has heard about the movement there is by some foundation trusts to try to take over primary care. I just wonder what the implications of that would be for primary care, whether he and his officials have heard of that and whether they would like to discover what that would do to patient care.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend; I was not aware of that. But at the end of the day, the result has to be the care that the patient receives. There will always be debates on how you can configure who should be involved at what level, but at the end of the day, it has to be the quality of the care the patient receives. To a wider point, we must also focus on prevention. We are seeing a lot of innovation in the primary sector; we are seeing GP services sometimes merge into primary care centres, taking on medical procedures that were previously considered the domain of hospitals. We have seen more blurring of the lines, and patients welcome that innovation in many cases.
What matters at the end of the day is the experience of the patient and making sure they have a decent service all the way through their life. It is one of the reasons we are talking about integration. In this country, care is literally from the cradle all the way to the grave, as we integrate social care more. That is why some of these discussions we have been having on social care and palliative care have been important. We are aware of that.
There are a couple more points I would like to make before I allow people to get in before the 5.30 pm deadline for getting a teacake. We support the idea that all areas should have an adequate number of GPs. That is why we launched the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme to attract doctors to train in locations that either have a history of under-recruitment or are currently finding it difficult recruiting. The scheme reflects the fact that trainees who are attracted to these areas usually stay on after training. Hundreds of doctors have trained in hard-to-recruit places since the scheme’s introduction, with 500 places available in 2021 and, we hope, 800 in 2022.
We also recognise that each community has different health needs, which emphasises the point noble Lords have made—that it is so important to hear the voice of primary care more loudly. We are taking steps to diversify the general practice workforce, such as by recruiting 26,000 more primary care staff. Making sure we have the correct mix of skills available in general practice is critical to delivering appropriate patient care across England.
One of the issues that we have to appreciate, though, is that as most GP practices are private partnerships and GPs are free to choose where they practise, a general medical practitioners equitable distribution board would have limited influence over the distribution of GPs across England, which is why we have to look at other ways to target those areas that are underserved. That is why it remains critical to continue encouraging trainees to train in hard-to-recruit areas and diversify the primary care workforce to support general practice in meeting the needs of its local community across England.
I have heard, once again, the mood of the Committee. That has become a familiar theme. I hope noble Lords will accept that I am open to further conversations in this area, particularly on how we hear the voices of all those in primary care, not just those of GPs but all of them, including those in ophthalmology, dental care and others. I hope that, in that spirit, noble Lords will feel it appropriate to withdraw or not move their amendments at this stage.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response and all other noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I moved a rather modest little amendment but I am encouraged that it has stimulated such a rich discussion with so many knowledgeable contributions. If nothing else, my amendment has stimulated a discussion that has emphasised the importance of primary care. If we can take that message away, we will not have been wasting our time. I shall leave it there. I thank everyone for their contributions and the Minister for his response. I am sure he will have been enriched by the way the discussion has focused on the importance of primary care. It has been beneficial all round. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Before I call the next amendment, I remind your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely.
Amendment 59
Lord Howarth of Newport
“(1A) To this end, an integrated care board must engage providers of non-clinical services, including creative and nature-based services and other services in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, ensuring that it has effective channels for dialogue with these sectors.”
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in this suite of amendments to Clause 20, which lays down duties on integrated care boards, I am proposing that we should articulate a duty for ICBs to embrace non-clinical practice in their whole way of working. By non-clinical practice, I am referring to a range of services and interventions that promote human flourishing, such as: engagement with the arts and culture to stimulate the creative imagination; a healthy discovery of meaning, self and personal agency; engagement with nature to provide a sense of wholeness, wonder and well-being; physical exercise and sport to energise the body and mind; engagement in voluntary work to lift people from self-absorption and melancholy, and to enable them so they are useful and valued members of society; and meditation to impart calm and perspective. All this is ancient wisdom that is being rediscovered by more and more people. This rediscovery is, indeed, innovative and the Bill requires ICBs to promote innovation.
In no sense am I suggesting that such practices should substitute for modern medicine where diagnosis and good sense indicate that modern medicine is needed. Modern medicine achieves extraordinary things, but too often we resort to it without first considering non-clinical approaches. As a society, we are over- medicating; witness the almost exponential growth in the prescribing of antidepressants. Our national passion for the NHS should not be an addiction. The NHS needs, gently but firmly, to steer us into asking less of it and taking more responsibility for maintaining our own health. That should be a new norm built into the legislative framework for the NHS that the Bill provides. Unless that happens, the system will collapse under the burden of the demands and expectations that it has created.
Unless the Government systemically address the social determinants of health, we shall not have a healthy society. The Bill, harking back to the time of Aneurin Bevan, who as Minister for Health was also Minister for Housing, rightly describes the provision of housing as a health-related service. Amendment 90 goes further, to insist on well-designed housing and urban and green environments. Research evidence shows that living in greener urban areas is associated with lower probabilities of cardiovascular disease, obesity, diabetes, asthma and mental distress among adults, and obesity, poor cognitive development and myopia in children. In every place that ICBs serve, they should be promoting debate about what good urban design should mean and how it should be achieved. Encouragingly, in the new Ebbsfleet Garden City planners are co-locating cultural facilities alongside a health and well-being hub.
There is a substantial and growing body of high-quality research and evaluation demonstrating that creative health and other non-clinical approaches, as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing said in its report, Creative Health,
“can help keep us well, aid our recovery from illness and support longer lives better lived … the arts can help meet major challenges facing health and social care: ageing, longterm conditions, loneliness and mental health”,
and
“the arts can save money in the health service and social care”.
Since the publication of that report in 2017, there has been increased recognition of this among health policymakers and in the clinical establishment. Research has been commissioned. The NHS long-term plan, with its new emphasis on prevention, acknowledged the benefits of social prescribing. The National Academy for Social Prescribing was set up. Link workers, linking GPs with community providers, are being funded, though not the community providers themselves. NASP has allocated £1.8 million to its thriving communities fund to increase the scale of social prescribing activities, and the Government have a £5.8 million cross-departmental project aimed at preventing and tackling mental health through green social prescribing.
However, this activity is still marginal and its funding almost indiscernible in the NHS budget. Amendments 104 and 105 make clear that an ICB has the power to fund non-clinical providers and that there must be financial equity between clinical and non-clinical providers. If the NHS will struggle to provide enough initially, the wider levelling-up strategy should enable that funding.
Non-clinical health providers cost a fraction of conventional medicine and represent remarkable value for money. The Evaluation Report of the Social Prescribing Demonstrator Site in Shropshire showed significant improvements in health factors such as weight, physical activity, smoking and blood pressure, and a reduction of up to 40% in GP appointments. Dance is inexpensive to lay on. As the Dancing in Time project in Leeds showed, by improving gait, flexibility and strength, it reduces falls among the elderly, who are expensive to repair.
To fail to invest on a reasonable scale in creative health and other non-clinical services is to look a gift horse in the mouth. This is recognised in some ICSs, with which the National Centre for Creative Health, a charity which I chair, is working on pilot schemes. In the Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin ICS, the personalised care team is using creative health and co-production methods with children and young people suffering from asthma. In the Suffolk and North East Essex ICS, clinicians looking for ways to support patients with long Covid have introduced singing for breathing, which is beneficial for lungs and loneliness. Creative Minds in the South West Yorkshire trust has developed creative activities that now benefit the physical and psychological well-being of 6,500 people a year. One user of the Creative Minds “Art for Well-being” programme, Debs Teale, a trustee of the NCCH, said:
“I am eternally grateful to … Creative Minds for giving me the wonderful opportunity to discover a mind released from the fog of depression. I have been five and a half years medication-free”.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. When I read these amendments I was immediately taken back about 20 years, to the offices of a charity that noble Lords might remember called the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. It had a very worthy reputation. I think most people who knew vaguely of its work but did not know it in any great detail regarded it as middle-class do-gooders in bobble hats who went out and cleaned up local rivers and things that nobody else much bothered about. But 20 years ago, it began to do some of earliest work that charities did in drilling down into not only what they did but the impact of what they did. When the trust did that, it discovered two things. First, it discovered that the volunteers were much more diverse than one would have thought—there were all sorts of people from all sorts of different backgrounds, many of them in urban settings. Secondly, it found that the biggest impact it had was on the mental health of the people who volunteered. As an organisation, it tracked that as best it could in its non-clinical fashion.
I bring my observation up to date, to about three years ago, just before lockdown, when I had the great good fortune to be invited to the offices of Google one night. I remember it was a winter’s night with absolutely filthy weather, and 250 young people—or youngish people—turned up to talk about mental health and tech. The big question was around what we can do, given who we are, who we work for and the data that we are amassing now, about not just what people are doing but what they intend to do and the profiles we are beginning to build up about people’s behaviour.
It is to those two memories that I attach these amendments, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is right. Everybody knows the value of this—we all know it as individuals. Who did not go nuts during lockdown and head out to the nearest bit of green space to cheer themselves up? We all know it, but how do we prove it to those in the NHS who, rightly or wrongly, hold fast to scientific data and evidence?
My point is simply that we should be trying to get this on to the agenda of the acute services, rather than primary care, and that we need to do so in a way that is collaborative. I think we should be challenging the acute services to tell us how they would evaluate this—what evidence would convince them? It might be the sorts of biometric evidence that people who are involved in mindfulness are beginning to generate; the fact that we can actually see differences in people’s brain patterns if, over a sustained period of time, they are engaged in things such as mindfulness.
I sincerely hope that we do not pat these amendments on the head and send them on their usual way into the background and to the byways of primary care. I hope that, although the amendments may not make it into the Bill, noble Lords might well challenge the department, NHS England and the acute sector to see this as a far more important part of prevention, particularly in mental health but also in a number of physical conditions, than they might otherwise have done.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, specifically Amendments 59, 67, 71, 77, 80 and 82. My own Amendment 290 will be debated in group 41 and specifically addresses the importance of social prescribing for people with a dementia diagnosis and how this can form part of a wider care plan.
Social prescribing plays a very important role, not just for people with diagnosed conditions but generally, as part of wider brain health. Research by Arts 4 Dementia found that music-making provides a tool for a total brain workout and improves plasticity in the cortex, which enhances the ageing brain’s cognitive abilities, perception, motor function and working memory. It also improves cardiovascular strength while reducing stress. The Coda Music Trust provides a range of musical social ensembles and bands, as well as courses and classes for learning and well-being. In other studies, drama and poetry have been found to improve concentration and cause new neurons to develop and adapt.
Social prescribing has been recognised as playing an important role. It is part of the NHS long-term plan, and the Department of Health and Social Care has allocated funding to establish a national academy for social prescribing. This growing recognition of the role that social prescribing, specifically of music and art, can play in overall health is a welcome development because many of the programmes that exist at present rely on the voluntary sector.
During the pandemic, these programmes, like most of the voluntary sector, have struggled with funding and with being able to continue their work under Covid-19 restrictions. We also know that many arts venues have struggled through this time and many theatres and music venues now face an uncertain future. This sector therefore needs much more support right now if it is to continue its work. It is crucial that integrated care boards are empowered to promote social prescribing and can work with organisations that provide these services.
Although the evidence for the benefits of social prescribing is growing, more work is needed to research what types of social prescribing are successful for specific conditions, a point that I will elaborate on when we debate my Amendment 290, which addresses social prescribing and dementia. To help promote social prescribing, we need more training for GPs and other health professionals on how and when to prescribe these services. We also need to include arts awareness for mild cognitive impairment in the medical and social care educational curriculum.
There also needs to be greater availability of these services, with links to every GP. The current NICE guidelines for dementia recommend referring patients for these services only post diagnosis when, in fact, to promote overall well-being and brain health, we should encourage them much earlier from the onset of symptoms. For this, we need training, and integrated health boards must prioritise the availability of these services.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for these amendments and fully support their inclusion in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, whom I have often heard recently. He confirmed that his blues band, Exiled in Brussels, will play at an event supporting Music for Dementia later this year.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, for his inspiring speech. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I also chair the University of Oxford’s Commission on Creating Healthy Cities, which brings together academics, policymakers and practitioners. We hope to support city leaders and their citizens by shedding light on the policy interventions that are most likely to be effective in enhancing the health of their cities.
The Oxford commission is not due to report until later this year, but it is already clear that the two core issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, in this group are likely to be central to our conclusions. The first relates to the wider determinants of health creation that take us beyond the integration of health and social care services towards recognising the relationship of public and personal health to other non-clinical services, including those affecting the built environment. The second issue relates to the value of engaging local and community organisations in a variety of ways in achieving health outcomes.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I also wish to support the amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and supported by other speakers. I do not want to make a long speech, but I want to add weight to the argument by standing up and offering support. I will not repeat his arguments, but I want to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has done in this regard. He chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group which produced a report that was pivotal in taking this debate forward. The work that he has done with the National Centre for Creative Health has given us an army of evidence on its importance.
The amendments seem to fall into two groups. There are those around social prescribing for people with dementia as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, and the notion of health promotion by creating a better environment in which we live and preventing illness. That collection of amendments is an idea whose time has come. There is an amendment for later consideration to which I have added my name, for which the same arguments are being made for sport and recreation. I think of this as the whole area of health promotion, which is looking at non-clinical providers of healthcare. I think these amendments follow on very well from the last group of amendments that was debated.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, talked about the aims of this legislation as being about promoting well-being, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave a very good example of how a community centre that had doctors in it has become a medical centre, and the message that they gave. Every single one of us here could make the arguments that we have heard so far, either from our own example—from our own health and well-being—or from something we have seen.
I wanted to mention two things. First, I declare an interest: I am director of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra, and the work that it does with Mersey Care NHS Foundation is magical. It sometimes goes unnoticed outside the region, but people with quite serious mental health needs are finding their well-being is promoted. They are enjoying themselves and feel more part of the community.
My second example is some work I did in Derbyshire with a charity of which I was patron, First Taste. The artwork it did in a care home meant that the prescription of drugs for sleeping and other things was reduced. All those arguments can be well made but my problem is this: I would have put money on no one standing up and arguing against these amendments. If you could stop 50 people out there and find three who will argue against these amendments, I would say “Well done”.
The danger for this area of policy is that no one is against it, but not enough is being done to get it to the top of the agenda. Sometimes, when no one is against it, you do not have the argument that promotes it up the national agenda. Everyone says “Great”, “We agree”, “It will be a great thing” and nothing happens. The stage of this area of policy is that everybody is doing a little bit. It is in the long-term plan. There are examples of good practice. We have the evidence that it works and the Government are investing some money, but it is never going to be an entitlement or a policy that has been enacted nationally unless something else happens.
In all public sector policies—it is the same in education—the biggest challenge is scaling up good practice. We now have lots of examples of good practice. What we need, and what is behind this amendment, is to scale it up so that it is not just a case of happening to live near an organisation or where somebody is making this happen. The amendments that we have, which are to the general duties of the integrated care boards, will be a step forward in trying to make this a national part of our well-being service. You are entitled to it; it is there and offered to you, no matter where you live.
That is the big task now. It is not making the case for social prescribing or non-clinical providers having a role to play in health promotion, but how we scale it up so that it goes higher up the agenda of people who are developing policy and deciding how resources should be spent in an area. Years ago, this would have been seen as a fringe interest and people might have thought the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was eccentric in promoting such amendments. It is evidence-based now. It is what people know works and I think it is what people want. We just have to find a way of getting it up the agenda and making it happen. These amendments will go towards that end.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this suite of amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. I know how passionate he feels about this issue and how much work he has done in this area over many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has just taken the words right out of my mouth; I was going to start by saying that social prescribing is a phenomenon whose time has come. I think that is right. People understand that the approach of social prescribing is really opening up opportunities for people to improve health and well-being through non-clinical avenues. That is what this set of amendments is all about.
This is particularly relevant for people with long-term conditions and complex needs, particularly those with mental health conditions, suffering from dementia or experiencing loneliness. The one point I want to make, which I do not think has been talked about yet, goes right back to our opening debate today about how the ambitions of this Bill will be achieved only if there is true integration across health and social care. My big plea is: please do not forget social care when we are looking at this issue. When I say social care, I am thinking both about people who have domiciliary care in their own homes and people in care settings.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on introducing this very important group of amendments and other noble Lords who have made some very interesting points, such that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley: this is becoming received wisdom, whereas it might have been regarded as eccentric even five or 10 years ago.
I have three points to make. First, this is a Bill about integration and partnership. It would be good to have a clear message that non-clinical groups such as the ones we are talking about are part of that, in whatever is the appropriate way—a duty or obligation or something of that sort on in the Bill—without being too specific about the detail.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, made the point that this is the rediscovery of ancient wisdom, not least, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, through Covid. I am talking about human flourishing going back to Aristotle and many others in the past: the merging of that ancient wisdom with very modern evidence—more evidence all the time about things such as relationships, as well as the arts and everything else that has an impact on our health.
My third point is about impact. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence. Last year, 17% of the adult population were prescribed antidepressants. That is a huge amount: when I see such a figure, I always have to remind myself that that means that 83% of us were not. However, 17% is a huge number, and the sort of things that we are talking about can reduce that number to the benefit of the people who would otherwise be prescribed antidepressants, making enormous economic savings, time savings and so on.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I would like to make sure that we realise that the medical humanities as a discipline have now been introduced in many medical schools. In my own, I was rather glad that AJ Cronin’s book The Citadel was introduced in general practice, particularly because, of course, he invented Dr Finlay, but there we are.
Quite seriously, we must not forget that loneliness kills. Loneliness is a true killer; it shortens lives. If people are not moving around well, they fall more and consume healthcare resources. Therefore, having green spaces and things such as sports for health, and so on is important. There is now also a body of evidence that the new intensive care units have used in the way that they are constructed, so that there is a view of outside spaces for those patients, rather than the total sensory deprivation that occurs to them in the very noisy and difficult environment of intensive care. Of course, music is used therapeutically during procedures and so on.
In the hospice world, lots of activities obviously go on in the day centres. As my noble friend Lady Greengross said, there is now good evidence for proper physiological mechanisms that explain why contact with these different disciplines—which were considered to be outside medicine—have a beneficial effect on healing, coping with pain and distress, resolving issues, reframing what is happening to you and so on.
I would like us not to forget that loneliness kills. Importantly, so many patients have said that they have a sense of personal worth when they are still able—however ill they are—to contribute to those around them and to a sense of community. These amendments go to the very heart of being human—that is, the inherent creativity within people that has been forgotten for decades in the provision of health and social care.
I can see that there are difficulties in bringing this into the Bill, but we should commend the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for the sophisticated way in which he has worded some of these amendments. I hope that they can be built on as we go forward. This could save a huge amount of money for the NHS in the longer term. A huge number of side-effects of drugs could be avoided. People could be fitter. There would be fewer forms. There is a great amount of optimism behind these amendments.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, what I want to say follows on very well from what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. I want to quote Sir Michael Marmot. He said:
“We need to adopt a health and social care system which prioritises not just the treatment of illness but how it can be prevented in the first place. The pandemic has made it crystal clear … why public health and … social determinants of health are so important. The health and social care agenda must be rebalanced towards prevention.”
This is essentially what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is saying. It is not just about the treatment of illness but about preventing it happening in the first place.
I commend my own general practice in north London. In despair at the quantity of antidepressants being prescribed with very little result, it took to organising community groups to do cooking, set up friendship groups and put people in contact with each other. It puts on bring and buy sales—all with people who, perhaps, in the past, might just have been prescribed antidepressants.
I want to say a word about the charitable aspect—the voluntary sector—to which the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred. Charities cannot operate unless their core costs are met. My own GP practice which did this wonderful work had to go to the local authority and to the lottery to seek some funding. We have to remember that, if we want voluntary organisations to participate in these wonderful preventive services, we need to ensure that they are properly funded.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join pretty much everyone else in commending the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for tabling these amendments. I have attached my name to Amendment 67, although it could have been to any of them.
It is worth making two broad points. In her wonderful contribution on the last group, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, used the really key phrase,
“the community provided the health”.
That is what this group of amendments is talking about.
A couple of groups back, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, talked about how, if the health system is working for people with learning disabilities, it is working for everybody. If we bring in the kind of institutions, frameworks and supports that we are talking about here—if we think about stopping people getting ill and caring for ill people—we will make our communities vastly better for everybody. This is an important point to make.
Like most noble Lords, I could come up with a list as long as your arm of wonderful places I have visited. I will not, but I will mention one, which brings together three elements of this: creativity, nature and culture. The Green Backyard in Peterborough is the most wonderful space. I defy anyone to walk into it and not smile. It has amazing, colourful, moving sculptures powered by water, with food growing—amazing salads filled with flowers. When I visited, I spoke to the carer of another visitor. This visitor had very profound disabilities—she was blind and non-verbal—but her carer said, “I’ve never seen anything like it. After the first time we came to visit, the next Monday, which she knew was the day we visited, she was all packed up, dressed and ready to go out.” This was obviously catering to someone’s needs absolutely brilliantly, but it nearly got bulldozed and turned into a block of flats a few years ago. Luckily, it was saved, but that is the situation we so often find ourselves in.
I also want to mention Amendment 90, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. The noble Lord, Lord Best, has already said a great deal on this, so I will seek to add just a couple of small points—well, one small point and one quite big one. There is something called the lifetime homes standard, which I learned about when I visited Derwenthorpe in York with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The thing I remember about it, because it was so simple and obvious, was that the two-storey houses there had all been built with a space between the joists so that, if you needed to put a lift in up to the first floor, where the bedrooms were, it was a really simple and low-cost thing to do. It was a very simple piece of design. This will not be covered in the Health and Care Bill, but this relates to so many aspects of our society. You could say that housing is a health issue. In the first group this morning, we talked about social care and how many people cannot leave hospital and go home because their accommodation is unsuitable. We need to think all the way along the line across our society to make sure that does not happen.
Finally, I want to pick out one or two words in this amendment, which talks about housing and urban environments. I thought here of the New Ground co-housing development in north London, which is for women aged over 50. One aspect of it is looking at how people can support each other, be good neighbours and form a community that can provide support. This morning, I attended a King’s Fund briefing talking about social care and there was a great deal of talk about the need for digital innovation and technology. I tweeted, “What about social innovation?” We have to think about how we organise our societies and urban environments so that people can form those kinds of communities. If you visit any area of new housing being built around the country, there is typically precious little in it to encourage that kind of community development. The housing point is obvious, as is the environment point, but let us not lose the community and urban structure points from that amendment either.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. We have heard about all the various kinds of arts and the effect of housing. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about sport and leisure. We heard about the importance of green spaces in helping us with our physical and mental health. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly mentioned that loneliness kills. If one can address that, it affects not just one’s sense of worth and well-being, as has been said, but one’s sense of community.
Parliament is a community. It sometimes does not feel like it, because we have various groups, political parties, Members, staff and so on, but we also have a lot of all-party groups and this is significant. We have sports, arts and heritage, drama and music groups. I have been a member of the Parliament choir for 22 years and have found great solace in it—I really missed it during the pandemic.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Howarth has brought this suite of amendments in front of the Committee and is bringing the wealth of his experience to our debates on the Bill. He is a great proponent of the role and value of the non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, and quite rightly too. It would be great if, somehow or other, this could be recognised in whatever comes out of our considerations, though I challenge the Minister to tell us how we might do that.
We support the amendments in this group to establish a role for wider considerations beyond remedial, interventionist clinically-led care. Amendment 90 covers housing. The role of decent housing in good health and in tackling health inequalities cannot be overestimated. Amendment 103A would require IBCs to consult on youth health prevention and treatment through an advisory board consisting of young people. All these amendments have huge merit.
I know that we will have a wider discussion about the role of the voluntary sector and social enterprises in provision of healthcare in a later group. However, voluntary and community organisations and social enterprises have been central to the delivery of non-clinical services in healthcare and well-being, particularly during the pandemic.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, before I respond on this group, I want to apologise for the chaos that I caused at the beginning of this Bill today. I hope that noble Lords did not think I was being discourteous to the House. Luckily, next Wednesday, normal services will be resumed when my noble friend Lady Penn is in her seat.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and other noble Lords for bringing this suite of amendments before the Committee. It was interesting that several noble Lords brought up my noble friend the Minister’s band, Exiled In Brussels, which I think he is now going to rename “Exiled From Brussels”. I can say that there is a YouTube clip of the band which my noble friend said he is willing to send out to everybody, so that is something to look forward to.
On Amendment 59, I recognise the noble Lord’s concern to ensure that the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors are represented in the Bill. I understand the intention of his amendment. I certainly acknowledge the important work of these sectors and their contribution to our health system. I am sure that we all have examples of how these non-clinical services are of benefit to our health system.
However, our intention, quite rightly, is to use the Bill to set out a framework of duties for ICBs that ensures they fulfil their functions effectively while avoiding being overly prescriptive. The provision in question sets a clear requirement on ICBs to discharge their functions in a way that promotes continuous improvement in the quality of services, particularly in health outcomes.
The intention is to establish a culture of continuous improvement in everything the ICB does, but, importantly, leaving ICBs to decide how this will work for them. Setting specific parameters, as this amendment seeks to do, would in practice narrow the focus of how they may look to improve the quality of services. This may be to the detriment of taking a more holistic approach to how to improve the quality of services. That said, the current drafting of the provision would not prevent ICBs engaging providers of non-clinical services, including those mentioned in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport. Indeed, we would expect that, where appropriate, ICBs would consult with relevant stakeholders, such as those from the voluntary sector, to ensure continuous improvement.
Turning to Amendment 69, co-production, where people, family members, carers, organisations and commissioners work together as equal partners to design and deliver services, is an important principle, and one that we would expect ICBs to champion. This is reflected clearly in NHS England’s draft implementation guidance on working with people and communities, which also sets out several practical steps ICBs should consider to appropriately promote and embody co-production. This includes visibly supporting and sponsoring co-production, and supporting the adoption of co-production approaches where appropriate. I feel it is important to point out that mandating co-production in all circumstances risks narrowing the duty and may lead to other valuable methods of involvement being marginalised. Therefore, while it will often be a desirable aim that we would expect ICBs to pursue, it may not be appropriate in every case, and we want to allow ICBs and patients discretion to determine what is best in their area.
I will address Amendments 71 and 77 together. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and I appreciate the interest in including social prescribing in the Bill. On Amendment 77, I begin by assuring noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to the rollout of social prescribing in line with the NHS Long Term Plan commitment. The plan was to have 1,000 new link workers in place by 2020-21, a target which I am pleased to say has been exceeded, so that we now aim for at least 900,000 people to be able to be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24. As of September 2021, there were at least 1,582 social prescribing link workers in place. Furthermore, in relation to innovation, the Government have set up the National Academy for Social Prescribing, in line with our manifesto commitment, which has continued to support the expansion of social prescribing and promote innovation in health and well-being across all sectors.
The duty to patient choice should be considered by ICBs as part of the broader move towards more integrated, population health-management approaches. This requires embedding more personalised care models that enable patient choice and also consider non-clinical approaches, in line with the NHS Long Term Plan. This commitment is to make personalised care business as usual across the health and care system. Social prescribing and community-based support is already a core component of the NHS’s comprehensive model of personalised care. I hope I have reassured noble Lords of the progress being made and work being done on social prescribing and that they will feel able not to press these amendments.
I turn next to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which would insert a number of references to the voluntary community and social enterprise and creative and cultural sectors. This Government hugely value the contributions of the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, including creative and cultural entities, to the health and well-being of the nation, and recognise their important role in integrated care systems. However, we feel that the amendments are not necessary, as their intended effect is already possible through provisions within the Bill.
A key principle of the Bill is the legislative flexibility to empower local leaders to develop bespoke solutions to meet specific local needs. This principle is reflected in the current drafting of Clause 20. Several of these amendments would have the effect of being overly prescriptive in areas where we would already expect the VCSE sector to play a key role.
I assure noble Lords that many of these concerns will instead be addressed in guidance. NHS England and NHS Improvement have published guidance relevant to ICBs on partnerships with the voluntary community and social enterprise sector, outlining the importance of the VCSE sector as a key strategic partner in local health systems. It provides guidance on how VCSE partnerships should be embedded in how the ICBs operate. Furthermore, the guidance sets out that, soon after they are established, ICBs will be expected to develop a formal agreement for engaging and embedding the VCSE sector in system-level governance and decision-making arrangements.
I turn to related Amendment 80. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has a special interest in this issue, and I listened with interest to his speech at Second Reading on the work of the National Centre for Creative Health, which he chairs. Research is very important, and I am pleased to say that the department funds research in this area through the National Institute for Health Research. The NIHR funds and supports a range of research conducted by multidisciplinary researchers from diverse fields, including social sciences, behavioural sciences and the humanities. For example, the MODEM project, jointly funded by the NIHR and UKRI, reviewed evidence on music therapy and identified that a structured programme of music therapy given by a trained therapist can reduce agitation among people with dementia—which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, mentioned in her speech.
We do not consider it appropriate or necessary to specify particular research areas in primary legislation. In addition, we expect that ICBs will already promote a range of research, including those on non-medical interventions, and the noble Lord already cited in his Second Reading speech where this has been done by existing integrated care systems.
On Amendment 82, the Government place the utmost value on supporting the health and well-being of NHS staff. We are taking a range of actions to ensure that this remains a priority across the health and care system, and we do not believe that a legislative duty is needed in this area. Over the past two years we have seen as never before the intense pressures on the workforce, and we recognised at an early stage the toll that this may place on the mental health and well-being of health and care staff, with a clear need to prioritise enhanced well-being and mental health support for all NHS and social care staff. We all know that the whole country owes these staff an immense debt of gratitude.
At a national, strategic level, the People Plan, published in July 2020, puts NHS staff health and well-being at its core and ensures that all NHS staff have access to a comprehensive psychological and emotional support package. This includes a dedicated support line that is available for staff 24/7, and free access to mental health and well-being apps. Alongside this, 40 dedicated mental health hubs have been established and are accepting referrals across the country to proactively identify at-risk people and groups and focus on staff with more complex needs, ensuring that they receive rapid access to evidence-based mental health services. To ensure that this offer continues to improve staff mental health throughout 2021-22, an additional £37 million has been invested in 2021-22, building on the £15 million in 2020-21. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, will accept that this work is worth while and important and will continue without the need for legislative amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would just like to go back to some of the earlier amendments and some of the words she used. She said this is included in the guidance on using social prescribing, and that it is expected that ICBs will work with local social enterprises, et cetera. I want to ask a question. If we were talking about NICE-recommended medical treatments or the best possible surgical procedures, would we be saying that it is expected that ICBs will do this as it is included in the guidance? This picks up on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, was saying that this still seems to be somewhere in the second class, and it should be up there in the first class, treated in the same way as a medical treatment or a medical device.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Well, I think it is, actually. We all realise how important it is. Social prescribing is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care. It is a way for GPs or local agencies to refer people to a link worker. Link workers give people time to focus on what matters and take a holistic approach to people’s health and well-being. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support.
For instance, a man had bad bronchitis and asthma and was continually going to the doctor and costing the NHS a great deal of money; and it was agreed that a humidifier would be prescribed to him for his house at £800, and that has been a huge success, with the result that he has not gone to the GP once for a whole year. I think social prescribing can work well for those who are socially isolated, whose well-being is impacted by non-medical issues and who routinely present to primary or secondary care as a result. We certainly are taking it seriously.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the considerable number of noble Lords who have taken part in this reflective, interesting and important debate. I am most encouraged by the appreciation that has been expressed all around the House for the importance of the considerations that I have sought to advance in this suite of amendments.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her opening speech, which very much set the tone of the subsequent debate, and for sharing with us her memories of Google on a winter’s night. She made a particularly important point about evidence that is developing to demonstrate, for example, that the practice of mindfulness has benign effects on brain development. That is profoundly important for health. This needs to be understood and taken seriously by those who fund research and those who are pioneering practice within the NHS.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, may remember, as I do fondly, that, many years ago—I mention this particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—he showed me the Lifetime Homes project that he led when he was in charge of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in York. He has been an advocate of the importance of well-designed housing for a long time and is a voice that is hugely respected on this, as on so many other subjects, in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley raised the important point that yes, we have come a long way and these ideas are no longer seen as eccentric, but, at the same time, unless policy is much more clearly enunciated and embedded, little, if anything, will really change. That is a question that the Minister did not adequately address, but I shall come back to it in a moment.
I was also grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the emphasis that she rightly gave to the contribution that the arts, creativity and other non-clinical services can make to the well-being of people in social care. I should mention that the charity Live Music Now, founded many years ago by Lord Yehudi Menuhin, has been supporting young professional musicians to perform in social care settings for many decades. That is hugely appreciated and beneficial. If his efforts were supplemented by those of the mother of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—indeed, by the noble Baroness herself—so much the better.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has thought more deeply about these matters than almost anyone else I know. Along with other noble Lords, he is a valued participant in the work of the All-Party Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing. I commend to noble Lords a recent and beautiful article written by him in Prospect magazine, entitled, “What Aristotle can teach us about building a better society”. In it he writes so wisely and so well about health and human flourishing. As he will be aware, I am indebted to him for some of the language I used in my opening speech.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley made a crucial point about how essential it is that funding is provided to cover the core costs of the voluntary and charitable organisations upon which we so largely depend for the delivery of non-clinical services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, gave us the stark warning: loneliness kills. I very much appreciate her deep understanding and acceptance of the propositions that I and others have been making around creative health, and the support that she gave us in the creative health project.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made a particularly important, specific and practical recommendation that people should be referred for music therapy or other kinds of creative health interventions at the onset of symptoms of dementia without having to wait for perhaps many months for a formal diagnosis.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, who was, after all, a nurse, personally appreciates the significance and value of what we have been talking about, even if she was briefed to bat away these amendments. She sweetened the pill by promising us a viewing of the YouTube clip of the Minister’s band.
I understand why the noble Baroness contended that the Bill should not be overly prescriptive, but, if that is so, I wonder how she answers the crucial question posed by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley: if we do not embed these duties—I would contend they are legislative duties—and responsibilities in the formal arrangements of the system, how are we going to get the step change and scaling up? How are we going to get the decisive shift in the culture to make non-clinical approaches truly integral to the practice of health and social care?
I was surprised when the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, advised us that these amendments could have the perverse effect of militating against a holistic approach, but she gave encouragement in what she said about the VCSE sector, in the willingness of the National Institute for Health Research to provide funding and in the thoughtful, extended observation she made about staff needs and the importance of housing. She said that housing is a local authority responsibility. Yes, that is technically true, but that is exactly the problem we debated earlier this afternoon, on which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath energetically put forward his thoughts, supported by many other noble Lords. If the Bill continues to demarcate the responsibilities of the NHS and local government in the way it so far does, it will fail to achieve integration in very important respects—and surely we do not want that sort of failure.
It is precisely because of the pressures of Covid and of the backlog, which will make huge demands on NHS resources, thinking and energy for a very long time to come, that it is all the more important that we should enact into law a duty on ICBs continually, from the moment of their formal inception and sustained through the years to come, to operate strategies for the prevention of ill health and the positive creation of a healthy society, working in a multitude of ways with the populations they serve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and give notice that I do not wish to move any of the other amendments in this group.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 24th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (24 Jan 2022)
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, before we formally move into Committee on the Health and Care Bill, I will raise a matter of general importance about the parliamentary process upon which we are embarked and seek guidance from the Government about a serious matter which is of immediate concern in the parliamentary process we are currently undertaking. I have no wish to delay proceedings so I will get to the point.
In August, the Government and NHS England issued a Readiness to Operate Statement guidance and checklist to all the relevant parts of the NHS concerning planning for the forthcoming legislation. On 19 January this was updated concerning the ICB establishment timeline, regarding the implementation date for the legislation moving from April to July. The words “subject to parliamentary process” may have been included in the guidance but the actions which flow from the NHS England guidance are contrary to those words. For example, it seems that the latest advice from the Government and NHS England confirms deadlines for appointments of leaders, chairs and boards, many of whom have been appointed, possibly involving the spending of public funds, long before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, there are many other matters which are still subject to parliamentary process. This is pre-emption of parliamentary process.
The issues in the guidance are at the forefront of the Committee’s deliberations and it is possible that much may have changed before the Bill receives Royal Assent. Our scrutiny in your Lordships’ House is important, not least because both the Constitution Committee and the DPRRC have been highly critical of the Bill and the department. They have stressed the importance of the Bill receiving sufficient scrutiny, since it did not have pre-legislative scrutiny and is significant “disguised legislation”, including more than 60 delegated powers and directions which have no parliamentary process at all.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the rules governing preparation for the enactment of legislation. After Second Reading of a Bill, some work may be undertaken, but guidance from Her Majesty’s Treasury in May 2021 is very clear what actions can and cannot be taken. Box A2, point 4C, refers to:
“Expenditure which may not normally be incurred before royal assent.”
First, there is,
“significant work associated with preparing for or implementing the new task enabled by a Bill, eg renting offices, hiring expert consultants or designing or purchasing significant IT equipment”.
Secondly, there is,
“recruitment of chief executives and board members of a new public sector organisation”.
Thirdly, there is,
“recruitment of staff for a new public sector organisation”.
We understand that NHS England was advised by others not to issue this guidance. Will the Government confirm that: first, the legitimate role of this House in the scrutiny of legislation should be made clear to NHS England; secondly, the current guidance will be withdrawn and it will be made clear to NHS England that further action must await the completion of the Bill and Royal Assent; thirdly, it will be made clear that aspects of the changes within scope of the Bill can and may well be amended; fourthly, that adequate time will be allowed for proper scrutiny of the Bill? I shall be referring the guidance to the two said committees. If the Minister is unable to provide a response today, please can he confirm that he will respond in writing by the end of the week; otherwise, we will need to raise this again in your Lordships’ House?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness for giving me advance notice of her intervention today. It clearly reflects the mood and concerns of the House that we heard last week. We recognise the strength of the House’s feeling on this matter. I have spoken to my department, and it told me that it is meeting NHS England this week to discuss this matter, and I will update the House accordingly. On the request that the noble Baroness made, I commit to write to her.
Lord Warner
“(2) Where patients are unable to secure treatment in an NHS facility after waiting 3 months, they may choose to seek treatment, including diagnostic treatment, from a registered private service provider at NHS prices.(3) Providers of services under subsection (2) must provide NHS England with the information NHS England considers necessary to enable it to conduct and publish a national annual survey on the extent to which patients have been offered a choice of provider.”
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, the first part of this amendment links the issue of patient choice to tackling the serious problem of huge NHS waiting lists. We cannot have a meaningful policy of patient choice in the area of elective treatment without sufficient NHS capacity. Many parts of the NHS lack that capacity and will do so for a long time to come unless they draw on independent sector capacity or spare capacity in other parts of the NHS. In short, the NHS must accept a degree of competition in the area of elective diagnosis and treatment if it is to reduce huge backlogs. That extra capacity and choice was being put in place at NHS prices 15 years ago, when at least half the country had that choice. Since then, the situation has deteriorated, but that is the direction of travel that we need to return to now if we are serious about removing patients from the huge NHS waiting lists.
The evidence for the seriousness of the situation that the NHS faces was set out in a National Audit Office report published in early December 2021. It revealed that 6 million people in England are on waiting lists for elective care, with 300,000 of them waiting over a year. The NAO also estimated that, between March 2020 and September 2021, there were between 7.6 million and 9.1 million fewer referrals for elective care. It is unclear whether or when these “missing people” will seek NHS treatment. However, if half of the missing referrals for elective care do return, and assuming that NHS activity improves by 10% more than its pre-pandemic levels, which is what the Government are expecting for the extra £8 billion that they are investing by 2025, the NAO considers that there will still be 7 million people left on the waiting lists in 2025.
So, can the Minister tell me whether the Government accept the NAO’s analysis and calculations? How much elective capacity—NHS or independent sector—will the Government fund in the next two financial years to reduce elective care waiting lists? Are there any plans to encourage patients to choose other NHS hospitals or private hospitals instead of waiting for their local hospitals to get around to treating them? If he cannot answer these three questions today, I should be grateful if he would write to me with answers, as a matter of some urgency.
Before I turn to the second part of my amendment, can the Minister clarify the significance of the front-page story in the Times of Tuesday 18 January, which might have a bearing on my amendment and the Bill more generally? This headline read, “Javid plans NHS revolution modelled on academy schools”. As a former Blair Health Minister, I commend the Secretary of State for moving in this direction, but how can such a move be compatible with the current Bill? If the Times article is accurate, it would seem to have implications for the new provider selection regime provided for in the Bill. However, I am reliably informed that the draft regulations governing the new regime have yet to be published.
So are these regulations being held up because the Secretary of State is changing his policy? Certainly, I know—the matter has been impressed on me—that independent sector providers are unclear about the arrangements for providers to appeal against ICS decisions that are at odds with the regulations. I am assuming of course that ICS will not be allowed to mark its own homework, but can the Minister clarify when there will be a public sighting of the draft regulations? Again, if he cannot say today, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
Finally, I turn to the right of patients to choose where they receive care. I will not go over the period 15 years ago when a lot of progress was made on the reality of patient choice, but I will mention some King’s Fund research in 2011 which drew attention to a significant barrier to exercising that right. That barrier was NHS staff. If patients are not informed of their choices and are discouraged from exercising them, they will go on forlornly waiting for their local hospital to get around to treating them. Rights can be enforced only if there is information available. This is the purpose of the second part of Amendment 72. My information is that not since 2015 has NHS England published an official annual survey of whether patients have been offered a choice of provider when receiving treatment. That is why we need a statutory provision that provides for the regular measurement and public reporting of patients’ experience in whether they have been offered choices about their care.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 109 and 226 in this group, both of which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I will address them from the perspective of people with diabetes and with the support of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and Diabetes UK.
It is just over 100 years since insulin was discovered. Before 1921, a type 1 diabetic would live for no more than a year or two from when the condition became discernible. In the 1920s, my father, a World War I veteran, developed diabetes, and he was very fortunate that this was the decade in which insulin was discovered. It was so successful that it enabled him to have a long and happy life—indeed, I was born when he was 71, and my younger brother was born when he was 73.
Much progress has been made in the treatment of diabetes over the last 100 years, but we are not making the most of technological developments relating to insulin use and diabetes management. I have struggled with these issues myself, and I have learned much about them since I became dependent on insulin in 1994. I personally have enormous reason to be grateful to the diabetic team at St Thomas’ Hospital, just over the river from us, but not everyone with diabetes gets that standard of care, and progress with the adoption of the most recent technology is simply too slow.
There have been great developments in wearable medical technology, such as insulin pumps, flash glucose monitoring and continuous glucose monitoring. We are making progress with such innovations and in NICE’s obtaining approval for them, but they are often not widely accessible. Access to technology, including linking a person’s insulin pump and a continuous glucose monitor, may help a person to self-manage their condition in the absence of routine NHS support. The long-term cost savings are demonstrated by the wider use of such technology in insurance-based systems, where the outlay must be justified by reducing the costs of later complications, which can be very considerable.
Diabetes probably now takes up 10% of the NHS budget, and 80% of the cost of diabetes relates to complications, with the largest costs arising from excess in-patient days, cardiovascular disease and damaged kidneys and nerves. The latest technology may enable parents of young people with type 1 diabetes to obtain a full night’s sleeping soundly, knowing that their child’s glucose monitor will issue an alarm and wake them up if they experience a severe high or low-glucose episode. New technology has been shown to support blood glucose stability and to lower average blood sugar levels, reducing potential health complications and hypos or hypers, which can lead to coma or even death if not treated. There are great benefits to physical and mental health from better long-term control of blood sugar levels.
Research by JDRF shows that barriers to the uptake of this technology include the fact that many clinicians are not trained in it and that the pressure on appointments means that there is often not time to discuss treatment options. Amendment 109 would require NHS England’s oversight framework for integrated care systems to include a metric on the percentage of diabetes patients in their area accessing diabetes technology. An embedded requirement that would better support the prescription of technology would incentivise better training for clinicians and encourage more time to be provided in appointments to discuss technological treatment options and any potential fears or concerns of the patient.
Amendment 226 concerns the promotion of self-management using the latest technologies. We need it in order to reduce the number of people with diabetes suffering from complications, which may include sight loss and problems with their feet, presently resulting in around 6,000 amputations per year. When in hospital, people with type 1 diabetes require five times more secondary care support than people without diabetes, so it is essential that the NHS invests in technology that can significantly reduce the instances of hospitalisation and adverse health outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thought those were very interesting and helpful remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. They serve to remind us of the importance of self-management in securing the best possible outcomes for patients. I just add the thought that, when the Government promulgate regulations relating to patient choice, one of the things we want to include is shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. In my observed experience, that too can deliver better outcomes. I think we have made significant progress in recent years in encouraging shared decision-making, and I hope we will see that come forward.
In moving Amendment 72, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, touched on a range of issues. I will not go down one or two paths, but I highlight that we will need to think hard about the interconnections between the question of patient choice and how far patients continue to be given choice. We need to ensure that it is not just talked about in the constitution or in regulations that say it is generally a good thing. For choice to happen in practice, subsequent clauses in the Bill relating to procurement, such as Clause 70, need to enable a choice of providers. The noble Lord made that perfectly clear.
The clause relating to payment systems—Clause 68, if my memory serves me correctly—still needs to have a “money follows the patient” approach. It is not me saying that these are all good things; they were put in place by the Blair Government, not the coalition Government, who did not do away with them but entrenched them.
I am worried. I will just make this point about Clause 70, the effect of which is to repeal Section 75 of the 2012 legislation. Included within that was that one of the requirements of the procurement regulations would be to support the right to patient choice, and the Government are proposing to repeal that.
The Minister may well, perfectly correctly, say, “That may be so, but we have the power in this Bill to set regulations relating to patient choice”, but this is separate, and, in the event, we may find that the link is broken between procurement and payment and patient choice. The net effect would be that patient choice is vitiated. I am worried, for exactly the reasons that I think the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is worried, that what has been around for some 18 years in one form or another—the expectations on the part of patients that they can exercise choice—may not be able to be exercised in practice because the preference of the NHS in many of these localities is to operate as a monopoly and not to give any opportunities for that choice actually to function.
Our debate on this group would be far better and easier to have—and might not even be needed—if the Government published the regulations under Clause 68 in draft so that we can see what they are proposing to do. They have not done it; between now and Report they could do it. When we get to Report, we are going to have a very difficult—certainly from my own personal point of view—set of conversations about how patient choice is to be exercised, how the NHS is to get best value from its procurement, and how trusts and providers are to be paid appropriately, rather than simply go back to block budgets. How do we get out of that debate? The answer is: let us see what the regulations the Government are proposing—in this case relating to patient choice—actually look like, and let us see it before Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 109 and 226, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I also have my own Amendment 204, which I will not move or speak to, because we dealt with Healthwatch in a debate which seems a long time ago but was only two Committee sittings ago.
I refer to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Lansley. It seems to me that behind this is the hard issue we face that the huge increase in the number of people waiting will, I am afraid, take us back to the very bad old days of the perverse incentives existing within the NHS for patients to be encouraged to go for private care because of the length of the waiting list and waiting times. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, will recall that under the Blair Government, as part of our attack on waiting times, we had to tackle this issue of certain consultants—I suppose I should declare my interest as a member of the GMC board, though I am certainly not speaking on its behalf—and certain perverse incentives for patients to be encouraged to go to the private sector. Of course, much maligned though they were, that was why independent sector treatment centres were set up, and they were part of the process of driving waiting times down. We now have a huge problem of huge waiting times and a huge number of waiting lists, and we have to be very careful to ensure that these kinds of perverse incentives do not come back into the health service.
Lord Warner (CB)
Does the noble Lord recall that, when independent sector treatment centres were established, they operated on the basis of NHS prices, so people were getting NHS treatment in these independent sector treatment centres at the same price that the NHS would have had to pay for that treatment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very important intervention, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for jogging my memory. I think that he would agree, though, that apart from the price, the point was that it was an important element in getting waiting times and waiting lists down. At the moment, we are clueless about how the Government are going to do this. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, we will have a debate—I hope tonight—in relation to procurement, but I say to the Government that the open-ended nature of the regulation-making power that they propose to give to Ministers in such an important area is utterly unacceptable and has been drawn to the House’s attention by both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, as the noble Lord knows.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate. I have two issues to raise. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for having raised perverse incentives and, indeed, the danger with perverse incentives that senior consultants with a great deal of experience could be absent from NHS premises when undertaking work such as surgery in other premises; they would therefore not be available to their NHS patients in the event of a problem and some surgery being left to more junior members of staff.
The other issue is the difficulty of ensuring true consent and information for patients when they are offered choice, with respect to their awareness of the staffing levels in the premises to which they will be going. In some of the private providers, there is not very comprehensive out-of-hours medical cover—particularly at night—with somebody on site. There is also a problem that, if a patient should develop a complication, foreseen or even unforeseen, and is in need of an intervention, they may then need to be transferred to a local NHS intensive care unit. In that event, it would be important for the money to follow the patient. If that intensive care unit is out of the area from which the patient has come, I hope that the regulations will allow for appropriate funding of that NHS facility.
Lord Warner (CB)
Is the noble Baroness aware that, during the arrangements in which there were contracts with the independent sector to provide elective surgery in independent treatment centres, the quality of that care was both reviewed by the then Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, and looked at, with evidence taken, by the Health Select Committee? They found that claims about shortcomings in these private facilities were exaggerated—their provision of services was equally as good as that of the NHS facilities.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall briefly support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, with a personal anecdote. When I recently needed an MRI scan on my neck, the doctor said, “Well, of course, you can have it done quite quickly if you go private.” She then added, “In case you are worried about doing that, it takes the pressure off of the health service.” The point made by the noble Lord and noble Baroness is exactly that it does not take the pressure off the health service; for the previous few weeks, these doctors have been working for the National Health Service. I hope that the Government will take this on board and will not start using the argument that going private takes the pressure off the health service.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Following on from that, one point that we should take into account is the extent to which the private sector and the NHS rely on the same workforce. That is particularly the case in relation to consultants and less so for nurses.
While we can argue about the location, price or quality, perhaps, of treatment and aftercare, the key issue is diagnostics, which is a huge issue at the moment in the NHS. I have a slightly different take on that. For all of my life, my mum was deaf, and I have to say that the quality of NHS hearing aids was about 10 years behind the private sector’s—but people trusted them; they trusted the quality of the diagnostics and the advice that they were given. We have moved a long way in terms of diagnostics for eyecare and hearing aids, but it does not matter where that happens; what the general public want to do is to be able to trust the quality and independence of the diagnostics that they get. If we can do that, I rather suspect that the general public, in the wake of the pandemic, when they see the NHS struggling in all sorts of ways to make up for two years in which their staff have been pulled around, sometimes away from their specialties, would be quite forgiving—as long as there are some very basic agreements about how it will work and the integrity of the work and systems.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for adding some clarification to the point that I was trying to make. I am not for or against any system; all I am saying is that the arrangements have to be in place so that nobody is jeopardised—and indeed, in the event of a patient being transferred from a private facility back into the NHS, that part of the NHS is appropriately recompensed, particularly if the patient comes from a long way away.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is suggesting a possible solution is the result of long-term underplanning and underfunding of staffing in the NHS, and underfunding also of the capital budgets of hospitals, which sometimes have to choose between mending the roof and buying a piece of equipment that would get patients through the system more effectively and efficiently.
On the comments from my noble friend Lord Rennard on self-management, it is of course not just better care that that produces—it is also very cost effective. I draw noble Lords’ attention to page 3 of the Bill, line 13, where one of the three things to which NHS England has to pay regard about the wider effects of its decisions is
“efficiency and sustainability in relation to the use of resources”.
The resources are much better and more efficiently used if the patient has a decent choice of the equipment and treatment that is most effective for them, and it is often a great deal cheaper.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that we need the guidance. We need to see it before Report, and I hope that the Minister will be able to provide that.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments stress the importance of patient choice in health management, especially of their long-term health conditions, and I welcome and endorse what noble Lords have said on these key issues. The vital importance of patient choice and their right to be able to make informed decisions about their conditions and treatment, and to receive treatment within the 18-week standard waiting time set out in the NHS mandate, was pioneered by Labour and continues to be fully supported by these Benches, as I stressed last week in the group of amendments on the mandate and the NHS constitution.
The noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lord Hunt have spoken about the importance of active self-management, where clinically suitable, for patients with conditions such as diabetes. Access to the latest technologies varies greatly across the country, and the call in Amendment 109 to ensure that the oversight framework for ICSs includes systems for measuring the numbers of diabetes patients accessing diabetes technology would help achieve greater consistency and better use by patients who could benefit from it, particularly in helping to keep them out of hospital or to prevent their conditions deteriorating.
As vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, I know that patients with rare diseases often do not feel sufficiently supported in terms of psychological support, health systems and information, physical and daily living, patient care and support, and sexuality needs. As they are often having to live with their conditions long term, they have considerable potential to be more expert in their conditions than many of the healthcare professionals they come into contact with, many of whom may not be familiar with their disease or condition. With appropriate support, therefore, such patients can manage their less intensive care needs themselves, delivering better health outcomes and reducing demands on the NHS. Efforts to promote the self-care of people with health conditions, as set out in Amendment 226, really have the potential to improve the care of people with rare diseases.
Amendment 72—moved with his usual expertise and clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—reinforces the importance of patient choice and is highly relevant because of the growing and record waiting list that we spoke about last week during the debate on the mandate and constitution. Of course, Labour in the past has used the private sector as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce waiting times, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out. He will also know that in reality the role played by private providers, and the costs involved in getting the waiting lists down to the 2010 levels before this Government took office, particularly for elective surgery such as hip and knee replacements, were modest compared with the huge investment in the NHS itself and Labour’s genuine commitment to public service solutions, increased investment, the use of targets and improvements in pathways and other efficiencies. As a result, the private sector relied more heavily on getting business from the NHS on NHS terms, not actually treating private fee-paying patients.
In sharp contrast, we have the complete absence of such a comprehensive or coherent plan from the Government to reduce the now-record waiting lists, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, set out in moving his amendment. The Secretary of State has acknowledged that waiting lists could grow to 13 million, with the National Audit Office now predicting that the situation could get even worse than it currently is by March 2025. The Secretary of State promised in November to publish how the Government plan to meet the workforce requirements needed to address staff shortages—to which noble Lords have also referred to during the debate—and the record waiting lists, but we still have not had any sight of this.
So far, all we have had instead are last week’s press reports of the huge sums of money the Government want to hand over to the private sector, including disturbing reports of NHS England’s unease at the Secretary of State’s instructions to hand over £270 million to the private sector with no guarantees on numbers of patients to be treated or, indeed, whether any NHS patients will even get treatment. Our shadow Secretary of State, Wes Streeting, has made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would fully expect again to use the private sector to help bring down waiting times for treatment, but as part of a comprehensive plan to build and the support the NHS so that people do not have to go private because waiting lists are at record levels and they are suffering and in pain. People who cannot afford it always have to wait and remain in pain. That is not social justice and it is just not right.
We support the principle in this amendment. If long waits can be prevented, they should be, although there is a serious question about whether the private sector would in any event actually have the capacity to meet the demand that could be generated by the three-month stipulation for treatment in the amendment. We also agree that the Clause 68 regulations need to be published as soon as possible and I look forward to the Minister telling us more about that. By contrast, a far better solution, as Labour has always advocated, would be to invest in the NHS, help the NHS become more effective and efficient and build capacity so there would be far less need for private sector care.
Finally, the amendment’s requirement to ensure that private sector providers have a duty to provide NHS England with annual information on the services funded by the NHS and on patient choice would be a welcome development, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, set out. The more that is known about the use of private providers, the better and more informed the discussion about their role will become. I look forward to the Minister’ response.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I shall start by addressing Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The Government are wholeheartedly committed to addressing the backlog of hospital treatment, much of which, as we are all aware, has resulted from the unprecedented efforts that our country and our health system have taken to combat the Covid-19 pandemic. This includes continuing to work closely with independent sector providers of acute care to provide the capacity to deliver more treatments and to reduce waiting times. I shall explain that a bit further. As of 10 January, NHS England has entered into national arrangements with 10 independent sector providers, to meet the needs of their patients and to reduce waiting times for treatment. This will also allow a wider range of patients to be treated in the independent sector, such as those needing some forms of cancer surgery and other treatments not normally delivered under existing arrangements.
The Government will continue to monitor this collaboration and work closely with the NHS and the independent sector to ensure that patients receive the best possible treatment and care. I welcomed the shadow Secretary of State’s comments on the use of private providers in recent weeks, supporting the use of the private sector where necessary to address the backlog.
We do not, however, believe that the amendment as written offers the right approach to effectively support collaboration between these parts of our health system at this time. The system already has arrangements between the NHS and the independent sector to address specific needs and to target areas where the greatest benefit can be gained. In addition, in most cases, patients already have the legal right to ask for their appointment to be moved to a private sector provider if they are likely to wait longer than the maximum waiting time specified for their treatment. This includes where patients have to wait more than 18 weeks before starting treatment for a physical or mental health condition, or more than two weeks before seeing a specialist for suspected cancer, with some specified exceptions. This does not limit patients to a private provider, as the amendment would, but allows them to choose from a range of providers. Currently, patients waiting for treatment are prioritised by the NHS so that those in the greatest need are treated first, when their clinical urgency and the length of time they have been waiting for treatment has been reviewed.
At present the NHS captures information on patient choice, which includes the use of e-RS at referral, where NHS England can see the number and nature of choices offered to patients. There is also a national e-RS pop-up survey for patients, which provides data on patient choice; information on choice offered to waiting list patients is also recorded.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, wanted to know about the timing of the publication of the regulations on patient choice. That will be the same as for the provider selection regime regulations: as close to July as possible, subject to parliamentary passage.
The noble Lord also asked about work on the elective recovery plan. The Government have announced that we will spend £2 billion this year through the elective recovery fund to tackle the elective backlog, as part of the biggest catch-up programme in the NHS’s history. This will continue with £8 billion in the following three years, from 2022-23 to 2024-25, and a further £5.9 billion was announced in the October 2021 spending review to support elective recovery diagnostics and technology.
The independent sector is bolstering NHS capacity in a wider range of areas—MRI scans, providing cancer diagnosis and treatment, treating women with gynaecological health issues, and much more. Thousands of patients are receiving tests and treatments for a wide range of conditions, thanks to the arrangements in place in the NHS and the continued strong partnership with the independent sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, also wanted to know about the story in the Times on academisation of hospitals. Significant NHS reform is already under way through this Bill, our plans for integration, the health and care levy, and our upcoming electives plan. No further plans have been agreed. High-quality hospitals will always have a central role in our health and care system, and the Bill will ensure that they do so in a way that supports integrated and patient-centred care.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that he did not want to move Amendment 204, so I will not speak to that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for bringing Amendment 226 before the Committee today. Supportive self-management is part of the NHS long-term plan commitment to make personalised care the norm. However, we do not believe that having an additional duty on NHS England, as proposed by this amendment, would further support this work. Indeed, having a stand-alone duty of this kind could make the work more disjointed, rather than complementing the existing holistic approaches to personalised care, which aim to empower individuals to live well with their conditions. The department is working with NHS Digital and NHS England and NHS Improvement to encourage innovative new approaches and organisations to support services and to collaborate in an effective way with the NHS.
Amendment 109 deals with the access to innovation technology among diabetes patients, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for bringing it before the Committee today. He is a much-valued contributor to all debates on this subject, and we learn something new ourselves every time he speaks on it. We have existing tools at our disposal to monitor the use of innovations. This includes NHS Digital’s innovation scorecard and the AAC scorecard. We are committed to further strengthening these innovation metrics and to improve our understanding regarding the use of innovations in the NHS.
This amendment seeks to add a new subsection to new Section 14Z49, which would create a requirement for guidance published by NHS England for ICBs to include performance metrics on the uptake of innovative technologies among diabetes patients. I understand that the amendment would seek to set specific requirements for the system oversight framework for ICBs in respect of diabetic patients. However, this could risk creating a confused system of reporting requirements, which I am sure we are all keen to avoid.
The amendment would also cut directly across the existing mechanism for setting priorities, by which the priorities set by the Government for NHS England, and in turn by NHS England for the system, are translated into reporting requirements—this flows from ICBs to NHS England and to Parliament. However, I hope I can give the noble Lord some reassurance that the Government take the issue of diabetes very seriously. I assure him that we will continue to hold NHS England to account for the performance of the system against those metrics, as I am sure your Lordships’ House will hold Ministers to account.
I hope this has been a helpful debate, and I will make sure that we get letters to explain any questions I have not fully answered from the noble Lord, Lord Warner. With that, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, this has been a helpful short debate, and I am particularly grateful to noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for their contributions and for opening this subject up a little.
The purpose of my wording of this amendment—I did not think it was a perfect piece of parliamentary drafting—was mainly to flush out what the Government are going to do on patient choice and provider regimes. We have an answer on the latter. We will not know what is in the provider selection regime regulations until after Parliament has passed this legislation. That does not seem to me to be a particularly satisfactory position to be in, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. So, I strongly encourage the Government to get on to the Department of Health and Social Care officials and speed the process up. Even if they are only draft regulations, they should be made available to your Lordships so that we can see what the Government’s practical intentions are.
I will not go into a defence of the private sector—I do not particularly want to do so—but, in the past, when it has been bought in on NHS contracts, it has brought more professionals to the party. Part of the original contracts for ISTCs made it clear that the private sector could not swipe NHS consultants; it had to find its own staff, who were not working in the NHS, to deliver on those contracts. So, they added to the capacity. I remind Members of this House that the thing about diagnostics, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, rightly raised, is that you can use the spare capacity in the private sector at marginal cost, so that you are not paying the full cost you would normally have to pay. So, there are some advantages there, if a Government know what they are doing in their contracting.
Finally, I was not satisfied with the noble Baroness’s answers both in relation to the NAO report and more generally. It is very easy to give me and the House figures for expenditure. I was asking how many patients will actually benefit, because the currency for waiting lists is patient numbers. We want to know how many people will be taken off those waiting lists as a result of the Government’s expenditure—that is the issue I was looking for some enlightenment on.
The background to this is: will I go further on Report? The answer is: I look forward to hearing what the Government say between now and then, but, at the moment, my inclination is to come back and test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“14Z39A Duty to review latest innovations with a view to local commissioning (1) Integrated care boards must review all new—(a) medicines,(b) medical devices, and(c) other health care solutions that may benefit the local population.(2) Integrated care boards must—(a) appoint a dedicated innovation officer to their board, and(b) develop and maintain a system to keep up to date with medicines and devices innovation and review suitability for patient usage, including engagement with the relevant—(i) academic health science network, and(ii) local pharmaceutical committee.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mandate ICBs to monitor and assess innovation for the benefit of the local population.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have four amendments in this group; I will speak to each in turn and look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, says on his two amendments.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, for supporting Amendment 78. It looks at innovation, recognising that it is an ongoing iterative process that every ICB should be aware of to ensure that patients have access to the most efficient and effective healthcare solutions of the day. To that end, is purpose is to oblige integrated care boards to formalise the obligations of the board to horizon-scan for the latest innovations, as approved by regulatory bodies, to cover their population.
This new clause would require the appointment of an “innovation officer”, or potentially identifying an officer to take up that role, and place an obligation on the board to constantly review innovative medicines and devices, as they become available. This is a separate and additional duty to that to promote research.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow and to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I will cover some of the same ground in my remarks.
I start by declaring my interests as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities and of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. The alliance campaigns on behalf of those 3.5 million of us who have rare or complex conditions. The members of the AMRC spend around £1.7 billion a year on medical research, mostly through universities in the United Kingdom. That is more than is spent by the Government via either the Medical Research Council or the National Institute for Health Research.
I will speak to Amendments 79 and 196 in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood. It is a privilege to have the support of such extremely distinguished and expert Members, and I am very grateful to them. The amendments also have the support of much of the medical research sector. Both amendments concern research within the NHS. This subject is a long-standing preoccupation of the medical research community, the NHS and the Government.
As long ago as 2011, the Academy of Medical Sciences published an influential paper setting out some key findings, prominent among which was the difficulty in attaining NHS permissions for research. In fact, this was identified as the single greatest barrier to health research. In 2017, the NHS and NIHR published a joint paper called 12 Actions to Support and Apply Research in the NHS. The NHS Long Term Plan, published in 2019, was generally received positively but actually had little to say about research. As your Lordships would expect, the NIHR did have something to say about research in its work of March last year, “Embedding a Research Culture”, which rehearsed the benefits of a research-intensive NHS. Three of the main actions called for were:
“Improving visibility and making research matter to the NHS … Making research more diverse and more relevant to the whole UK … Strengthening public, patient and service user involvement in research.”
These are obviously very important goals, but setting them out as clearly as the NIHR does makes it clear that the NHS’s performance in this vital area really does need improvement.
Also in March last year, the Government published a ministerial paper focused entirely on the delivery of UK clinical research. The paper set out the value of clinical research and our world-leading position. It made the assertion that
“research is the single most important way in which we improve our healthcare—by identifying new means to prevent, diagnose and treat disease.”
It concluded that that meant
“embedding clinical research at the heart of patient care and the NHS, making participation as easy as possible and ensuring all health and care staff feel empowered to support research.”
I strongly agree with both these assessments, and I am very glad to see them as firm policy goals. I welcome the clear and directive language and the signals of intent, which is why I was extremely disappointed to see such a very weak obligation as regards research in the Bill.
New Section 14Z40, inserted by Clause 20 on page 17, sets out what it describes as a duty in respect of research for ICBs. It simply says:
“Each integrated care board must, in the exercise of its functions, promote— (a) research on matters relevant to the health service, and (b) the use in the health service of evidence obtained from research.”
This is essentially the same kind of duty as imposed by the 2012 Act, and it is extraordinarily weak. The word “promote” is not really meaningful. What would satisfy this condition? Mere exhortation would probably qualify. Imposing a duty to actually do research would be much clearer, much simpler and more likely to have an effect. This would also be consistent with the Government’s view of the critical importance set out in the ministerial paper. That is what our Amendment 79 seeks to do. It is a “must actually do something” obligation rather than a “promote the doing of something” obligation. It requires that ICBs must ensure that those eligible organisations for which the ICB is responsible conduct research on matters relevant to improving patient outcomes and healthcare delivery and promote the use in health and care of evidence obtained by research.
The amendment has two additional parts. The first is to impose a requirement for ICBs to co-produce research aims with local place-based partnerships and to ensure diversity of participation. This acknowledges both the benefits and the necessity of place-centred research and close partnership in the production of research aims. The second additional part of our amendment is simply a requirement that the ICB publishes via its annual reports and joint forward plans the steps it has taken or plans to take to deliver clinical research.
Our Amendment 196 is also in this group. It deals with research directly in trusts and foundation trusts. As things stand, Schedule 4(16) of the 2006 Act says only that
“An NHS trust may undertake and commission research and make available staff and provide facilities for research by other persons.”
This is clearly permissive and not directive. Our Amendment 196 would remove this paragraph and replace it with a requirement for both trusts and foundation trusts to actually carry out research, as in Amendment 79. The amendment would also preserve, from the 2006 Act, making available staff and providing facilities for research by other persons.
I strongly believe that both amendments—all parts of them—are in keeping with the ministerial paper, Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery. I hope that the Minister will recognise the cross-party and not adversarial character of our proposals. We really agree with the Government about the paramount importance of research in the NHS—we just need to make it happen. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to further discussions between now and Report.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is participating remotely. I invite him to speak now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, if, as I hope, the Bill will be amended to establish a quadruple aim for the NHS—the fourth aim being the reduction of health inequalities—then it will follow that we must have systematic research into the origins and remedies of health inequalities. In this connection, we need to understand options for using cultural, natural and community assets within the changing structures of health and social care, in particular at ICS level. Research should lead to better understanding the relationship of such assets to health inequalities, with a view to health systems mobilising those assets in prevention and intervention strategies, particularly to benefit people living with complex needs in deprived areas. The spectrum of research receiving public funding needs to run from laboratory-based clinical research to public health and community-level action research. The system needs to build capacity at that latter end of the spectrum, training and providing funding and opportunity for new cohorts of such researchers.
Let me give a few instances of the kind of down-to-earth research that needs to be funded. How are improvements to well-being, including staff well-being, to be measured, valued and integrated most effectively with policy at ICS level? More research is needed on the cost-effectiveness of community-based programmes. More research is needed on the cost and health benefits of the link worker model in social prescribing and on financial models for integrating community assets into health systems. Social prescribing needs to be underpinned by robust research on what we might call dosage. How much of such activities should be prescribed, and for how long, to bring about measurable behaviour changes and health outcomes? More evidence is required regarding the sustained, longitudinal effects of engaging in non-clinical programmes across specific health conditions such as cancer, stroke, dementias, diabetes and heart disease.
Such needs are being recognised by UKRI and, under its umbrella, the ESRC, the NERC, the MRC and the AHRC. What is also striking is the growing international interest and evidence base for this kind of research, as demonstrated by the World Health Organization scoping review by Daisy Fancourt and Saoirse Finn, entitled What is the Evidence on the Role of the Arts in Improving Health and Well-being?, and the establishment of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Arts & Health, based at University College London. The aims of this centre are to carry out world-class research into how the arts, culture and heritage affect mental and physical health; to work with world-leading researchers in the UK and internationally to develop and improve arts and health policy globally; and to provide training opportunities, toolkits and resources to support development in the field, including facilitating opportunities for early career researchers.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to direct a few remarks to the issue of research, in broad support of the speeches made so far. The amendments in this group, taken individually, are generally to be welcomed, not least because they highlight the issues involved. However, taken as a whole, they suggest that there is a need for a more coherent approach, based on the common principles that apply across the whole range of providers and the whole spectrum of health and social care.
The point of principle is that there is a demonstrable association between the provision of high-quality care and participation in high-quality research. Put simply, patient outcomes in services that actively take part in research are better. This does not mean just future improvements in care, diagnosis and so on; the actual care provided alongside the research benefits from involvement in that research. It is reasonable to assume that the same is true of care services; I direct my remarks at healthcare, but I am sure these principles apply equally to those involved in the provision of social care.
Given the principle that research is so important, it is worth making a few additional points. First, research must be an essential element in a system of healthcare, involving both the bodies that deliver healthcare and service users. Hence ICBs need to have a research strategy and not just promote research but take practical steps to facilitate it. In this context, the importance of national research objectives should be emphasised. The involvement of these bodies in research should be more than just one more administrative hoop they have to jump through. It should be part and parcel of their core function, delivering better mental and physical healthcare. They also need to commit to training clinical staff in how they can participate to best effect in research, or at least in the importance of research to clinical care.
Secondly, there is a need to consider a duty on private providers of NHS services to participate in research. Of course, private providers have a duty to support and contribute to the training as well. It is easy for private providers to ignore the need for research, and this reduces the opportunities for those for whom they care.
Thirdly, on Amendment 96, I suggest that we need to go beyond the idea that clinical trials need to be considered by ICBs and other relevant agencies. We could go further and require ICBs to use their best endeavours to encourage and accept reasonable requests to support clinical trials and offer opportunities for patients to take part.
Fourthly, as we have touched on in previous debates in this Committee, it must be emphasised that, when addressing the issue of research, there is a need to refer explicitly to mental as well as physical health.
Finally, all of us should bear in mind the importance of service users being involved in research and of ICBs and other agencies keeping this in mind throughout the process of providing care. This includes the involvement of service users in developing the priorities of research in its design and in overseeing its carrying out. This is vital for making sure that the outcomes can be easily embedded in clinical and care services. It is worth emphasising this in the context of mental health, where most advances in patient involvement have taken place.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for the thoughtful way in which they introduced the amendments in this group to which I have added my name. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of three interests: I am chair of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, chair of the board of trustees of UK Biobank and chair of King’s Health Partners.
As we have heard in this debate, research is not only fundamental to securing the best outcomes for patients being treated in our hospitals and throughout our healthcare system; it is critically important for the sustainability of the healthcare system itself. Numerous reports and strategies have been published over the last 10 years, to the great credit of Her Majesty’s Government, in terms of putting innovation and research at the heart of repeated NHS strategies. It is therefore only right that your Lordships’ House pays particular attention to how securing the opportunity for that research and promoting the opportunities that will flow from it are reflected in the Bill. There is no question but that Her Majesty’s Government are deeply committed to this area, but, as the Bill is currently drafted, there is some anxiety that the provisions and clauses do not provide sufficient emphasis or obligation for the new NHS organisations, the integrated care systems and the integrated care boards—and, indeed, the continuing obligation for NHS trusts—to be actively involved in research.
Now why is this important? At the very least, we know that we need to continue to innovate, be it therapeutic innovation or innovation through devices—or, indeed, innovation of new working practices, pathways of care and delivery—if we are to continue the important advances in outcomes that we have been able to achieve in recent years and decades. As we have heard, research is at the very heart of our ability to improve the experience and clinical outcomes of our patients. Research is also fundamental in improving our ability to prevent disease. We have an obligation in this Bill to promote healthcare services and well-being and to avail ourselves of the substantial opportunities that exist with regard to a more focused prevention agenda. Much of that agenda must inevitably be driven by prospective research, to be conducted across broad and diverse populations on our fellow citizens.
There is the question of sustainability—the fundamental sustainability of the NHS. Here we recognise that, without research and the adoption of innovation resulting from that research, the demographic changes and increasing demands that attend the delivery of healthcare in our country will make the NHS unsustainable in future. Therefore, there is a very deep obligation, beyond what we can do for patients in terms of clinical outcomes, to put at the heart of NHS thinking and strategy, as well as delivery, the delivery of a substantial research agenda. We know that that that research agenda is secured centrally through the substantial commitment of public funds to the National Institute for Health Research, UKRI and Research Councils, which provide funding for research—and, indeed, for other contributions from government departments, including the third sector contribution and the substantial contribution for research provided by the pharma and biotech industries, and associated research opportunities.
All that needs to be directed towards NHS institutions that are ready to receive that substantial commitment to research and conduct in particular those clinical research opportunities which, regrettably, have been subject to variable performance over many years in the NHS. It is for that reason that this Bill must take the opportunity to address that variability in research participation and performance. If we do not achieve that, we are not going to utilise the full potential of the NHS to be able to deliver the benefits that have been so rightly predicted. Most of all, without ensuring a broad research culture across all NHS institutions and organisations, we are going to lose the direct consequences of such a research culture and infrastructure in terms of the fact that patients in research-active institutions have better clinical outcomes.
To move away from those two broad areas—the important impact on patients and the important opportunity to provide the broader research agenda with the innovation that flows from it—there is a third imperative: our capacity to attract and retain staff. As with any facet of manpower planning, it is vital to provide the opportunity for NHS staff members and healthcare professionals to be research-active. It provides a substantial incentive and encouragement and allows for career development, ensuring that we retain colleagues for longer and are able to develop them to make different contributions—all vitally important. If we take this as a whole, it is appropriate that Her Majesty’s Government give some very careful thought to the purpose of these different amendments and how what is being said in your Lordships’ House today might be included in the Bill in such a way to strengthen these research obligations and ensure that NHS organisations deliver on the health agenda.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackwood of North Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, neither of whom are, sadly, able to be here today.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I am sorry—the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is here. I meant to say the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I apologise for my senior moment.
I will begin again. I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friends Lady Blackwood and Lord Bethell, neither of whom is in their place. I should, out of an abundance of caution—particularly given how well I have spoken so far—declare the interests of both my noble friend Lady Blackwood and me, as the present and past chairs of Genomics England.
In speaking to Amendments 79 and 196, we wish to support the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey, Lord Kakkar and Lord Patel, in calling for trusts and integrated care boards to have a duty to conduct research and to report on the steps they have taken to deliver it. We know that there are excellent research-active NHS organisations in the UK, ranging from our acute tertiary university hospitals, such as Oxford, to our district general hospitals, such as Portsmouth.
There are many initiatives to promote research, such as Saving and Improving Lives: The Future of UK Clinical Research Delivery, which sets out a bold and exciting vision. In particular, my noble friends and I await with interest the Find, Recruit and Follow-up service, which plans to use digital tools to identify patients who may be suitable subjects for research. When speaking to patients, one of the refrains that we all hear most often is that they find it hard to find suitable clinical trials, and we welcome any initiative that can make it easier for patients to take part in clinical research.
As well as supporting patients in finding trials, we need to make it as easy as possible for them to participate. In some cases, the pandemic has accelerated a move towards remote monitoring tools—wearables and other devices that allow individuals to participate in trials while reducing the number of visits they have to make to hospitals. We welcome the NIHR remote trial delivery toolkit, which makes recommendations on how some of these positive practices can be continued and so broaden participation and promote patient retention in a beneficial way.
My noble friend Lady Blackwood, as a rare disease patient herself, knows that clinical research is often the only way for patients to get access to innovative treatment. Yet we are saddened to see, in the annual NIHR publication on initiating and delivering clinical research, that some trusts are still not delivering trials every quarter. We continue to see a large disparity in the number of trials being offered in each trust, which leads to a postcode lottery. Those individuals fortunate enough to be under the care of a research-active hospital have an increased chance of being recruited on to a trial, and therefore have better outcomes than patients under the care of less research-active hospitals.
Patients admitted to more research-active hospitals also have more confidence in staff and are better informed about their condition and medication. And as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has said, there is very clear evidence that research-active trusts deliver better outcomes—in part, I am sure, because of their ability to retain and energise staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has mentioned.
The last couple of years, however, have been challenging for the health research community. In 2020, the Association of Medical Research Charities predicted a £320 million shortfall in research spending, forcing many medical research charities to make tough choices about which projects to prioritise. Data also suggests that the UK has been slower to return to pre-pandemic levels of commercial clinical research compared with other European countries.
The Life Sciences Vision sets out the Government’s objective to be a science superpower, but this requires research to be embedded in every part of the NHS, including primary, community and mental health services. That will happen only if NHS organisations, including the new integrated care boards, have a duty to conduct research, as these amendments propose.
In addition, we all know that what gets measured gets done, which is why these amendments place a duty on trusts and ICBs to report the steps that they are taking to deliver clinical research in their annual reports or forward plans. This not only enables progress to be tracked but helps patients understand what research is being done in their area and will encourage NHS organisations to invest in research that meets the needs of their local communities and—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to intervene. I am fascinated by everything that is being said but, given the cliché that money does not grow on trees, I am a bit surprised that we have not heard as much as we might have about international collaboration. Is that not a big deal? How would that be measured, as it were, as compared with the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has already raised?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I personally believe that international collaboration and engagement in research across all parts of the United Kingdom go hand in hand. It should not be either/or; it is a combination, and we need to do both. The amendments that I am speaking to call for every NHS organisation to participate and become research active.
Finally, and briefly, I urge the Minister to embrace this opportunity to embed what is genuinely cross-party support for clinical research in legislation. We all want to put the UK on the path to being the best place in the world to participate in health research. We will do that, as the noble Lord suggests, by collaborating internationally, but we will address the health inequalities that we have all spoken about over the many days of Committee only if all NHS trusts have a duty to conduct research.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the thrust of all these amendments. Most of the discussion has been about research—encouraging research in clinical trials within NHS trusts and foundation trusts—but I want to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which looks at the issue of commissioning and the role of integrated care boards, because I believe that it is just as important to ensure that integrated care boards have in mind the need, through their commissioning policies, to encourage innovation. In our last debate on NICE, last week, we discussed the same issue, which is the fact that the reason NICE exists is that there are many innovative new medicines and treatments coming on stream, many of them developed in the UK, which the health service has found difficulty in adopting more generally.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 78, about ICBs, is designed to encourage the ICB boards to consider that they have a responsibility in relation to innovations. It also proposes that integrated care boards must appoint a dedicated innovation officer to the board. I do not want to open up the issue raised by my noble friend Lady Thornton as we went into Committee, but we come back to the issue of the composition of ICB boards. She referred to guidance issued by NHS England a few days ago, which is not obtainable in the public domain. It is obtainable through something called “NHS Net”, but the Library has not been able to get hold of it. It is a bit much that advice on the contents of the Bill has been given out which we cannot even see. I hope that, as part of his response to my noble friend Lady Thornton, the Minister will look into that.
On the question, “Why add another postholder to the board of an ICB?”, I point to the Nuffield Trust report, which says that no organisation in the health service at the moment—or very few places—has someone with a direct responsibility for encouraging innovation. The Nuffield Trust thinks that having chief innovation officers with broad oversight could make what it calls a fundamental difference. I refer the noble Lord to research by the ABHI, which is essentially the trade association for medical devices. It showed that fewer than 20 NHS trusts across the UK have a member of their board with explicit responsibility for the uptake of innovative technologies.
Sometimes one must be wary of having a board appointment that may seem to be a token appointment. However, when it comes to commissioning, having someone around the table who is constantly reminding the board that through commissioning we must encourage and invest in innovation, would be very helpful. The slew of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is valuable in getting that message across.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am seriously concerned, for my sake, that I am invisible to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—which I regret, but I will tease her about it.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I fear that is my blindness and my problem, not his. I am very sorry.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am only teasing.
I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and as a professor emeritus at the University of Dundee, where I have spent all my life bar the first 18 years. I say this because we have lost something in the United Kingdom. A key strength of our academic clinical departments was a worldwide reputation for conducting health service-related research. We were second to none, and I mean that. We have lost that because we have changed the environment. People who work in clinical academic institutions—our so-called teaching hospitals—no longer have the environment to promote that. It was the duty of those of us who worked in clinical academic departments to grow the next generation of academics. It was important that we were all involved in conducting clinical research that produced innovation, better care for patients and a first-rate, first-class, internationally renowned next generation of academics. We do not have that any more, and anything we can do through this Bill to bring that back would be a major plus.
I will speak to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Much has been said, excellently, and I will try not to repeat it, but a strengthened research mandate through this Bill could support patients, clinicians, NHS organisations and research. The patient benefits from increased research activity have already been mentioned, but there is a significant variability across the UK in the opportunity for patients to engage in research. A strengthened mandate could support ensuring that all patients can access clinical trials and their associated benefits. Therefore, wider changes are needed to increase the competitiveness of the UK as a destination for research, particularly through the proposed changes to clinical trials legislation, and through increases in Department of Health and Social Care and NIHR funding.
This could include measures to support faster approval timelines and closer multiagency collaborations. Clinical research has clear benefits to patients, as has already been mentioned. NHS trusts with higher levels of research have a higher rating from the CQC and better outcomes, as have already been said. During Covid, the UK has demonstrated its potential with the success of Covid-19 research, with 68 commercial Covid trials launched in the UK in 2020—the third-highest globally, beating the United States and the rest of Europe.
How did we manage to do that? It is because, during the emergency, we set up methodologies that allow patients to be involved in trials more quickly by creating a voluntary registry, where patients themselves volunteer to take part in research. I also note the clinical recovery trials that we set up—some noble Lords might have seen the article in the Times, with Sir Martin Landray suggesting that we follow that process in the future to try to find treatments for other common diseases. If we do that, we will lead globally. The NHS has the capacity to do that, but it now requires the will and the leadership from the centre to drive that. The clinical academics will be up to it—they just want to be given a chance. Let us do that, because we have demonstrated that we can.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 79, 81, 96 and 196, which concern both research and clinical trials. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have put their names to them.
As other noble Lords have noted, the Government have actually recognised the need for integrated care boards to have research among their general duties—but one would be hard pressed to realise from the Bill’s drafting that this was a priority. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said well, the drafting is weak. We need something much more explicit and action oriented. Frankly, “promote” is a vague term that can mean anything or nothing. We need action-oriented language of a kind that puts the NHS and the resources that this country has right at the centre of medical research.
We need an amendment of the type that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has put down to give us a national research strategy and join up the national and local levels in achieving it. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has given us many reasons why we need to move on the whole subject of research and make it central to the National Health Service’s mission. We need something that is explicit in charging the NHS to conduct research and enable relevant bodies to do so as well. The results should be exploited in healthcare. Linking research to local needs will also increase their relevance, and the adoption of these results and the obligation to report on them will ensure that things really happen.
I could not find in the drafting any reference to the need to do clinical trials. Surely this is a central element in research and could be extraordinarily advantageous to the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has just said, the NHS has a database that is unparalleled in the world. It provides us with an extraordinary advantage. I recall that when I was on the Science and Technology Committee, we heard considerable evidence about the barriers that were put in the way by rather pettifogging EU regulations. I recall the desire, when free of these, to be able to conduct clinical trials. I am aware that some people argue that the UK market is too small, but, with our database, that is not the case—and we can ensure that we have co-operation from abroad.
It is very important that this becomes a central element in our research programmes. It puts us on the map internationally, and it ensures that the NHS, which, after all, is a great consumer of the public expenditure in this country, is also part of wealth creation. That should be part of the result of the research that it conducts.
I do not think that the Government disagree with the thrust of the thinking here, but I very much hope that they will agree that the Bill’s drafting, as it exists at the moment, is inadequate. I hope that, when my noble friend comes to reply, he accepts that the language on both of these elements needs strengthening, giving a central role to research and clinical trials in the NHS.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for putting forward these amendments, all of which seek to strengthen the Bill and build on what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, opened with: the need for clear lines of responsibility and for a joined-up strategy—in other words, for us to get to the point that we are looking for.
My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke of the embodiment, perhaps, of that through a chief innovation officer, who could be a reminder—not on their own—of the need to build in research and innovation as core throughout commissioning. I am sure that the Minister has heard that this debate is a cry for us to embed in the Bill and in our NHS not just a requirement for but a delivery of research and innovation to the appropriate standard to serve the country. It will not just happen on its own.
We have seen significant variation of opportunity for patients to engage in research and disparities in participation reported on geographic and socioeconomic lines, by ethnic origin and across different disease areas. This is due to the fact that the NHS has been unable to prioritise resourcing and delivery of research, which has been a particular feature over the past decade.
In the Bill, we have a major opportunity to embed a research-active culture—words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding—within the NHS which could build on the response to Covid-19, which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, emphasised. That response saw more NHS sites, staff and patients engage in research than ever before. Let us not waste this opportunity.
The Bill offers little different to the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which also did not and does not mandate clinical research activity, stating just a duty for clinical commissioning groups “to promote” research. Your Lordships will notice the similarity in wording in the current Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is quite right, as are other noble Lords, to speak of the weakness of just using the words “to promote”. This set of amendments is about how we make it actually happen. The amendments are about mandating integrated care boards to conduct research and to monitor and assess innovation, because without that, it will just not happen.
Legislation is indeed a critical element, but it is important to stress that it must be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure: for example, through staffing levels—to which we will return in our next debate—research capability, digital resources and tools and access to services, as well as efficient trial approval processes, the ability reliably to recruit patients, the offering of guidance and, of course, dedicated staff time for research. All of those will make the legislation actually mean something.
As well as a strengthened legislative mandate which moves beyond the current duty simply to promote research, it would support patients, clinicians and NHS organisations across the country to have equal access to the benefits brought about by research participation. This will be better for patients, give greater staff satisfaction and deliver economic benefits not just for the NHS but for the broader economy. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, talked about the life sciences being a major player as a contributor to our economic well-being and prosperity in this country—something also emphasised by my noble friend Lord Davies.
Such a mandate would also ensure support for levelling up and make it possible to address health inequalities. This in turn would support the ambition set out in the Government’s clinical research vision: to make access and participation in research as easy as possible for everyone across the UK, including those in rural, diverse and underserved populations. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to reflect on the points made in this debate, because this group of amendments provides an opportunity to strengthen the Bill to actually deliver.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Like many of the debates on this Bill in Committee, this has been a fascinating one. It has been really interesting to hear from experts who themselves have engaged in clinical research. I start by thanking my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Blackwood and the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Kakkar, for bringing this debate before the Committee today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for his points about the arts and social prescribing.
Before I turn to the amendments, perhaps I could make two personal reflections. One is from my early academic career as a postdoctoral research fellow. I saw the benefit of taking the results of my research directly into my teaching. It made the courses more dynamic—it was not just a repeat of last year’s slides for this year’s students—and it showed what progress we were making in that field of research.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to what has been an excellent debate. I welcome my noble friend’s offer to have further discussions, which I am sure will be taken up actively by all those concerned.
However, there seems to be a bit of a mismatch between my noble friend’s reply and the very real concerns expressed across the House, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, in summing up. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said that there was insufficient emphasis and obligation for integration, and that the whole country would benefit from wealth creation—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones as well.
I was very moved by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to the loss of status and standing of teaching hospitals. My father, a GP, always used to say that if you want something done, have it done in a teaching hospital. My late uncle was a surgeon at the Royal Infirmary, where his students rather fondly called him “Mack the Knife”—I hope for positive reasons, because he used it skilfully, but unfortunately it is too late to ask.
We need to press my noble friend further on strengthening the obligation and making it much firmer in the Bill. Is he prepared to move in that direction? I would like to say how proud I am to be British and living in a country where we have such a strong record on research and the data available. My noble friend the Minister did not respond on where we are with clinical trials—my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones and I particularly asked him about that—and I would be very grateful if he could write to me separately. On the basis that we can have further discussions on this, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 83. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham of Ilton, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 83
Baroness Walmsley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment draws the attention of the integrated care board to the need to ensure sufficient well-trained staff to comply with safe staffing levels.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 83 in my name, I want to speak to Amendment 86, also in my name, and to support Amendments 146, 170 and 171.
Everybody taking part in these debates, including the Ministers, would acknowledge the central importance of the staff of the NHS and social care, at every level, and their training, well-being and retention. However, it was clear from the evidence on the workforce to the committee and in debates in the House in another place that there is broad concern that planning for the provision of sufficient of the right staff in all areas has not been good enough. Given how long it takes to train a doctor, an allied health professional or a nurse, excellent forward planning is essential. Proposals were made in another place to improve that in the future but, unfortunately, the Government would accept only a mandated review every five years. This group of amendments is this House’s opportunity to try again, and I hope the Minister will be able to help us.
These amendments show that, in the opinion of noble Lords, the planning of health, public health and care staff must be based on an accurate, independently verified understanding of both the current situation and, as well as can be predicted, future need. Because the political responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, this information collection and planning must exist at the very top, as well as at NHS England and the ICS commissioning level. Clause 35 refers only to the workforce needs of health services, but Amendment 170 lays down detail on what the Secretary of State must do to fulfil this responsibility, not just for health but for public health and social care, since they are so interlinked. We look forward to the White Paper and legislation on social care and hope that workforce issues will be well covered in them, but we need to address it now, in this Bill, even though it would have been better to hear the Government’s proposals on social care first. Amendment 146 says what must be done at ICS level. Crucially, both amendments require appropriate consultation. But there is something I would like to add, and that is where my Amendments 83 and 86 come in.
Every hospital trust and primary care setting has done the work to identify and agree the safe staffing levels of each type and seniority of staff in each setting. This is based on an understanding of the local context and of the knowledge and skills needed for patient safety to deliver each treatment, and an assessment of how many patients can safely be looked after by each member of staff. This varies enormously from setting to setting—from a whole team of staff to each patient in operating theatres, to one-to-one in ICUs and premature baby units, and to several patients to one member of staff in less acute areas.
During the pandemic, we have seen these levels necessarily abandoned, with, for example, one ICU nurse being asked to care for two or even three patients at the peak. This has been an unusual crisis situation and services have had to be flexible, moving staff from one department to another, always, I hope, under the supervision of a staff member with the correct speciality. Hospitals have helped each other and ambulances have been diverted when no bed could be found for patients coming into A&E. That has been the advantage of having a National Health Service.
It has been very difficult for staff, and many have quit their jobs. We started the pandemic with tens of thousands of doctor and nurse vacancies, and the BMA has calculated that we currently have a shortfall of 50,000 full-time equivalent doctors—more than the number of unfilled posts. Our doctor-patient ratio is 25 years behind that of similar OECD countries. In the UK, before the pandemic, there was already a shortage of around 50,000 nurses, and still the healthcare system is nowhere near bridging that gap. In December 2020, a report by the Health Foundation, Building the NHS Nursing Workforce in England, said that the Government will need to exceed their target of 50,000 new nurses in England by 2024-25 if they want the NHS to fully recover from the coronavirus pandemic.
In January 2021, a survey by Nursing Times indicated that 80% of nurses feel that patient safety is being compromised due to this severe staff shortage, which is why my amendments focus on safe staffing levels. While there has been a good increase in the number of nursing students starting courses during 2020, this will not alleviate the issue of a lack of qualified nurses now or in the medium term. There are particular shortages among mental health and cancer support nurses. Cancer Research has also told us that one in 10 cancer diagnostic posts in England is vacant, which threatens the Government’s cancer target. There are also considerable shortages in other allied professions.
We have also seen a reduction in the number of in-patient beds in the last 10 years and bed occupancy rates well in excess of the recommended percentage. Even before the pandemic, some hospitals had no available beds at all during the winter period, leading to nearly every winter period being labelled a crisis. All this is because of the perennial failure to train enough staff.
Despite the increased use of technology, health and care continue to be people businesses, but there has not been enough effective planning to provide the workforce needed, not just for normal services but to provide the resilience needed for the winter and for future pandemics. This has partly been due to “leaky bucket” syndrome—the failure to retain staff because of the pressure and, in some cases, pay or pension issues. That must change. Health Education England is now to be incorporated into NHS England, and the Bill and the forthcoming social care legislation are opportunities to start again. We have one and a half million care workers, with high turnover. In order to improve retention, good training and a career path are needed.
I turn, however, to the detail of my amendments. Included in the duties of the new ICBs is, as set out in Clause 20, in new Section 14Z41, a duty to promote education and training. My Amendment 83 adds to that duty that it should train enough of the right staff to reach safe staffing levels in all areas. My Amendment 86 adds to new Section 14Z42, which covers the duty to promote integration, a duty to improve the ability of NHS and care staff to carry out their duties within safe staffing levels.
The latter amendment recognises the risk to staff themselves as well as patients when they are forced to work with fewer than the prescribed safe number of colleagues, or to extend their shift by many hours because there is nobody to take over. It is a risk to their physical and mental health and it certainly does not help the ability of student nurses and doctors to learn from their senior colleagues when they do not have enough time to breathe. It also causes burnout, leading to significant numbers of doctors and nurses considering leaving the profession or reducing their hours. Some 32% of respondents to the BMA’s April 2021 Covid-19 tracker survey said that they were now more likely to take early retirement, while half reported being more likely to reduce their hours.
I believe that safe staffing levels are part of the duty of care that employers owe to their employees in the health service. However, the Nuffield Trust, Health Foundation and King’s Fund have estimated that, by 2030, the gap between supply of and demand for staff employed by NHS providers in England could reach almost 350,000 full-time equivalent posts if nothing is done. Worryingly, that was based on pre-pandemic calculations. Overcoming unsafe staffing levels is an essential measure to ensure patient safety and to boost the well-being, morale and productivity of staff and, therefore, their retention. The Bill is an opportunity for the Government to take sustainable action to alleviate issues relating to workforce supply and demand in England.
The duties proposed in Amendments 146, 170 and 171 would be welcome, and I support them, but they are not enough. I think that safe staffing should be specifically mentioned among the duties of the ICB, and that is where my amendments would put it. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we have two noble Baronesses taking part remotely. I first call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the present Health Minister and his predecessors for a number of years—far too many years, frankly—should not be surprised by these amendments, all of which cover the issue of workforce planning. Often, Ministers’ words and aspirations have been supportive but the reality is that, without proper long-term workforce planning, the NHS and our social care sectors will struggle to be able to plan for the medium term, let alone the short term.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley introduced this group by saying what is needed in workforce planning and why, and I support her brief but critical amendment to ensure patient safety. The other amendments in this group set out the how: whether the workforce planning reports or clinical and healthcare training needs in Amendment 171, the duty on the Secretary of State in Amendment 173, the report on parity of pay in Amendment 174 or the important Amendment 214 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on workforce boards. I am looking forward to hearing the expert contributions to follow on them from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and many other noble Lords, and I hope that the Minister will take note of how the lack of effective workforce planning is hobbling the provision of health and care services in England.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we have one more noble Baroness taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, to make her comments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very supportive of this group of amendments. There cannot be a safe, effective National Health Service without an adequate, well-trained workforce in hospitals, in care homes and for people who need care in their own homes, as well as adequate GPs and community staff.
At this time, it is more difficult than ever to recruit, as so many nurses and carers left to go back to Europe and the world has been struck by the coronavirus. Many people are off sick with the virus or isolating, and some are tired with stress and overwork. It is not helped when the relations and partners of patients have not been allowed in to help disabled and elderly patients in hospitals. They can help with feeding and giving patients extra help and support, which staff do not have the time to do.
The Royal College of Nursing says that the Bill gives
“no assurance that the system is recruiting and training enough staff to sustainably deliver health and care services.”
As has been said, there should be forward planning for the workforce. For example, the biggest barrier to improving early diagnosis of bowel cancer is long-standing staff shortages in endoscopy, pathology services and gastroenterology, with 43% of advertised posts not being filled. This is really serious. With so many posts across the country not being filled, a variety of specialties are so badly needed. There must be more training opportunities. Without adequate training, there will be no hope of filling the unfilled posts.
It would be very welcome if the Government brought some amendments on Report to help make the recruitment of staff, who are so desperately needed, more successful. Without enough staff, all the important things your Lordships have been discussing today, such as innovation and research, will be unachievable. A thriving workforce is absolutely essential.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, manpower planning requires a bit of definition. In my role at the TUC over many years, one of my functions was to look after all the sectoral committees. The most assiduously attended was the health services committee. As we all know, there is an enormous number of specialities in the health service.
When it comes to manpower planning, why did people not press the right button? I am afraid that there is no button to press. In 1947 Aneurin Bevan found that with the British Medical Association there was no wish or desire on the part of the doctors to be part of a structure where a button could be pressed—as might be true in a great corporation—to make sure that the plan for manpower was implemented. As we all know—I will be corrected by someone in this Committee if I have got it wrong—GPs are not appointed by the National Health Service in the way you would appoint somebody to be in charge of an oil refinery in the oil industry or whatever.
It would be useful if the Minister—and I have given notice of a question along these lines—could say what the subjects of the workforce strategy in the Bill would be. How would it be funded? What would be the timescale for introducing it? How often would it be updated? The analysis would have to include such questions as reliance on locums; anecdotally, they can prove very expensive. Will there be targets and associated timescales for the reductions in vacancies?
All of this is easier said than done. I think the remark can legitimately be made that money does not grow on trees, so how are we going to proceed on this? I do not think that everybody who advocates manpower planning is totally naive. Jeremy Hunt in the other place advocated something very much along the lines of what we are talking about now. The focus of the question was on whether five years, 10 years or some other number of years was far too long. There should be reviews every two years or on some shorter timescale.
I confess that, if I were the Minister, I would say, “You’re begging the question of whether we know what we’re talking about when we talk about manpower planning”. So I would be glad if the Minister, in giving some thought to this debate, would care to write to noble Lords—not a White Paper or anything like that—to answer specifically how this thing would work. It is an excellent initiative, and I very much welcome the fact that there is a clause in the Bill providing for this manpower planning.
Edward Argar, for the Government, said that substantial work was ongoing, and referred to a 15-year strategic framework for the health and social care workforce, so the beginnings of creative thinking in this area have gone some way. I congratulate the Government on that. I am afraid, however, that until we get Ministers to be a bit more explicit about what we are talking about, and how the workforce plan will work, this will be a missed opportunity.
In conclusion, I acknowledge that there are a number of sacred cows in this area—and unfortunately, many of those sacred cows are incompatible with each other. It would be useful if the Minister acknowledged that we are asking the right questions. That, obviously, is the necessary precondition to finding the right answers.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 170, in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who supported my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—I do not know whether he is coming back—and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has already spoken. I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendments in her usual comprehensive and thorough way. It was interesting that she talked about Malawi and the Philippines, and the issue of local training, which is so important.
We have all applauded health and care workers, both on our own doorsteps and when we meet them, on or off their job. Omicron has put them under huge pressure yet again, but despite that—despite isolating or testing positive—we know that they will cope. The NHS will cope.
The NHS is a public service, which means the service works for the people. That is its sole purpose. To achieve that, normal service must resume as soon as possible. The public have been understanding: they understand that there is a crisis, and that normal service cannot be delivered right now. There can be no doubt that Covid and its variants are a crisis for health and care. But Covid is a crisis atop another crisis, a deeper malignancy, which constrains and threatens the NHS—and, of course, the care sector; we must think of the two together—with or without Covid. I speak of the workforce crisis, now considered by experts, and by people in the service and outside it, the single greatest problem that the service now faces.
Numbers can be used to make any argument stand up, even a spurious one. But in the case of our health and care workforce crisis, the numbers are real, stark and heading in the wrong direction. Two years ago, before the pandemic, the average number of vacancies in adult social care was 112,000; the average number of vacancies in the NHS was 101,000. It is no secret that Covid is making a very bad situation worse. Internal NHS figures showing total absences across acute, mental health and community trusts nationally hit almost 120,000 on Wednesday 5 January. NHS staff absence figures are published weekly over the winter. The reported figure for staff absences, published last Thursday, 13 January, show that a weekly average of almost 89,000 hospital staff in England were absent, with the highest one-day peak for this winter being over 94,000. This is piling pressure upon pressure.
That tells us that we have a serious problem here and now—and, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, said, it takes a long time to train skilled health and care staff. We need to act now if we want to feel the benefit in future. According to the Royal College of Physicians, nearly 48%—nearly half—of advertised consultant posts went unfilled in 2020, mostly due, sadly, to a lack of any applicants. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned this in a previous debate.
There are nearly 40,000 full-time equivalent nurse vacancies in the NHS in England. That is a vacancy rate of more than 10%. The Royal College of Nursing expects 52,000 nurses to retire in the next few years. Nearly 7% of roles in adult social care were vacant in 2020-21. It is estimated that we are 50,000 doctors short, and in total the Health Foundation says we need 488,000 more healthcare staff in the next decade. I apologise for flinging so many figures at your Lordships, but they underline a simple yet serious problem—and if we do not have credible, reliable, up-to-date numbers, how can we plan?
The health and care sector urgently needs better workforce planning. We need to know how much slack is in the system, and how it can cope not only with the expected but with the unexpected. We know from the experience of the last two years that the unexpected can, and so often does, happen.
Behind all those numbers are real people—professionals working flat out every day and every night to keep the show on the road, to care for patients and to keep them safe. I think we all agree that they are doing a valiant job, trying to be professional and compassionate, often in desperately difficult circumstances. But there is only so much that people can do when their team is not at full strength.
I am the first to admit that my amendment will not solve the workforce crisis. It will, however, provide the NHS and the care sector with a regular accurate national picture of the numbers of staff needed now and in future to meet demand. It will be publicly available, so we will all be able to see what is needed. It will provide a strong and much-needed foundation on which to take decisions about funding, skill mix, regional shortfalls and shortages of specialists. It will be published every two years. I think published annual assessments are too frequent. Two years is a reasonable interval: say, twice in the average time between general elections—one to say the last Government got it all wrong, and one to put it all to rights.
We could, of course, carry on as we are, without the information, a proper strategy or the ability to plan for the future—travelling in hope rather than expectation. That is not working. We already know that; the dozens of outside organisations which support this amendment— from royal colleges and professional bodies to charities and think tanks—know that; and, most importantly, the public know that, because they can see the pressure that NHS and care sector staff are under. To carry on like this would be to condemn our care services to flying blind through a storm. This amendment gives us the ability to set and navigate a sustainable course. With the extraordinary consensus behind this amendment and the impressive cross-party support we have had throughout Westminster, one would hope that it will find favour in your Lordships’ House and with the Government.
I listened carefully to the debate on a similar amendment in another place. The main argument Ministers made then was that the planned update to Health Education England’s 15-year strategic framework for workforce planning, known as framework 15, would do the job instead. I beg to differ, as do the 88 organisations which support this amendment. Previous versions of framework 15 have not quantified the workforce numbers, and the Government have been unable to confirm that the revised framework will set out the required numbers of staff. Even if the updated framework 15 had included projections of future needs—it did not—it would only be a one-off, and there would be no requirement regularly to update these predictions.
Might there be a concern about the financial implications of enacting this amendment? Do some worry that it may herald an increase in health and care staffing costs? I hope not, because to reject this amendment on those grounds would be a false economy. The NHS alone spends vast sums on agency staff, one of the most expensive and least satisfactory ways to manage an endemic workforce problem. The latest number I could find was for 2019-20, when the NHS in England spent an eye-watering £6.2 billion on agency staff, which was an increase on the previous two years. This amendment paves the way for reducing those expensive sticking-plaster solutions in favour of something sustainable and more cost effective.
There are, of course, many hurdles to overcome if we are to improve workforce planning and capacity management. There are issues that far greater brains than mine need to think about—the rise of AI, for example. In my household, married as I am to a farmer, as Members will know, AI has quite a different meaning. I am not referring to artificial insemination, but rather to artificial intelligence. What impact will that have on workforce planning and staffing? What about the rising trend of part-time work, telehealth or changes to skill mix? Those are all good questions that these clever brains stand a far better chance of answering if they have alongside them the regular, credible, national picture that this amendment seeks to provide.
In my view, we owe it to the staff working in health and care, and to the public who rely on them, to do better, to plan better, to prepare for the future and to ensure that the NHS and the care sector are at full strength. This amendment points us in that direction, and I hope the noble Lords here to answer the debate today will work with their colleagues in government to see the value—the worth—of this very simple amendment.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, in theory these amendments should not be needed, but in practice they clearly are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just so forensically set out. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious, particularly coming out of the pandemic, to say that we need better workforce planning at a time when staff are exhausted from having dealt with Covid for several years and the NHS is confronting the need to deal with the backlog of care.
But, frankly, it would be a statement of the blindingly obvious at any time, because the lead times for decisions on training for health professionals are such that they go beyond any individual term of Parliament or government manifesto. Universities need a strong signal as to what future demand will look like. The interconnectedness between health and social care means that we are actually thinking about a workforce of 3 million plus, and the materiality of getting it wrong over a five or 10-year period is bigger in this sector of the workforce than any other part of the economy. As we heard earlier—I think from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—estimates from the Health Foundation, for example, suggest that on the current trajectory the gap could be more than a third of a million staff in the health service by 2030-31; and in respect of the social care workforce, Skills for Care talks about perhaps 490,000 additional posts being required over the period to 2035. Those figures may be right or they may be wrong, but there is not a forensic forum in which those debates are scrutinised and choices made. This is not just about more; this is about different.
It is not all doom and gloom. Over the last two years, during the most intense challenge the health service has faced since its creation, nearly 160,000 people have signed up to join the health and care staff and professions. We have seen applications for undergraduate nursing up by more than a quarter and a huge increase in applications for and interest in studying medicine, yet we have an acceptance rate of only about 52% for undergraduate nursing, according to figures from UCAS, and we are turning away bright and brilliant young people with fantastic A-level grades who would like to study medicine. That is a paradox which stems from the fact that, unlike the day-to-day running costs of the health service, those items which have the longest planning horizon—workforce and capital investment—are the areas with the shortest financial horizon.
Of course, it may well be argued by the Government that we are about to turn a corner and that although there has been a degree of short-termism hitherto, things are about to improve. But I am afraid that I think we are entitled to treat that proposition with a degree of scepticism, because although what has been said up until now may be blindingly obvious, in fact what we have been confronted with is wilful blindness. Health Education England, which should be looking at 10 years, does not yet have its running budget for 10 weeks’ time. If we look back over the history of recent years, we can see a series of missed opportunities. The Minister may assure us that we will be presented with this 15-year further vision from Health Education England this coming summer, which will, of course, be welcome. But if we remind ourselves of the history since 2014 or 2015, as I say, we can perhaps be a tad sceptical. Obviously, I draw attention to my prior NHS interest, and everything I am about to say only draws on the public record, just to clarify that point.
It was back in 2014 that the NHS Five Year Forward View talked about the service changes that were required, but it was not permitted to talk about future capital investment, social care or workforce training, since they were being kept separate. So, in summer 2016, the Department of Health and Social Care was going to produce this detailed quantified workforce plan instead. Twenty-sixteen came and went and instead, in December 2017—three years after the Five Year Forward View—Health Education England launched a consultation document which said: “Your responses will be used to inform the full strategy to be published in July 2018 to coincide with the NHS’s 70th birthday.”
Twenty-eighteen came and went, and answers saw we none. Then in June 2019, we got another, in this case interim people plan, with lots of excellent content but unfortunately no actual numbers and no new pound notes. Despite the fact that it promised:
“We will aim to publish a full, costed five-year Plan later this year”
quantifying
“the full range of additional staff needed”.
But again, “later this year” came and went, and no such documents saw the light of day, until in July 2020 we had a one-year people plan which, at that point, was covering just the next eight months. Fear not, though, because it said:
“Further action for 2021/22 and beyond is expected to be set out later in the year”—
in 2020—
“once funding arrangements have been confirmed by the Government.”
That did not happen.
Instead, in July 2021, last summer, the Department of Health and Social Care again commissioned Health Education England to start from scratch. Last November, HEE published a short PowerPoint—commissioned from a firm of accountants—with the discouraging disclaimer on the first page that:
“We do not warrant or represent that the report is appropriate for your purposes”
and “no warranty is made as to the accuracy of any data”. As it happens, that does not really matter because there were no real data in the document anyway, which came to startling conclusions such as “workforce demand will be affected by demography and disease”.
I think we are entitled to say that this litany tells us that what, to everybody else, is blindingly obvious has instead been confronted with wilful blindness. What explains this? Is it a lack of interest on the part of the committed people to getting this right? No, it is not—some excellent work has been done. Your Lordships may take a clue from a statement that Jeremy Hunt, the former Secretary of State and now Chair of the Commons Health and Social Care Committee, made last Tuesday, when he said that “the Health and Social Care Committee has recommended on numerous occasions that we should have independently verified forecasts of the number of doctors, nurses and other staff that we should be training for the future. But that has been blocked consistently by the Treasury”.
Without in any way commenting on or editorialising that, the Minister may want to take the opportunity to confirm whether that is indeed the case. But just on the off chance that he does not refute the statement Jeremy Hunt has made, then that, I think, tells us that unfortunately, these amendments are necessary and will strengthen the hand of Health and Social Care Ministers in the future. I cannot help thinking that, in their heart of hearts, past Health Ministers know that they would have benefited enormously, were these amendments on the statute book. I am afraid that, if the Government choose not to support these amendments—as I hope will not be the case—that will be proof positive that they are very necessary. Therefore, I hope they will recognise that ignorance is not bliss and if we do find ourselves in that situation, this House will take the opportunity at Report to give the Commons another go.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, listening to my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham, I am beginning to feel the pain of his frustration at being chief executive of the NHS and not being listened to in order to fix such an important issue as workforce planning. Also, there is a bit of déjà vu that he may remember, along with some of my colleagues who were took part in the Lords committee inquiry into the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care.
Let me argue the same issues that he just presented. The report on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and adult social care, published in April 2017, looked at data on demographic and disease burden projections of the population over the next 15 to 20 years. It identified a lack of long-term workforce planning as a key threat to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. The Committee heard from the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Jeremy Hunt, who had this to say:
“workforce planning is an area where we have failed… Brexit will be a catalyst to get this right… That is an area where we need to be much more strategic”.
That was nearly five years ago and yet, there is no strategic healthcare workforce plan from the Department of Health and Social Care, as we just heard.
The solution is not going to come from an outside body, no matter how influential. It has to come from the centre, from the leadership of the NHS and social care, and not one in the isolation from the other. What we have heard from the centre and NHS organisations is many publications identifying the problem, but not the solution with a long-term plan. We are told that this may be coming in April 2022—or perhaps later.
On the other hand, there are several detailed authoritative documents on the NHS workforce from think tanks, NHS providers, the BMA, the nursing councils and many others, who have been grappling with this issue and trying to find a solution for a long time and advising the Government on how to do this. There is no lack of authoritative reports based on data related to long-term projections of population, its demography, health needs and the workforce needed to deliver them. For example, an extensive, well-researched report by Dr Latifa Patel, a respiratory paediatrician, and Dr Wrigley, a GP of medical staff in England, projected to 2045—based on population and disease data—the number of doctors needed in each speciality and possible models of plans to deliver on this by 2032. A document extending to 60 pages is not only highly informative and well-researched but identifies a way forward.
Since the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there has been inadequate workforce planning, fuelled by inadequate regional and national workforce data and a lack of accountability for it at government level. We are not training enough doctors, despite record numbers of people applying. The latest figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, mentioned, show a 21% increase on previous years in applications to medical schools of highly talented young people. This means the NHS is ill-equipped to tackle the backlog of care, is not prepared for future public health crises and cannot meet patient needs, either now or in the future.
If we compare England with EU nations within the OECD, which have an average of 3.7 doctors per 1,000 people, the medical workforce in England is currently short of around 49,000 full-time equivalent doctors. Without significant intervention regarding the current rate of growth, the estimate is that the future medical workforce shortage will be between 26,889 and 83,779 full-time doctors by 2043. Such precise numbers show how well-researched this document is. Each full-time doctor in NHS England is doing an average of 1.3 full-time equivalent roles. I have three of them in the NHS and I can see what they do—although I tell them they are lazy compared to me.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest in the register. I am making a very short intervention just to talk about care workers. While there has been a great emphasis on the NHS, the crisis that the care sector is facing now is absolutely devastating. I was with care managers this morning, and they were wondering how they were going to manage the next few weeks, never mind the next few years. I urge the Government to understand that it is not just about added training and it is certainly not about planning for the future when the crisis is now. The crisis in the future cannot actually be estimated now, because we are in a crisis now.
So I urge the Government to look at the key issue around the sectors, and that is money. It is funding. We devalue the very people we expect to have value for in looking after the elderly, the disabled and those who need help. I came here not wanting to intervene today, but I was actually pushed by what I saw this morning with my care managers. They are absolutely struggling, trying to work out where they are going to find these magical beings who do not exist, because they have left the sector as a result of being so poorly paid, so badly treated and so deeply undervalued by everyone. I just wanted to put that intervention on record because, while we do need workforce planning, the problem is that we are so far behind the curve that it is going to take one mighty big plan to get this right.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I would like to follow the noble Baroness because my amendment relates to this issue. My Amendment 174 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the work undertaken to bring parity of pay between health and social care services.
When reflecting on the pandemic, it is clear that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude to our key workers, who went above and beyond the call of duty to keep people safe and healthy. Their efforts resulted in a deserved pay rise for NHS front-line staff. However, it highlighted the disparity between the treatment of healthcare staff and social care staff. While we clapped for both every Thursday, the gap in pay and reward between the two professions has grown even larger. This amendment reflects the undeniable need to see care staff recognised equally alongside NHS staff.
The social care workforce is, and needs to be, highly skilled. It holds a heavy weight of responsibility for the well-being and safety of vulnerable adults and children. Staff are trained to support medication, undertake PEG feeding, deal with seizures and administer first aid. They help people manage their finances, health and well-being, and they provide emotional support. They operate within a highly regulated sector, necessitating an understanding of health and safety, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty law, safeguarding and even how to positively manage challenging behaviour. The importance of their role cannot be underestimated. Indeed, the same can be said for other, highly skilled allied health professionals, such as nurses and occupational therapists, whose breadth of interventions provide enormous value within the care sector, as well as within the NHS. The turnover rate is just so high. It is unsurprising that staff such as nurses and OTs who can do so are more likely to seek better paid employment in the NHS.
A report recently commissioned by Community Integrated Care shows that many front-line workers in social care are financially “significantly undervalued” by as much as 39%—nearly £7,000 a year—compared to equivalent publicly funded positions. Social care struggles to match pay conditions available within the health sector, including pensions, annual leave entitlements and sick pay. That means that, when faced with the choice of working in either sector, individuals are more likely choose to work in health, if they can. We must help foster a culture of collaboration between the NHS and social care.
Skills for Care estimates that the adult social care workforce in England employs over 1.5 million people, yet there remains a major recruitment and retention crisis which, without intervention, is only likely to get worse. Currently, there are over 100,000 vacancies—that is around 6.8%—with projections estimating that nearly 500,000 new jobs will be needed to meet demand within social care by 2035. The turnover rate of staff is estimated to be over 30%, and higher still among those on zero-hour contracts.
Pay is not a panacea for addressing this issue. Much of it comes down to better wages being offered in other sectors which are able to use market forces to drive up employee pay. Furthermore, if terms and conditions are more closely aligned between social care and the NHS, staff may be able to move more easily between sectors, providing the continuity of care for their patients in the community, which is so valued by so many people.
Social care has been defined as a low-paying industry by the Low Pay Commission every year since the first report of the Low Pay Commission on the national minimum wage in 1998. The average pay for support workers in England who assist people to live independently in the community is £17,695, or £9.05 per hour, which is 45p per hour below the real living wage—that is the average. It seems nonsensical for a single system to have staff working at similar levels but some being paid significantly less than others. The Government have previously argued that, because of the existence of private providers in the care market, they cannot mandate a level of pay for care staff. But this just does not hold up to scrutiny: providers are paid an hourly rate for the contracts they are given by the local authority. This means that there is a conduit through which a fair rate for providers, and by extension employees, could be set.
The continued insistence that an increase in the national living wage is suitable remuneration for care staff does not reflect the level of skill and dedication that they display. While this may reduce the barrier to entering the adult social care workforce, we are still left with problems retaining what will go on to become a much more experienced workforce. There is very little incentive to stay in terms of pay promotion, and the experience pay gap has reduced even more, to something like 1% per hour in the past year. We must address this issue to support this workforce, now and for the future.
Higher pay and lower vacancy rates have been associated with more favourable outcomes during inspections by the Care Quality Commission, which is not surprising. Put simply, a stronger and more valued workforce improves patient care and retention. The demand for the skills of the workforce, now and for the future, means that ensuring parity of pay and conditions between the health and social care sectors is of paramount importance in the care, rehabilitation and protection of people who need this support.
I thank Mencap for a very good brief, Skills for Care for excellent statistics, and my noble friend Lady Finlay for supporting my amendment. I hope that the Minister will see its value.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I completely support what she and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, have just said. Unless care wages equate with the minimum for personal care in the NHS, we will never resolve this problem. I have been told by the National Care Forum that that means approximately £13.50 an hour. I would like to see that on the record.
The main reason I rise is in support of Amendments 173 and 171, which reflect other amendments looking at the need to ensure that we get workforce planning right for the future. Although we are talking about the future, we are also talking about the immediate crisis in social care.
I was amused at 6.36 pm to get a message from NHS Professionals, which said: “Dear Mary, you are receiving this email because you are registered on our NHS pathway for professionals. We still have many new opportunities that you would be interested in, so please feel free to log in and see now.” I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, who is just walking in now, has had the same email from NHS Professionals, but we both logged on at the same time—and she is nodding she has. We will stay here for the time being.
The pandemic has placed a spotlight on the health and care workforce and the pressures it sustained. However, these pressures are against a background of persistent under-recruitment, under-retention and under-representation. This shortfall has serious implications for patient and staff safety, as well as the efficiency of health and care services. In part, as others have said, this has been ameliorated by overseas recruitment. However, as a co-editor of the World Health Organization’s State of the World’s Nursing report last year, I have to say that that is not sustainable or ethical. However, I particularly congratulate the Chief Nursing Officer, Ruth May, for her initiative that enables and encourages refugees to register as nurses in this country, which is clearly an ethical practice.
A strategy to comprehensively monitor and meaningfully respond to the shortfall is essential to support the recovery and development of a strong, safe and sustainable workforce. As it stands, I do not believe that the Bill adequately mandates the actions required to achieve this ambition. As others have said, across the NHS there is a shortage of almost 100,000 full-time equivalent staff, with nursing staff accounting for 40% of vacancies in England. In the last five years, we have seen less than a 10% increase in mental health nursing staff and a continual decline in learning disability services. I understand there is an NHS England ambition for 21,000 new posts across the mental health system. This appetite for expansion—with the view that it translates to a sufficiently staffed and skilled workforce—is welcomed perhaps more so than ever, as 2.8 million people, or 5% of the population, had contact with secondary mental health, learning disability and autism services during 2020 and 2021.
As we are all aware, the workforce shortage is not limited to the NHS. The turnover rate of registered nurses in adult social care is four times higher than in the NHS, with marked regional differences. Getting the right number of staff with the right skills therefore remains a challenge and requires urgent review to maintain quality patient care. In care homes, the shortage of registered nurses has caused some providers to renounce their registration to provide nursing care, forcing some residents to find new homes. In hospitals, high staff turnover and the use of agency staff have contributed to excessive restrictions and blanket approaches to care for people with learning disabilities and autism, for example.
We have also seen an impact on growing waiting lists. In the first quarter of this year, only 61% of children and young people with eating disorders were seen within one week for urgent review—a 72% reduction from last year and falling below the national standard. I therefore welcome the focus on children and young people’s mental health teams, including the proposed approach to facilitate a much better system in schools. However, such healthcare workers will need to be included in workforce reviews to facilitate a system-wide understanding of current and projected needs and resources. We should celebrate that so many people want to become nurses and encourage them to do so by investing not only in university places but in apprenticeship schemes that enable a wide variety of people from different cultural backgrounds to enter the profession.
While workforce data is collected monthly and subject to validation, it is segregated by sector, which makes some comparisons difficult. There are also known data limitations. In social care, only half of the workforce is recorded; in general practice, sessional practice nursing is not directly comparable with the main workforce; and in the independent health sector there is no complete estimate of the total workforce, despite the fact that it provides significant NHS services.
All this necessitates an imperative call for a workforce strategy that goes beyond a five-year snapshot of the NHS. Rather, a collective effort across the health and care labour market, including community nursing and midwifery, is warranted to annually capture and forecast workforce shortages and requirements over time, with a five-year government strategic response and annual update. Without these amendments, England risks a future health and care workforce that lacks the sufficient capacity, competence and diversity that is necessary to achieve more integrated care and safely promote health and support the changing needs of the population.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 170, 171 and 173. As a former Chief Nursing Officer, I recognise the challenge of ensuring the right number with the right skills of those providing healthcare to meet the needs and the future needs of the population. As someone who, while the Government’s Chief Nursing Officer, was given the objective of finding 60,000 nurses, I understand that it requires a whole-systems approach. I often felt it was about science and art—the science was in the work that went on nationally but the art was in the way it was applied locally on the ground. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about how work on the ground is often not about intuition because that is about experience and knowledge; it is about how it is applied on the ground. I also reflect on the fact that although it was my role with all those working around me to find 60,000 nurses some years ago, we are seeking to find almost the same number today. That demonstrates the fact that we do not have a sustainable model of workforce planning and that we need to do better.
We have already heard how the Bill requires the Government to publish a report that describes the systems in place for assessing and meeting the needs of the workforce. We have already heard that that does not go far enough. In meeting workforce needs, systems are required for both planning and supply, but that does not ensure that it will happen. I believe that we need a system that has accountability, that puts into place long-term planning, and that is funded.
The Secretary of State needs to be held accountable for both workforce planning and supply, because there are some things that only the Secretary of State can do. For example, if the workforce planning systems are not co-ordinated at a national level, there is often limited ability to respond to local variations on the ground, such as those between rural and urban settings or between professions or sectors. For example, responding to local variations may require national changes, such as in training or registration.
There are also parts of the workforce planning system for which only the Secretary of State can be accountable. For example, you can assess and put in place workforce plans but unless they are funded, it is done in vain. There are also actions that are often taken at a national level by government, which can impact on workforce supply and which only the Secretary of State can resist. We have seen national policy influence recruitment and retention: for example, as we moved away from the nursing bursary, as we have seen changes in immigration policy and in the challenges faced by the medical profession around its pensions. All those impact on recruitment and retention.
The Health and Care Bill must have embedded in it accountability for workforce planning and supply sitting with the Secretary of State. This will not only ensure good supply but will prevent staff shortages, improve patient safety and the quality of care. If this is not resolved, we will see those deteriorate.
Finally, on sustainability, we have heard how planning for the workforce takes time. We have heard how long it takes to take train a doctor or a consultant or even a clinical nurse specialty. These periods of training reach over the span of a Government. We need a system that does not just respond to the needs of a Government but beyond them, to ensure that our horizons are not limited by politics but by the needs of a population. Our workforce provides not just quality care to an individual but to a community. We have heard how, if we fail to provide the right workforce, we will fail the other aspirations in the Bill.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, but I support all the amendments in this group. Taken together and perhaps integrated a bit better, they strengthen the focus in the Bill on workforce issues and workforce planning. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on his contribution to open government.
For too long, we have been preoccupied with the funding of our health and care system and have tended to assume—I confess that as a Minister I certainly did this to some extent—that if Governments made enough money available, we would be able to acquire the staff we needed, always forgetting, I think, that health and care is a highly labour-intensive industry, possibly the most highly labour-intensive industry in our country.
We were often very good at masking the shortcomings in our planning system by historically relying on recruitment from abroad. There were doctors from Africa, India and Europe, nurses from the Philippines and elsewhere, and we had a lot of staff coming in from the EU to work in our social care sector. Brexit and our national preoccupation with limiting immigration has changed all that, and that is before we calculate the effect of Covid on health and care staff recruitment. To give your Lordships just one example, pre-Brexit, 40% of the social care staff in London came from the EU. You simply cannot make that ground up very quickly.
Today’s reality for recruiting health and care staff is that we are operating in a highly competitive national and international labour market. That situation will not change any time soon. The probabilities are that we will have to pay more for staff and give more thought to our working practices and conditions. We will have to do a much better job of planning ahead and take much more seriously the training, support and recruitment and retention of this increasingly scarce resource—people.
I suggest that Ministers—I include all of us who have been Ministers—must stop political bragging about how many new doctors and nurses a Government will produce, often without the foggiest idea of how long it will take to do so. Ministers might want to give more consideration as to whether they have the right skills in the sector in the first place, before commissioning the training of highly paid, highly skilled professionals. We have not done a very good job of looking at the extent to which many of the jobs done by doctors could be done by other professionals. Our attempt to train nurses in prescribing has been only half-hearted in using the skills that we have paid for them to develop.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I add my voice in support of Amendment 170, so ably and brilliantly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
At Second Reading, I spoke of my personal experience along the timeline set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, as the person charged with developing the 2019 people plan with said absence of numbers. I do not wish to go into more detail on the history; I would rather spend the brief time I have available talking a bit more about why I think this amendment is needed and attempting to pre-empt some of the potential objections which I suspect will come from my noble friend the Minister.
A number of people have alluded to it, but we should be under no illusions that this is the most important debate we will have on health and social care. All our fantastic, lofty ambitions for our health and care system are for naught if we do not have the people to deliver them—and we should be under no illusions that we do not have them today.
I add my voice to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Verma: there is undoubtedly an important point about ensuring that healthcare assistants, nurses and managers in social care are paid appropriately. We also need to face the fact that we do not have enough people working in health and care in every single role in the system.
This is not a UK-only problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, this is a global issue. We cannot rely on people from outside the UK alone to solve our problem; we have to solve some of this ourselves. We undoubtedly need more people, but I would argue that we also need to work differently; we need both more and different. We need to address the way we work in health and social care, which is at the heart of this Bill. We need to embrace new professions and do the forward planning to make that possible, whether that is recognising sonographers as a registered profession; pushing forward on physician associates, where we are some 10 years behind other countries in the world; or developing an approach to credentialling which enables our clinicians to have more flexible careers, as science and technology change through the course of their lives. All of these ways to work differently from the way we operate today are as important as having more people. Neither more nor different is possible unless we start by being honest about the size of the problem, which is why Amendment 170 is so important.
I believe there are two substantial disincentives for this amendment being accepted. A number of your Lordships have alluded to the first one: anyone running a large people-based organisation is always tempted to focus on the urgent today and not invest in training and development for the future. It is just too tempting for the NHS, as well as the Secretary of State and undoubtedly the Treasury, to want to retain the flexibility to focus on the short term and raid the training budget for the future. Any one of us who has run any organisation knows that that is a human temptation. This does not make them bad people and it is not party political; it is just the reality of running a large organisation. That is why legislating to force transparency is so important.
The second major disincentive relates to a view that I suspect has been held in the Treasury for the best part of 20 years and which is counter to most economics. It is a belief that the way to control workforce costs in the NHS is to constrain the supply. I am not a brilliant economist, but most economics is the other way round: the way to reduce the cost is to increase supply. I have no doubt that it is quite a strongly held view in Her Majesty’s Treasury that the way we control workforce costs in the NHS is by constraining the supply. The reality is that that market mechanism is completely failing.
You have to look only at the costs the NHS is paying for locum, agency and bank staff. A recent Getting It Right First Time report, published last autumn, stated that 27% of workforce costs in emergency departments are for locum, bank or agency staff, which tells you that they are not properly staffed. If you are a young junior doctor in your third year in your career and you work as a locum for one week, you will earn £5,800, but if you work for the NHS for one week, you will earn £3,300. We should not be surprised that junior doctors with large student debts want to work as locums, yet we also know that that materially reduces their fulfilment and the quality of the care they deliver. The economic incentives are not working, despite the deeply held view that if we constrain the supply the NHS will somehow magically transform itself.
That is why we need to put this in the Bill. We do need more people, but we also need to drive incentives for transformation, and we will do that only if we face into the challenge. Those working in higher education can plan only if we give them a signal, and transformation teams can challenge the way we work only if we are honest about the need for that transformation.
One final reason I really urge my noble friend the Minister to accept this amendment is that our wonderful people, who have worked so hard in health and care over the last two years, need hope—and we can send them the strongest signal of hope that we really hear them, that we really understand the people challenges that they face, by putting this in the Bill.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, to which I have added my name, and I broadly support the amendments in this group.
Many noble Lords have identified the question of workforce as the most important single issue that the Bill has to address. Without effective workforce planning, the NHS, as we have heard—and, indeed, the care system—is in peril. Previously, our country and the National Health Service have depended on overseas doctors and nurses to come and fill large numbers. That has been the principal basis of workforce planning for many years—indeed, decades. But that is no longer a viable option. The World Health Organization has estimated that, globally, there will be a shortage of some 18 million healthcare professionals by 2030. That will be a particularly difficult challenge across the globe, and it means that we can no longer depend on importing healthcare professionals to meet our ever-increasing needs. This is well recognised by all who are responsible for the delivery of healthcare and, indeed, by Her Majesty’s Government.
The question is: how can we dependably plan for the future? Unfortunately, it has to be accepted—indeed, it has been accepted in this debate—that planning to date has failed miserably. That is not a malicious failure, but it is a reality, and one that we can no longer tolerate. That is why amendments in this group that deal with the requirement for independent planning and reporting on a regular basis to provide the basis for determination and projecting future health and care workforce needs, are appropriate—indeed, essential.
My noble friend Lord Warner raised a separate issue about a group of amendments that will come later in the Committee’s consideration, which propose the establishment of an independent office for health and care sustainability. This is a recommendation of your Lordships’ ad hoc Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and adult social care, chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel. It is this emphasis on ensuring that there is independent, long-term planning and projection that can provide the fundamental and accurate foundations for workforce planning. We need a broader assessment of what the demand for healthcare will be, and that demand is complex and driven by not only demographic change but changes in the way that we practise, changes in expectations, adoption of technology and changes in working practices. That all needs to be brought together to provide the foundations for planning. Without this emphasis and this obligation secured in the Bill, the NHS and adult social care in our country will not be sustainable.
I very much urge the Minister, in considering this group of amendments, to help your Lordships understand why it would be wrong to secure this emphasis in the Bill. If Her Majesty’s Government are unable to secure this emphasis in the Bill, how can they reassure noble Lords that the failures in planning that have dogged NHS performance with regard to workforce over so many years will not be repeated in the future?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, to state the obvious, without a workforce plan we cannot have a workforce. Amendment 170 certainly seems to get to the heart of the issue, which was so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and my noble friend Lord Stevens.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 24th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (24 Jan 2022)
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak on this group of amendments, and I declare my health and higher education interests, as in the register—and, specifically, my honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. We have had some excellent speeches, and some forensic analysis, of these amendments, which are so important to ensuring that the workforce is at the centre of the reform programme under the Bill. I cannot match those contributions, so I do not intend to.
However, I would still like to support Amendments 172 and 214, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness spoke eloquently to those amendments, recognising, among other things, the crucial role that allied health professionals play in the delivery of healthcare. It is worth emphasising that allied health professionals are the third largest section of the health workforce, supporting people of all ages with a range of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions both within and beyond health and social care settings. Their contribution can often be overlooked in a narrative that frequently focuses only on the role of doctors and nurses—however important those clearly are.
As we have heard, Amendments 172 and 214 are designed to address those issues. I shall comment particularly on the role of the speech and language therapy workforce; I am grateful to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for its briefing on this matter. There are around 19,500 speech and language therapists in the UK, many of whom have a portfolio career and work part-time. It is estimated that about two-thirds spend at least some of their working time in the National Health Service. Those not working in, or employed by, the NHS may work for local authorities, in schools, in the justice sector—in which I have a particular interest—with speech and language therapists becoming a key part of criminal justice liaison and diversion teams, in the third sector and in independent practice.
However, as already noted, these settings are not represented in current workforce planning. This risks not enough speech and language therapists being trained to meet current and future demand. In turn, this risks people of all ages with communication and swallowing needs not being able to access the speech and language therapy they and their families desperately require. Crucially, there is already a significant backlog identified, comprising unmet need and increased demand—that increased demand exacerbated by the pandemic.
From initial discussions with speech and language therapy services, it is estimated that a minimum increase of 15% is required in this skilled workforce, whereas in recent years the profession has grown by only 1.7% net per year. Amendment 172 would mean that the duty to report by the Secretary of State would include the whole health and care workforce, not only those directly employed by the NHS in England, and Amendment 214 would ensure that workforce planning takes into account the experience and expertise of the whole social care workforce by establishing a workforce board in every ICB area.
For speech and language therapists, establishing an advisory workforce mechanism would help to address current weaknesses of workforce planning in the country. In turn, this would support better service planning and delivery, ensuring that there are sufficient speech and language therapists to meet current and future patient need. I strongly support these amendments, which recognise the value of allied health professionals across many services, who will play a crucial role in the integration of care, which is the purpose of this Bill.
Since the debate has picked up Amendment 285 on the proposal to establish an office of health and care sustainability, I add my voice in support. I was a member of the ad hoc Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It was one of that report’s recommendations, and our key recommendation, and we will pick up that debate on another group. In the light of the comments already made on that issue, I recommend our recommendation to this Committee as we develop our thoughts on this Bill.
I hope that the Minister will give a very positive response to ensuring that the role of our allied health professionals is embedded in the plans that will come forward, crucially, on the workforce in our health and care system.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I add my support for Amendments 172 and 214, speaking as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties and a patron of the British Stammering Association. These amendments, which again have the support of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, would do much to safeguard the position of that now rare commodity— speech and language therapists. As has been said by both noble Lords who tabled the amendment, they do not all work in the NHS.
The view of the Department of Health and Social Care is that speech and language therapists should be added to the shortage occupation list, because the profession is facing a range of pressures, including increasing demand in mental health in particular. The NHS long-term plan identified speech and language therapy as a profession in short supply. The need for those therapists must be taken account of in workforce planning.
Similarly, Amendment 214 provides an incentive to ensure that there are enough speech and language therapists to meet current and future demand, which is just not the case at present. I remind noble Lords that meeting communication needs, as well as ensuring the ability to swallow safely—both at risk from a wide range of conditions—are an essential component of well-being, and often safety itself. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, most of what needs to be said about this group of amendments, which I support, has been said, and said brilliantly well—it has been a wonderful debate. However, I would like to make one more key point. I chair University College London Hospitals Foundation NHS Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust. In the last two years, during Covid, much of my time has been spent not in your Lordships’ House but walking around both of those institutions, saying thank you and listening to my exhausted staff.
One of the key reasons for putting the issue of reporting to Parliament on workforce planning into the Bill is that our staff—not just their organisations but the individuals themselves—want it to be there. They know what the issues are; they live with the shortages and they know that it has not been thought through. My noble friend Lord Stevens made that very clear: it has not been thought through. If they are not taking early retirement, as some are, they are living with the consequences. We could and should do so much better for them, and for the long term—and our staff know that. For their sake, if for no other, we must put this on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been an extremely rich and vital debate on crucial amendments, albeit conducted in two parts. I will briefly offer the Green group’s support for all of these amendments. I aim not to repeat anything that has been said but to offer some uniquely Green perspectives on this set of amendments.
I will take them in two groups, starting with Amendments 170 and 173 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Merron. These are particularly important because they very clearly and explicitly lay out the responsibility of the Secretary of State. When I tabled some amendments last week on the Secretary of State’s duty to provide, they met with something of a frosty reception in some quarters—but it is clear from all sides of your Lordships’ House that it has to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that there is a plan for the workforce. I stress that that is coming from all sides of your Lordships’ House.
It is worth referring to the King’s Fund briefing, which I do not think anyone has mentioned yet. I will quote one sentence:
“The measures in the Bill to address chronic staff shortages remain weak.”
That is what a respected outside observer says. Your Lordships’ House is seeking to plug that gap. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, suggested that this was all terribly difficult, and that is undoubtedly true, but a lot of people have been thinking about this for a very long time. I was at a briefing for the Royal College of Physicians before the pandemic, in person, with no masks in sight. It was more than two years ago and they were talking about the need for workforce planning, saying, “We know how this should be”. Indeed, on the Royal College of Physicians’ website, more than four score organisations are listed as backing these amendments for workforce planning. So the support is very much there.
That focuses particularly on the medical side of things, but I will refer also to the Age UK briefing. We have had some very valuable contributions about care workers from the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady Hollins, but Age UK considers that we need to look at this much more broadly. It is calling for a robust accreditation scheme for care workers working in CQC-accredited facilities. We need a different system.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who talked about how this is a low-pay sector, but we also need to talk about this differently and recognise that it is also a high-skill sector. I think of some of the care workers whom I have met: care workers who cared for doubly incontinent, aggressive, advanced Alzheimer’s patients, and who had done so for decades. Anyone who claims that these are not people with amazing levels of skill really is denying an obvious fact. We need to acknowledge the skills of care workers and to make sure that they are appropriately remunerated.
I want to pick up another, perhaps specifically Green Party, point that no one else has picked up on. I noted that the chief executive of NHS England was recently forced into a new deal with private hospitals, which she said did not provide good value for money. The deal provides more care in private hospitals to help recovery from the Covid pandemic; it sees the Government going against NHS England and deliberately pushing up the role of the market in healthcare. For those who deny that this is happening, I am afraid this is very clear evidence of it.
I turn to a report of the Centre for Health and the Public Interest, which notes that the great majority of private hospitals rely entirely on NHS staff contributing outside their NHS hours on a self-employed basis. We are talking here about doctors and associated health professionals such as anaesthetists and other clinicians. The NHS paid for their training, pays for their pensions and covers their insurance, yet we talk about private hospitals “helping the NHS”. Listening to this debate, I think that perhaps as part of the amendments on Report, we need to think in the context of workforce planning about the financial contribution to be made by the private sector to the cost of training to adequately recompense the NHS for what the private sector gets out of it to make profits.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging—as I am sure we all do in your Lordships’ House—the value, commitment and contribution of the workforce who are the backbone of our health and social care services. We owe them our gratitude. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lord Bradley are all absolutely right to acknowledge the breadth and depth of the workforce: that it is a team, and that each part of that team is absolutely connected with the other.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who said that this debate is absolutely central to all that we are here to discuss and to all that patients need from our health and social care services. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have tabled and supported amendments and spoken in this debate. All of them have made a compelling case for a workforce plan that will, if these amendments are taken on board by the Minister, feature a laser-like focus on valuing the entire staff team, along with providing planning, financial resources, responsibility, reviewing and reporting—all essential features of any effective strategy. This begs the question: if we see these pillars in a strategy in every other part of our economy and of the way that our whole society functions, why can we not have this for the NHS and social care?
I am glad to have tabled an amendment that calls for a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there are safe staffing levels—this was very clearly emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her opening to this debate. This is extremely important because it places a duty where it ought to be and allows examination and transparency.
Of course, we all know that the situation we are discussing today is not new: the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, spoke to your Lordships’ House about a litany of unfulfilled promises and missed opportunities in workforce planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, spoke of her efforts to resolve this and explained the need, which we see in these amendments, to introduce improvements to the Bill to resolve the matter of workforce supply against the demand that is there. All of that requires a lead-in time, and it has to be underpinned by the requisite funds—there is no shortcut to this. In England, we now have a whole website that is full of guidance, and NHS boards are required to take this into account, and yet there is no national workforce plan or credible plan for funding. Until there is, the ICBs will not be able to plan either. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly pointed out that this is not an either/or situation: we need a national workforce plan, and it has to have the funds to deliver it.
I will draw the Minister’s attention to particular aspects of the amendments: explicit recognition of the need to consult with the workforce through trade unions; that planning must cover health and social care; that timescales for reporting should be testing but not too onerous; and that the financial projections in any workforce plan should be subjected to some level of independent expert verification, through the Office for Budget Responsibility, for example.
Behind all of these discussions, we started in a place highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham, Lady Walmsley, Lady Watkins and Lady Bennett, and other noble Lords, who spoke of the crisis of the levels of vacancies that we now see and the impossibility of dealing with this without preparation and resource. Any national plan for the workforce needs to be built from the bottom up and not imposed from the top. I hope that the Minister will consider this when he looks at ways to improve the Bill.
I will raise a couple of related points. The scale of the workforce challenge is well established, but it goes far deeper than just numbers and structures. It goes to issues around workforce terms and conditions and career development, particularly in social care, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, brought our attention to. It also has to deal with cultural issues; there is a clear indication that all is not entirely well in the NHS when it comes to diversity, whistleblowing and aspects of how staff are or are not nurtured and supported.
I have one final specific issue to raise, which we have heard about in the debate today and that I would like to extend: international recruitment. I ask that the Government do more to prevent international recruitment, particularly of nurses and midwives, from countries where it is unethical to recruit, and that this be a part of any future strategy. The existing code of practice on international recruitment is not legally enforceable, so when Unison or others report breaches of the code by recruitment agencies, there is no provision for sanctions to be brought against rogue operators. I ask the Minister to confirm that the code of conduct will be promoted and will be enforced.
The situation in which we find ourselves is fixable. I hope the Minister, in his response tonight, will show your Lordships’ House that he understands the situation, that he understands what needs to be done and that he will do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
Well, this has been another fascinating debate, and I welcome the contributions from all noble Lords speaking from many years of experience, including former chief executives of the National Health Service and former Health Ministers, medical experts and practitioners. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have laid amendments in this group; there clearly is a strength of feeling, not only in this Chamber but in the other place. To cut a long story short, this will clearly require more discussion.
However, I am duty bound to give the Government’s perspective on this. We have committed to publishing a plan for elective recovery and to introduce further reforms to improve recruitment and support our social care workforce, as set out in the White Paper, People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that he is aware of many expectations that have passed, and I hope that this time we surprise him. We are also developing a comprehensive national plan for supporting and enabling integration between health, social care and other services that support people’s health and well-being.
The monthly workforce statistics for October 2021 show there are record numbers of staff working in the NHS, with over 1.2 million full-time equivalent staff, which is about 1.3 million in headcount. But I am also aware of the point of noble Lord, Lord Warner, that it should not just be about the number of people working—it is about much more than numbers and quantity; it is about quality and opportunities. We are also committed to delivering 50,000 more nurses and putting the NHS on a trajectory towards a sustainable long-term future. We want to meet our manifesto commitment to improve retention in nursing and support return to practice, and to invest in and diversify our training pipeline, but also, as many Lords have said, to ethically recruit internationally.
On that, I want to make two points. The first is this. When I had a similar conversation with the Kenyan Health Minister and expressed the concern we had about taking nurses who could work in that country, the Minister was quite clear that they actually train more nurses than they have capacity for in their country—they see this as a way to earn revenue. There have been many studies on how remittances are a much more powerful way of helping countries, rather than government-to-government aid. With that in mind, we recruit ethically, and we have conversations.
The second point is also from my own experience. I was on a delegation to Uganda a few years ago and I remember speaking to a local about the issue of the brain drain and our concerns. We were talking about immigration, and he said, “You do realise, though, it is all very well for you to patronise me and say that I should stay in this country, but sometimes the opportunities are not here for me in this country. You talk about a brain drain; I see my brain in a drain”. Sometimes we have to look at the issues of individuals who are concerned that they do not have opportunities in their countries, even if the numbers dictate otherwise. Having said all that, we are committed to the WHO ethical guidelines, but I also think that we should be aware. Look at the way that, post war, the people of the Commonwealth came and helped to save our public services. I hope we are not going to use this as an excuse to keep people out, though I understand the concern that we have to make sure that we recruit ethically internationally.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I have been listening extremely carefully to his response to these amendments and have to say, as gently as I can, that I did not hear many concessions to the points made by noble Lords across the Committee. Unless something really exciting is going to come in the last couple of pages of his brief—I have been watching him turn them over—I suggest that he needs to go back to those above his pay grade and bring home to them the level of distrust about whether the Government are serious about putting proper amendments on workforce issues and planning into this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
You can tell the noble Lord used to have my job, because he clearly anticipated the exciting bit—perhaps not exciting, but more practical—I was coming to. It is quite clear there is a strength of feeling on this issue—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
As a slight modification of the question that was put, one way that Ministers conclude such debates is by saying that they will write to noble Lords on specific questions, to make sure they have been dealt with.
Lord Kamall (Con)
We recognise the strength of feeling in this House and in the other place. This will clearly require more work and more discussions. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to this debate, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, suggested was probably the most important that we have had and will have in Committee on the Bill. Staff are absolutely central to the delivery of health services.
Unfortunately, in this debate we have heard about a great deal of failure. We have failed the staff because we have not provided them with enough colleagues for them to be able to do their work without feeling stressed, being worried about risk to patients, feeling burnout or wanting to reduce their hours or retire early. We have failed to provide enough GPs; we were promised 5,000 or 6,000 extra, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we have fewer than we had in 2015. We rely on 30% of doctors from abroad—an enormous number. Although I absolutely accept what the noble Lord says about the appropriateness of temporary training placements, opportunities and remittances going back to the countries from doctors and nurses coming here, it sounds a little excessive to me. Perhaps we need to do better in planning our own workforce.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(d) the impact on the diversity of provision of health and care services, including social enterprises, independent providers and charities in that area.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would place a duty on NHS England and Integrated Care Boards to ensure that there is a diversity of provision within local areas including social enterprises so that there is a range of choice and expertise available to local communities.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been rather a long wait, though I doubt that we shall spend as much time on this group as we did on the last. I do not pretend that the issue of procurement is as important as that of the workforce; none the less, when we come to Clause 70 there are some very important considerations.
I should say that, although my own two amendments are narrowly focused, in opening this debate I must register with the Minister concerns about the open-ended nature of the power to be given to Ministers under this clause. In essence, through secondary legislation, the whole procurement regime can be changed at the whim of an executive order. Services could be privatised or outsourced or whatever Ministers choose to do with them subject to regulations. It seems rather extraordinary that we are taking out the marketisation sections from current legislation only to replace them with an open-ended power and a procurement regime when we simply do not know what it will be.
I remind the Minister that the Delegated Powers Committee has been very clear that Clause 70 needs very careful attention. As it says,
“initial consultation has been carried out by NHS England on the content of the”
procurement regime, but
“full analysis has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal.”
The Delegated Powers Committee concluded:
“We do not accept that the inclusion of regulation-making powers should be a cover for inadequately developed policy.”
I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will say something more about this and how the Government intend to respond. I think it very unlikely that we will let this Bill leave this House with this clause unaltered. Indeed, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, intends to oppose that Clause 70 stand part of the Bill.
My two amendments are probably the easiest that the Minister will have to deal with in this group and I hope that, for once, he will just get up and say that he accepts them both because they are very sensible and helpful to the way in which one wishes to see the NHS develop commissioning arrangements at the local level. The first, Amendment 93, requires NHS England and integrated care boards to consider the impact of their decisions on the diversity of provision for health and social care services, particularly social enterprises and charities.
I just want to talk about social enterprises: they are set up with a social mission and deliver that mission with all the income that they receive. Over the past 20 years, they have become an ever more important part of delivery of healthcare services. My understanding, from Social Enterprise UK, is that there are 15,000 social enterprises delivering health and care services in this country and that there is very strong evidence to suggest that these organisations are very good at what they do—often better than the alternatives. Indeed, according to a review of public service mutuals, a form of social enterprise, commissioned by DCMS in 2019, these organisations are developing high levels of productivity and better outcomes than their peers and the private sector. Their productivity has increased 10 times faster than that of the rest of the public sector over the past decade. Why? They have done it through innovation: by listening to communities and focusing on their social mission, social enterprises have been able to prepare to make changes to service delivery that other providers have been unwilling to do. As a consequence, a report in 2020 by the King’s Fund described social enterprises as
“‘engines of innovation’ within health and care”.
The Bill as it stands does not provide any duty, responsibilities or guidance for integrated care systems or NHS England to consider social enterprises within their activity. My understanding is that, because we already have these shadow ICBs, it is being interpreted at local level that there is not a future for social enterprises within local systems. There is a risk that decisions are now being made by these shadow organisations, which have no statutory being at all, that there will be a reduced role for these social enterprises in the future. That would be a tragedy, and I must ask the Minister to look at my amendment. It is very innocuous: all it asks ICSs and the NHS to do is to consider the impact of their decisions on a wider provider lattice. He could go further. It would be very simple for a message to be sent down the service from this debate to say that they got it wrong about social enterprises and they should indeed be thinking of commissioning more services in the future from there.
My Amendment 211 is linked to it. It deals with social value and how they should be embedded into procurement processes by integrated care boards. The definition of social value is the process by which public bodies seek to maximise the additional social, environmental and economic outcomes of the money that they spend. The coalition Government in 2012 supported the passage of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. The adoption of the Act in the NHS has been very patchy indeed. I shall not delay the Committee by going into the details, but it is very disappointing. All my amendment would do is put a simple duty on NHS England to create guidance and ensure that social value is clearly understood across the system. It would be only guidance: it surely could not be a problem for the Government to endorse their own policy on social value in the NHS. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is taking part remotely and I now invite him to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend in his aim, expressed in Amendments 93 and 211, to require that procurement practices by the NHS are such as to ensure diversity of provision and maintain social value. The case was made convincingly, I hope, in previous debates that the non-clinical and voluntary community and social enterprise sectors have important contributions to make to preventing ill health, both physical and mental, aiding recovery and reducing health inequalities. That being so, it is only common sense that the NHS, and ICBs in particular, should use their power and influence to ensure that there is a flourishing ecology of the community organisations that share their agenda. The NHS should engage with them, listen to them, enlist them and cherish them.
Although the value of community organisations to healthcare has long been obvious, that has been all too little recognised in the actual practice of the NHS. Responsibility here, however, does not rest only with the NHS. The non-clinical sector must help the NHS to relate effectively to it. The King’s Fund has been doing important work on contractual models for commissioning integrated care. This was the basis, for example, for the way arts and cultural organisations came together in Gloucestershire to enable the CCG to fund the work without having to deal with lots of small organisations and individual artists. In Suffolk, the CCG has provided administrative support and leadership in providing training for arts and cultural workers to connect to link workers. We cannot expect ICB commissioners to deal with a mass of organisations in the VCSE sector, but they can support that sector to develop suitable models of co-ordination. I think “market-placed development” is the bureaucratic term here. Organisations such as the National Centre for Creative Health and the Culture, Health and Wellbeing Alliance stand ready to support non-clinical providers to get their act together to enable ICBs to negotiate with them productively.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord and I endorse the points he makes about the diversity of provision, which is certainly something that we should aim for; I am not sure how we will make sure it is in the Bill, but we will get to that later on. I will not dwell on the other amendments; I will simply explain why I oppose Clause 70 standing part. I was pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, shares that view, although she may do so for different reasons.
This gives me an opportunity to explain something that I have been saying to Ministers—not necessarily these Ministers but their predecessors—for the last two or three years: if the NHS took the view that the structure of the procurement regime that was applied to it was a constraint, cumbersome and the various other words that it used, Ministers could do something about it very quickly because, in the legislation, they have the power to change the regulations. So why do they not do so? I also want to explain that the existing regulations do not impose some of the constraints that it is argued they do. That begs the question behind my opposition to the clause standing part: why are we legislating in this way in this clause, when the effect is to remove a power to make regulations relating to the procurement regime in order to then put into the Bill a power to do just that? It really does nothing much more than that.
Of course, in truth, we do not know what these new regulations will look like because they have not been published, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, rightly said. The issue lies in the regulations because, as I will demonstrate, what mattered to the service, as it turned out, was not what was in Section 75 of the 2012 Act but what was in the subsequent 2013 procurement, choice and competition regulations. I am sorry, but this is going to take a few minutes.
Clause 70 does nothing much more than refer to the fact that there should be transparent and fair processes, that “managing conflicts of interest” should take place and that compliance should be verified—I do not know quite what that means but it is probably a good thing. It also makes reference to general procurement objectives. You might ask what those are, since they are not specified in Clause 70 itself.
If one goes back to the previous legislation, one gets to the point in the NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which are also revoked later in Clause 70. In the regulations, there is a paragraph that says what the procurement objectives are:
“for the purposes of the NHS … a relevant body must act with a view to … securing the needs of the people who use the services … improving the quality of the services, and … improving efficiency in the provision of the services”.
I rather hope that we are not yet encountering anything to which people would object. It then goes on to say:
“including through the services being provided in an integrated way (including with other health care services, health-related services, or social care services).”
Frankly, we have had years now of people explaining that the legislation did not allow them to do things in an integrated way. But when one looks back to 2013 and the regulations brought in, they say that the objective is to do things in an integrated way. I slightly wonder why the NHS did not do that, rather than complain that it could not.
Let me go on. When looking at the general requirements of procurement subsequently in that regulation, it includes the provision to
“act in a transparent and proportionate way, and … treat providers equally and in a non-discriminatory way”,
and wants projects delivered with “best value”. So far, again, there is nothing to which people object.
In Regulation 3(4) we hit something that people might object to. In defining what quality and efficiency look like, the regulations go on to say that the services should be
“provided in a more integrated way”—
which we have already heard about, and it repeats exactly that point—
“enabling providers to compete to provide the services”.
This may be where the objection came from, in which case my argument to Ministers is this: if that is what you do not like in the regulations, omit it from them. Ministers could have done it literally in a matter of weeks.
What is the other objection to the existing structure of the legislation? Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, about the power and what it should be used to do, talked about good practice in procurement and the right to patient choice. I mentioned in a previous group the importance of, in my view, putting the right to patient choice into the provider selection regime, but we will come on to that again at a later stage.
Here is a third point, and something to which I think some people objected to, and have objected to subsequently; that providers
“do not engage in anti-competitive behaviour which is against the interests of people who use such services.”
I might say that if the anti-competitive behaviour is in the interests of the people who use those services, it is not necessarily objectionable. However, when one looks further, Regulation 10 of the subsequent regulations describes the circumstances in which anti-competitive behaviour might be justified:
“unless to do so is in the interests of people who use health care services … which may include … the services being provided in an integrated way”.
We keep coming back to this.
The other point I would make—she is not here, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, said it at Second Reading—is that the NHS objected to the fact that it was required to engage in compulsory competitive tendering. Section 75 of the 2012 legislation says that the regulations may
“impose requirements relating to … competitive tendering”,
as well as to the management of conflicts of interest, but it does not require the regulations to be made at all, and it certainly does not require the regulations to include compulsory competitive tendering, and nor do the subsequent regulations published in 2013 require that.
All of that leads me to the conclusion that Section 75 of the 2012 Act simply creates a power; it does not need to be changed for new regulations to have been made. Section 75 says that subsequent 2013 regulations may be objectionable to people in so far as they refer to qualified providers and to competitive tendering. If that was the problem, you should revise the regulations, publish them, take out the bits you object to and give the NHS a provider selection regime that fits their anticipated needs. The objectives are all there: quality, efficiency, best value, fairness, proportionality and an integrated service—and an integration, if that is what this Bill is all about, was already there in the 2012 legislation.
My question to my noble friend for before Report, and the question asked by the stand part debate, is: why are we doing what we are doing in Clause 70? Cannot we do it perhaps more simply and effectively by amending the existing legislation, rather than by trying to do wholesale repeals, introducing something that we will not know what it looks like until after this Bill has passed through this House?
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 213 is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I am very grateful for her support. I can be briefer than I was expecting to be, given what the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Hunt, have said in the last few minutes.
My amendment addresses another instance of an attempt by the Government to bypass parliamentary scrutiny, and it proposes in response an enhanced form of parliamentary scrutiny. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, remarked, the DPRRC report on the Bill notes that the delegated powers memorandum says that, although initial consultation has been carried out by NHS England on the content of the procurement regime, full analysis has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal. Clause 70 gives the Minister the power to impose a new procurement regime, without giving any details of what it might be. This is the clearest possible example of the Government taking powers to make policy without specifying at all what that policy may be.
The DPRRC rejects the inclusion of regulation-making powers as a cover for inadequately developed, or undeveloped, policy. What is worse, the delegated powers memorandum says that a Cabinet Office procurement Bill will most likely follow this Bill, and it may require some amendments to the regulation-making powers that we are discussing in this Bill. The regulatory powers in question are to be subject to the negative procedure. I think we all, except for the Government Front Bench, would recognise that the negative procedure is emphatically not effective parliamentary scrutiny.
What we have here is a skeleton clause, with regulation-making powers of very broad scope. There is nothing in this clause, or in the Bill more generally, which would in practice constrain how broadly these powers could be used in constructing a procurement regime. It would probably be better, from the point of view of parliamentary scrutiny, to leave out Clause 70 entirely, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, propose, and wait for the full policy to be set out in the Bill, as promised to follow soon from the Cabinet Office.
If the Minister can advance compelling reasons why this Bill should be the vehicle for setting up the procurement regime by regulations, there is one route we could take, as set out in my amendment. This amendment imposes the super-affirmative procedure on the delegated powers proposal. The super-affirmative procedure is designed and used to deliver a measure of real scrutiny in circumstances that require it. In proceedings on the recent Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, the Minister very helpfully summarised the super-affirmative procedure as follows, saying that the
“procedure would require an initial draft of the regulations to be laid before Parliament alongside an explanatory statement and that a committee must be convened to report on those draft regulations within 30 days of publication. Only after a minimum of 30 days following the publication of the initial draft regulations may the Secretary of State lay regulations, accompanied by a further published statement on any changes to the regulations. They must then be debated as normal in both Houses and approved by resolution.”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 376.]
According to the Library, the last recorded insertion in a Bill of a super-affirmative procedure was by the Government themselves, in October 2017, in what became the Financial Guidance and Claims Act.
I repeat that, if the Minister really can convince us that he has a compelling reason to have this new procurement regime set up by regulations in the Bill, my amendment would provide the opportunity for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. If he cannot accept that, then we would be wise to take out Clause 70 in its entirety.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and echo many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, although I draw slightly different conclusions to him.
We have been around this track on social enterprise over the last 15 or 16 years and, in what I might call the good old days, there was a social enterprise unit in the Department of Health. That arose—it is worth remembering this—because many NHS staff preferred to work in a social enterprise unit rather than be direct employees of the NHS. The early days of social enterprises saw a number of groups of staff, particularly nurses, producing, in effect, co-operatives to work as social enterprises. While the noble Lord is entitled to feel a little anxious if there is nothing in the Bill even as modest as Amendment 93 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that arrangement gives some degree of protection to social enterprises which have served the NHS pretty well over the last 15 or 16 years. So, the least the Government could do is accept Amendment 93.
To some extent, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, relate to the points I made earlier about Amendment 72. The bottom line on all this is that the way the Government have gone about trying to say, in Clause 70, that there needs to be a new provider selection regime, while not declaring their hands, has actually created the worst suspicions. If indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, says, there is adequate provision already, why create the suspicion that some dastardly deed is going to be produced at a later stage by putting in Clause 70 and then not producing the draft regulations before the House clears the Bill?
The Government have got themselves into a fair tangle over this issue, and the Minister would perhaps do well to take this back to the department and try to reassure people as to what the Government are up to. Are they trying to change the Section 75 arrangements, and, if so, in what way? We want a lot more clarity about what the future provider regime will actually look like.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, having attached my name to a couple of amendments in this group. The issues around Clause 70 have been very clearly addressed, and I will just add one reflection, looking back to a discussion on an earlier group last week, when I said that if the Secretary of State gets great power, with that comes great responsibility. From the debate in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to say that the Bill will not leave the House in this condition, but, if it were to, or if, after future amendments and ping-pong it were to end up back in this condition, the Secretary of State would really be in quite a dangerous place.
I pick up on social enterprises and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We will be coming to some amendments, perhaps on Wednesday, when I will be talking about the impact of privatisation on social care. There will at some point—we have already seen this several times—be a huge crisis of the financialised social care sector, particularly care homes. When large chains fall apart and we have to find a way forward, social enterprises will be one way. I am aware that Clause 70 mentions healthcare and associated services, but to think about this in a whole and integrated way, we should ensure that there is recognition for social enterprise.
I attached my name to Amendment 208 because I thought it was important to demonstrate maximum cross-party support. Dare I say that events in the House earlier today demonstrated the need for transparency and openness in official contracts? There is great public concern about the misallocation of resources and the need for a guarantee of openness in government and official spending, so that amendment is crucial.
I do not know how I missed Amendment 209 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I certainly would have attached my name to it had I not done so. It is often commented that I cover a very broad range of subjects in your Lordships’ House, so I often talk about trade deals in other contexts, but there are very grave concerns about trade deals undercutting principles and priorities that have been identified in British politics, so that amendment is also important.
Finally, on Amendment 211, we have seen that giving government contracts to the lowest cash bidder has had disastrous consequences across a whole range of sectors. It has benefited a handful of giant companies, some of which have collapsed, some of which have engaged in rampant fraud and all of which have delivered a disastrous quality of services, exploiting poorly paid staff. Social enterprise is a different approach, a different way of commissioning and a way out of that. It is a way of relocalisation: stopping those few large companies that keep winning contracts because the whole thing is structured so that only a handful of companies can bid for them anyway. These are all really important amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I have my name to Amendment 93 and Clause 70 stand part. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just told us, Clause 70 is a bit of a mess, and having listened to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of why it is a bit of a mess, I do not find much need to say much more. However, on the issue of compulsory competitive tendering, I understood that the Bill will reduce its importance. I wonder how those things link together and whether the Minister can explain it to me.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about diversity of provision, it is usual that those with the biggest voices shout the loudest and, in the health sector, it is often also those with the biggest budgets, such as the acute hospitals. We have this very valuable not-for-profit sector that has a small voice and a small budget—at least individually, although it adds up to quite a lot—and a great deal of it comes from the NHS.
As has been said, many of them are spin-offs, comprising former NHS staff who prefer to work in that context. There are an awful lot of them—about 15,000—and they feel particularly threatened by the Bill because, despite the fact that they are specifically mentioned in the ICS design framework as a vital cornerstone of a progressive health and care system, they are not referred to in the Bill and there appears to be little, if any, recognition of the potential impact of the new structures of provider collaboratives and place-based partnerships on their funding and, crucially, their involvement in decision-making. As others have said, that missing piece has caused a lot of suspicion and concern in the sector, and we must not lose these important organisations, because they really understand their client base: they are local, they are flexible, they are fleet of foot, they innovate and they are vital in providing services, in particular for those with complex needs. We must make sure that their voice is heard.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this group is in two parts. The first part consists of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I need to declare an interest as a patron and the founding chair of Social Enterprise UK, and also as an associate of E3M, for public sector social enterprise leaders, particularly in the healthcare sector, so I have been living with this. Indeed, I must declare an interest as the Minister who helped take through the right to request in the NHS for our staff. I am very committed to these amendments, and to the need for social enterprises to continue to innovate and deliver in our health and social care system, which they do at the moment. There is a report due out very soon from the group chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on Covid and social enterprise; the way that social enterprises have delivered during Covid is stunning.
I turn to the amendments in the second part of this group, many of which have my name on them. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I find ourselves in broadly the same place: it is a mess. Our first thought was, “Why is this clause here?”, because it does both the things that my former noble friend Lord Warner—I still regard him as a friend—said. This clause does not tell us what is going to happen but it makes us extremely suspicious about what might happen. My amendments—and also, I think, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—are about that suspicion. It is quite right that the regulatory committee also said that we needed to pay attention to this, because it gives the Secretary of State very wide powers and it does not tell us what the Secretary of State will do with them.
I have quite a long speaking note, but I do not intend to go into the detail now. I simply say to the Minister that if, by the next stage of the Bill, we have not resolved the issues behind this clause, the Government may find themselves struggling to get it, as it stands, through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, again, I have heard the excellent contributions that have been made, really holding the Government to account on a number of these amendments.
I begin with Amendment 93, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I assure him that social value is a very important matter for the Government. I know that this importance is echoed across the NHS, as the country’s largest employer and public service, and that we see the value of the excellent services and innovation that social enterprises, independent providers and charities bring to health and care—indeed, not just to health and care but to the wider economy. However, we do not think that this is an appropriate duty to put on NHS commissioners, or an appropriate addition to the triple aim.
We have been discussing the triple aim and other issues around how that ends up. We fundamentally believe that the focus of NHS commissioning decisions should be on offering the best possible treatments and services based on quality, rather than any decision being based on the type of provider, but, again, while recognising the diversity of non-clinical providers, especially social enterprises, voluntary organisations and charities. The duty of the triple aim is intended to be shared across the NHS. The aims represent a core shared vision of what the NHS should offer, and are intended to align NHS bodies around a common set of objectives and support a shift towards integrated systems. In this context we would not want to split the duty by adding a section relevant to commissioners, NHS England and ICBs, but not to trusts and foundation trusts.
On Amendment 211, in its long-term plan the NHS committed to reducing health inequalities and supporting wider social goals. Again, this refers back to previous debates on how we make sure that we really capture the essence of tackling inequalities in the Bill. We recognise that NHS organisations can contribute to social and economic development, and aim to reduce the impact of social determinants of health and reduce heath inequalities. It is with this in mind that social value, alongside sustainability, has been proposed as one of the key criteria which will be used for decision-making under the provider selection regime.
We believe that this amendment, at this stage, is not necessary, as alongside the role of social value as a key decision-making criterion, NHS England and NHS Improvement will produce guidance on applying net zero and social value in healthcare procurement, which includes taking account of social value in the award of central contracts.
The Cabinet Office social value model has been applied to procurement decisions taken by NHS England and NHS Improvement since 1 April 2021 and will be extended to the whole NHS system from 1 April 2022. Adopting the Cabinet Office social value model across the NHS complements strategic initiatives and policy within the NHS.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I assume it will be but, as I am about to say on a number of other issues, there is clearly a lot to take back to the department, not only tonight but on the whole Bill. I pledge to take that back to the department.
Where there is only one possible provider or where the incumbent is delivering well, it is intended that the regime will enable commissioners to continue contracts in an efficient way. However, if a trust or foundation trust currently holds a contract or did hold a contract, it should not be assumed that it is or was always with the most suitable provider. It is the view of the Government and the NHS that patients should be able to access services based on quality and value, delivering the best possible outcome, rather than basing the decision on what type of provider they are.
Amendment 208 would require a competitive tender for contracts with an annual value of over £5 million. While we recognise the role of competitive tender—and expect that, in many cases, this may be the appropriate route—the NHS asked the Government for greater flexibility in tendering contracts. It is for local commissioners to select the most appropriate provider for a service and to do so in a robust way. We agree with the importance of open, transparent and robust decision-making. Regulations and statutory guidance made under the provision in Clause 70 will set out rules to ensure transparency and scrutiny of decisions to award healthcare contracts. Decision-makers will also need to adhere to any relevant existing duties, act with transparency and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. This and other aspects of the regime will provide sufficient safeguards to fulfil the important need for fairness when making decisions about the arrangement of services.
On Amendment 209, the Government’s position on trade agreements is clear. We have been unequivocal that the procurement of NHS healthcare services is off the table in our future trade negotiations. This is a fundamental principle of the UK’s international trade policy. In fact, it dates back to the days when we were a member of the European Union; this issue came up a number of times. I remember working in the European Parliament with colleagues from the Labour Party and elsewhere to ensure that this was part of our agreements. Therefore, we do not consider the noble Baroness’s amendment necessary. My department has worked with the Department for International Trade to ensure robust protections for public services. For example, in the recent UK-Australia trade agreement, it was clearly stated that the procurement of health services is not included in the scope of the agreement’s services procurement coverage. We will ensure that our right to choose how we deliver public services is protected in future trade agreements.
Amendment 212 would mean that the provisions of Clause 70 expired three years after the day on which they commenced. In 2019, the NHS provided recommendations to the Government and Parliament for this NHS Bill. These recommendations told us that
“there is strong public and NHS staff support for scrapping Section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and for removing the commissioning of NHS healthcare services from the jurisdiction of the Public Contract Regulations 2015.”
The recommendations also voiced support for the removal of the presumption of automatic tendering of these services. Our intention is that, through this clause and the new procurement regulations to be made under it, we will deliver what the NHS has asked for: new rules for arranging services that work for the NHS, and, most importantly, for patients.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am very sorry—I know it is late—but, frankly, these are not rules that will serve the locality. At the moment it looks as if these rules will be set by the Secretary of State and will serve the Secretary of State. That is what the Bill says at the moment; those are the powers that this clause takes.
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the Minister answers that question, could he make clear whether the primary concern of the Government is the interests of the patient or of the NHS? They could be in conflict. Much of what he has said implies that they are the same but they are not, and some of the issues on which the Minister is saying “We’re doing what the NHS wanted” concern me about where the patient’s perspective is in that kind of approach.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord raises a concern that I have heard a number of times: that we should be careful about saying “This is what the NHS wanted”—that the focus has to be about patients. We clearly take the view that this should be patient-centred and patient-focused. Indeed, I have had a number of conversations with many noble Lords about how we make sure that it is patient-focused. We understand, however, that concerns have been raised that Clause 70 may in part be a temporary measure, to be replaced or significantly edited by the Cabinet Office procurement Bill to follow. This is not and never has been our intention, but I understand the concern and recognise that there is value to aligning processes when such alignment is in the wider system interest. We continue to engage with the Cabinet Office on its proposals.
Amendment 213 would make regulations under Clause 70 subject to the super-affirmative procedure. I appreciate the intention behind this amendment. However, we do not feel at the moment that the super-affirmative procedure is necessary. As set out in our delegated powers memorandum, the powers created by Clause 70 are inserted into the NHS Act 2006, in line with the vast majority of regulation-making powers under that Act.
We know that there is significant parliamentary interest around the rules determining how healthcare services are arranged, so it is vital that we strike the right balance between democratic scrutiny and operational flexibility. The negative procedure provides that balance and ensures transparency and scrutiny. We will continue to engage widely on the proposals for the regulations to be made under these powers, to ensure that they will deliver—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am sure that the noble Lord knows that there is actually no parliamentary scrutiny with the negative procedure—none.
Lord Kamall (Con)
May I explain about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on Clause 70—
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Before the Minister abandons Amendment 93 entirely, could he explain why it is necessary to have, in this Bill—when there is another one coming along—regulation-making powers that are unconstrained and non-specific?
Lord Kamall (Con)
We do not believe that they are, but clearly there is a difference of opinion about it.
I would like to turn, however, to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley on Clause 70. The regulations that we create under Clause 70 will have a broader scope than those currently created under Section 75. The provider selection regime will include public health services commissioned by local authorities, thereby recognising their role as part of joined-up health services delivered for the public. While we always want to act in the interests of people who use our services, our regime recognises the reality that in some cases integration, rather than competition, is the best way to achieve this for the health service. Finally, removing the section and creating a new bespoke regime, is—despite the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Warner—what the NHS has asked for. There is strong public and NHS support for scrapping Section 75 of the 2012 Act—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry—it is getting late—but will my noble friend at least, at some point, tell us: did Ministers ever challenge the NHS on whether what it was asking for required primary legislation? Did they ever ask, “What are you trying to achieve?”—and then let us, the Government and Parliament, who actually pass the legislation, see how it should be achieved? Or has Parliament in practice now become merely the cypher for the NHS?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I take the point that my noble friend makes, and I completely understand the concerns; that is why it is important that I take many of the concerns raised today back to the department.
Clause 70 inserts a new Section 12ZB into the NHS Act 2006, allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations. I have a lengthy explanation here but, frankly, I am not sure that it will pass muster. If noble Lords will allow me to go back to the department—I may be a sucker for punishment, but I accept the concerns and I will go back—
Lord Warner (CB)
Would the Minister like a few of us to go along to the department with him?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Lord will recognise, when I was appointed to this job, I did say that I wanted to consult as many previous Health Ministers as possible, as well as people who have worked in the field. It is clear from this debate that more consultation and discussion are needed, so I would welcome noble Lords’ advice. On that note, I beg that Clause 70 stand part of this Bill and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the hour is late. We cannot have the extensive debate that we probably require. I shall be very brief. I should have declared an interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, the NHS procurement professionals.
On social value, I am very grateful to the Minister because he said that guidance will be issued to the health service on this, which is gratifying. On social enterprise, my noble friend Lord Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Thornton of course, all referred to the value of social enterprises. The Minister is not convinced that we need to put anything in the Bill. The point I need to put to him is this: it is clear from intelligence from the health service what the people running what I call the shadow ICBs want. I do wonder what we are doing legislating when obviously, everything is up and running; it is very difficult to know why we are here tonight debating these issues. Clearly, the NHS wants it, so it has got it and it is Parliament’s job, presumably, to just legitimise what it is already doing.
Having said that, these integrated care boards believe that social enterprises are not to be invested in in the future. So, my appeal to the Minister is this: fine, do not put it in the Bill, but please get a message out to the 42 ICBs telling them not to be so silly as to think that they should carve social enterprises out of the new regime.
More generally, on procurement, it is very interesting to be debating with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We fought tooth and nail for days on Section 75 of the 2012 legislation. Along come the Government, now saying, “Oh, we’re going to get rid of it. We don’t know what we will replace it with, but it is all right because we can have some negative regulations which mean we can steam it through without any scrutiny apart from a desultory debate as a dinner-break business sometime in the future. Oh, and by the way, there’s procurement legislation coming along too, but we can’t tell you what will be in there.”
Somehow, between now and Report, collectively we need to find a way through. I confess to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that I am rather pleased to see Section 75 go. However, something has to be put in its place, or we will just leave the NHS to get on with it and await future regulations and legislation. One thing for sure is that the idea of leaving the Bill with Section 70 and not even accepting the noble Lord’s sensible suggestion of the super-affirmative procedure is quite remarkable, and clearly it will not run. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 26th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (26 Jan 2022)
Lord Sharkey
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 106 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I am very grateful for their support.
Two months ago, two of our Select Committees, the DPRRC and the SLSC, published simultaneous and collaborative reports. The DPRRC report is entitled Democracy Denied? The urgent need to rebalance power between Parliament and the Executive, and the SLSC report is called Government by Diktat: A call to return power to Parliament. It would be very hard to exaggerate the importance of these reports, and I congratulate both committees on a very timely and disturbing reminder of the Government’s habit of trying to bypass Parliament and avoid effective scrutiny, as they do again in this Bill.
Both the reports focused on the long-standing abuse of the use of delegated powers legislation, and the DPRRC concluded:
“The abuse of delegated powers is in effect an abuse of Parliament and an abuse of democracy, and this report will, we hope, be a prompt to strengthen Parliament in the coming years.”
We can make a start on that hope with this Bill.
The DPRRC noted in its report of 15 December that the Bill contains 155 substantive provisions and 156 delegated powers. It concluded:
“The Health and Care Bill is a clear and disturbing illustration of how much disguised legislation a Bill can contain and offends against the democratic principles of parliamentary scrutiny.”
The report examines some of the Bill’s clauses in some detail, including the insertion via Clause 20 of a new Section 14Z48 into the National Health Service Act 2006. Essentially, the new section gives a Minister the power to make law by simply publishing “a document”. The department tries to justify the lack of any parliamentary procedure associated with the publication of a document on the grounds that the power is concerned with operational and administrative matters. However, the DPRRC goes on to say:
“Such a power is very unusual. If used in a context other than one involving public sector health bodies, it might give grave cause for concern and set an extraordinary precedent. Statutory liabilities should be imposed transparently, subject to clear legal conditions and parliamentary scrutiny.”
I should point out here the force of the word “unusual” in the committee’s comments. This is the highest form of disapprobation used by committees, and for good reason. This proposed new section is a blatant, transparent and disgraceful attempt to avoid any parliamentary scrutiny whatever.
The DPRRC’s conclusion is damning. It says:
“The power to impose a legal liability by merely publishing a document, without any parliamentary scrutiny, is a striking example of disguised legislation. We regard it as an inappropriate delegation of power, which should be removed from the Bill.”
In its report on the Bill of 7 January, the Constitution Committee agreed with the DPRRC’s recommendation to remove the new section from the Bill. I agree strongly, and that is what our amendment would do. I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to retain the powers set out in proposed new Section 14Z48, he rework them between now and Report so that they at least involve scrutiny by the affirmative procedure. If not, he can certainly expect us to return to this serious abuse of delegated powers on Report. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have just heard a very powerful contribution from my noble friend Lord Sharkey, reminding Ministers and your Lordships’ House of the importance of the problem of Ministers taking delegated powers, stopping Parliament doing its job properly. I support his amendments.
Amendments 133, 139 and 161 in this group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, are on continuing healthcare and I can think of no better person in your Lordships’ House to speak about the importance of that. I look forward to her speech. I am pleased to support her amendments and will speak to them now. The NHS definition says:
“Some people with long-term complex health needs qualify for free social care arranged and funded solely by the NHS. This is known as NHS continuing healthcare.”
The full continuing healthcare assessment and the toolkit for updating assessments are absolutely vital for any multidisciplinary team and, at least in theory, these amendments put them on a formal footing as part of the smooth package of care that individuals need. The amendments establish a duty to fund and assess continuing healthcare, which needs to be visible, not least because of the abuses in the current system.
The principles of continuing healthcare in current legislation are fine, but unfortunately, as money has got tighter, there are problems with how they work in practice. There are many reports of CCG assessors and social workers having disruptive and degrading discussions, sometimes with family members present, about whether a particular issue is a continuing healthcare or a personal care need, which would be funded by the patient or their local authority, or the NHS. I personally witnessed a debate about the percentage split of continuing care versus personal care concerning the incontinence of a family member. It was not about the patient; it was solely about money and who would pay.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 133, 139 and 161 in my name, and to Amendments 143 and 144 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I have added my name.
Amendments 133, 139 and 161 are intended to clarify the role that continuing healthcare—CHC—will play, along with other commissioned services. The Continuing Healthcare Alliance has raised concerns about the provision of NHS continuing healthcare. The package of care is there to support people with ongoing and substantial needs in England. Examples of conditions for which someone may qualify for CHC include Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease and dementia, but there are many others as well.
Amendments 143 and 144 would strengthen the power of NHS England to give directions to integrated care boards. They would help to ensure national consistency of CHC services, which, sadly, is not always the case at present. When the Bill was debated in the other place, the Minister, Edward Argar, responded to a similar amendment as follows:
“It is right that clinical commissioning groups, as they are currently called, are held accountable for NHS continuing healthcare within their local health and social care economy. That will also be the case with the national move to integrated care boards, where the board will discharge those duties and be accountable for NHS continuing healthcare as part of its NHS commissioning responsibilities.”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 28/10/21; col. 825.]
Given this earlier response, I believe that it is the intention of the Government to improve the national delivery of continuing healthcare and to ensure more consistent delivery throughout England. The intention of this group of amendments is to clarify that in the Bill, so I commend Amendments 133, 139 and 161.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 133, 139 and 161, which were so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others. I also have Amendments 143 and 144 in my name. All the amendments aim to tackle the accountability gap: the inconsistency of provision of continuing healthcare across different parts of England.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, alluded to some diseases, but this goes much wider. There are people with spinal injuries and long-term multiple sclerosis and there are people who have had strokes. They all need ongoing long-term healthcare at a high level—way above the level that can be provided by social care.
The problem is that the accountability gap exists and there is inconsistency in the quality of provision, with eligibility criteria being interpreted differently in different areas. Amendments 143 and 144 aim to strengthen the powers of NHS England in the Bill to give direction to integrated care boards, with the particular aim of closing this accountability gap. Within the existing system, NHS England is responsible for holding clinical commissioning groups accountable for their discharge of continuing healthcare and functions.
In the reformed system proposed by the Bill, NHS England will hold these boards accountable in a similar way, but I question whether it has adequate authority both in the current system and the proposed system and whether the levers available to it to act meaningfully are adequate. While the intention prior to the Lansley reforms was to give NHS England powers to intervene to create meaningful change in practice, the powers were restricted to high-level interventions where there was a failure of governance at the highest level, rather than interventions where a CCG was failing to implement good practice or to adhere to national policy.
The 2018 report by the Public Accounts Committee in the other place supported these concerns and stated:
“NHS England is not adequately carrying out its responsibility to ensure CCGs are complying with the legal requirement to provide continuing healthcare to those that are eligible.”
There are limited accountability mechanisms and there is inadequate data collection at present. These amendments seek clarification and would drive long-overdue improvements in the quality and, importantly, the consistency of the way that continuing healthcare decisions are made and the process is administered, with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing the strain of applying for continuing healthcare for people who live with complex health needs and for their loved ones, in particular their family and carers.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her amendments. We should be clear that continuing health needs are ignored by assessors because of the issue of who will pay. I have experienced this twice with neighbours and friends. It was clear to me that both patients had complex needs, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and had undeniable continuing care needs, so I was puzzled as to why the families were working out how to fund places for their relatives. They had never been told of the possibility of continuing NHS funding. I suggested that they quote the legislation back to the assessors and of course when they did so they found that funding would be provided—and some years later it is still being provided. Without this chance encounter with me, and asking the right questions, those families would have been denied the funding that is their right.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, as ever, it is a great pleasure to row in behind my former boss at Age Concern—the inspirational leader of Age Concern for so many years—to return to an issue that Age Concern and its successor body Age UK have for decades raised with successive Governments during successive NHS reorganisations.
It is important, at the outset of this debate, that we understand the true importance of NHS continuing care. On one level, an individual level, it is about enabling people who have long-term conditions to live dignified lives in the community. At a strategic level, in terms of healthcare planning, it is about keeping people out of acute hospitals, which is the most expensive form of care.
The reason why it is right, again, that we seek to put these amendments on to the face of the Bill is that, at an organisational level within the NHS, there has never been a full accountability path for NHS continuing care. That means that, when it comes to individual decision-making on the part of members of staff in relation to individual patients, the decisions fall down. We have not just wide variation between different organisations but wide variation between particular practitioners, who sometimes resort to using non-standard checklists to make decisions, with inconsistent decision-making.
As a result of that, it is hardly surprising, but a real condemnation of a long-term failure of the NHS, that there is a need for an organisation such as Beacon to exist. It is a social enterprise set up by the main charities that gives information to older people and their carers. It should not have to exist. The fact that it does, and that it is a profitable social enterprise business, is testimony to the extent to which older people and their relatives are being badly let down on this.
I hope that in raising this yet again we have shone a light on a part of the NHS system that goes to the heart of what this Bill is supposed to be about. If we do not make this an express responsibility of the NHS in the Bill, yet again it is just not going to happen.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Finlay. It is right that people should have the cost-effective continuing care to which they have a right. I have my name on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and I intend to make some very brief comments about that, although I make the point that the need for us to be brief is the Government’s own fault, because they have not given us enough days in Committee—fewer in fact that in another place.
On the amendment, we refer to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I have rarely read such a hard-hitting report by this highly respected committee. One of the worst of the Henry VIII measures that it mentions is allowing zero scrutiny on allowing NHS England, merely by the publication of a document, to impose a financial liability on an ICB. It specifies the circumstances in which an ICB is legally liable to make payments to a provider under arrangements commissioned by another ICB. The Government claim that this is an operational matter. However, if you believe that an ICB should be in total control of deciding how its funds are spent in its area in order to fulfil its duties, you might think that this is an important thing—a legal liability to pay for something that another organisation has decided to commission is quite a serious matter. The DPRRC thinks so and so does the Constitution Committee.
In their response to the DPRRC, as quoted in Appendix 1 of the committee’s 16th report, the Government said that they
“recognise that the Bill contains a significant number of guidance making powers, powers to publish documents and powers of direction.”
They suggest that
“these are appropriate because they reflect the often complex operational details, which are better illustrated by examples and guidance rather than legislation.”
The Government go on to say that there is currently a precedent in the powers of the clinical commissioning groups.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for opening this important group and moving Amendment 106, to which my noble friend Lady Thornton added her name. As he explained, the substance of this amendment was singled out by the Constitution Committee and highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reinforce the Constitution Committee’s endorsement of the DPRRC’s recommending the removal from Clause 20 of the imposition of legal liability merely by publishing a document. We agree with the two committees that this is a necessary amendment, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how these concerns will be addressed.
Somewhat paradoxically, Amendments 143 and 144 strengthen the powers of NHS England in its quest for top-down management and imposition. However, they sit within the wider context of describing how NHS England would be able to give directions to integrated care boards under Clause 20 and improve these provisions, so we support them.
The remaining amendments on NHS Continuing Healthcare underline how vital it is to address this urgent issue, although it is not central to the intentions of the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for ensuring this focus in the debate and for Amendments 133 and 139, which ensure that this crucial issue is specified under the ICB’s duties and included in its annual report and performance review accountabilities.
Today, we heard in detail about the widespread concern about and scale of the problems with the way in which the NHS Continuing Healthcare scheme works and is funded, and the arguments it leads to about who pays for what, as a shared responsibility between the NHS and local government. Patients and their carers feel they are the sideshow, not the central focus of concern, and are deeply traumatised and upset by the whole experience.
As a carer of a disabled adult myself, like my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, I know, from meeting many other carers and their loved ones, their deep concern about this. The three things that cause most concern and upset, which one hears time and again, are, first, the huge problems with inadequately funded social care packages—or their absence—to meet basic care needs, and deep worries and anxieties about how the care cap will operate; secondly, the trauma of the discharge-from-hospital process for carers and their loved ones, which we will discuss later; and thirdly, NHS Continuing Healthcare, the postcode lottery of whether your loved one receives it or not, the huge bureaucracy around the application and allocation process, the long wait for a response and being stuck in the middle of an NHS local authority fight over funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, stressed, there is an urgent need to tackle the accountability gap in this process.
NHS Continuing Healthcare is the absolute manifestation of what our Economic Affairs Committee report on the “national scandal” of social care funding called the “condition lottery”—in other words, the wide disparity between health conditions for which people receive healthcare that is free at the point of use and those for which users usually have to make a substantial contribution with “catastrophic costs”, in the committee’s words. As we heard today, dementia is the condition most cited in this regard, but many of us know of cases where people with motor neurone, Parkinson’s and other degenerative diseases have struggled to get NHS Continuing Healthcare funding, either for home care or support in residential homes.
We support Amendment 161, which ensures that the Care Quality Commission reviews must include this issue. However, I am unclear—and may well learn in a minute from the Minister—what role the CQC currently has in looking into all continuing care matters which traverse NHS and local authority boundaries. However, we support its involvement.
The amendment would also ensure that the CQC reviews include looking in depth at how NHS Continuing Healthcare is working under each ICB. That will mean that at last we can begin to develop the much needed strategic overview of this crucial area for thousands of people in desperate need of care and support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Greengross, for bringing this group of amendments.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 106, on payment to providers, which is to remove new Section 14Z48 in its entirety, but the section will allow NHS England to specify the circumstances in which an ICB is liable to make payments to a provider for services commissioned by another ICB.
The Government are committed to ensuring that delegated powers in the Bill use the most appropriate procedure, so that Parliament has due oversight of their use. We recognise that the Bill contains a significant number of guidance-making powers and powers to publish documents. However, we believe that they are appropriate because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, they reflect the often complex operational details and the importance of ensuring that the guidance keeps up with best practice, especially as the system flexes and evolves. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about Parliament, but the issue here is whether, every time the system flexes, Parliament has to have another debate. The ICBs will be reading the guidance, not Hansard, and the guidance should reflect that.
Nor is it our intention to interfere unduly in the financial affairs of ICBs. Instead, the intention is to resolve specific circumstances, such as emergency services. The legislation makes it clear that each ICB has to arrange for urgent care services to be available for all people physically present in the area, not just for the people who are its core responsibility by virtue of their GP registration. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be neither fair nor in the best interests of promoting an efficient health service for the ICB to both arrange and cover the cost of all additional emergency treatment brought by visitors to the area, particularly in areas with high visitor numbers. A number of noble Lords referred to that principle in debates last week.
Instead, this provision allows NHS England to mandate a different payment rule for those services, ensuring that, where necessary, the ICB where a patient is registered will pay, rather than the ICB where they receive treatment. This ensures that the financial impact is felt in the right commissioning organisation and eliminates the risk of some ICBs having unreasonable financial demands placed on them—for example, during the holiday season.
The wording of this provision replicates almost exactly the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended in 2012, but it is updated to reflect the new ICB structure. As my noble friend Lord Howe mentioned to me, we had a massive debate about this 10 years ago, but the provision seems to have worked effectively in the CCGs, and we wish to continue that with the ICBs.
Amendments 143 and 144, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, are about NHS England directing ICBs. I understand the interest in ensuring that NHS England has the necessary tools to intervene in ICBs where necessary. However, we believe that NHS England already has sufficient powers to direct ICBs. NHS England already has certain powers to direct an ICB under Section 14Z59(2), and powers to intervene over ICBs in order to prevent failure and to ensure that the lines of accountability from ICBs through NHS England to Parliament are strong.
However, this power has a threshold in that it can be used only if NHS England deems an ICB to be failing to discharge a function or at risk of failing to do so. The threshold removes the possibility of NHS England overdirecting the system while retaining the power for use if necessary. This balances the need to prevent failure and to support accountability with allowing ICBs the autonomy they need to operate effectively.
Amendments 133, 139 and 161 expressly require that ICB annual reports and NHS England performance assessments of ICBs include specific consideration of commissioned services, including NHS Continuing Healthcare, which noble Lords have spoken about, and that the CQC reviews of ICSs include specific consideration of that. We agree with the principle, but we believe that it is already covered in the Bill. NHS England already has a key role in overseeing ICBs. For example, the Bill requires NHS England to assess the performance of each ICB every year, and ICBs are required to provide NHS England with their annual report. These reports will include an assessment of ICB commissioning duties, which would encompass any arrangements for NHS Continuing Healthcare.
In addition, as noble Lords are aware, Clause 26 gives the CQC a duty to assess integrated care systems, including the provision of relevant healthcare and adult social care within the area of each ICB. This would include the provision of NHS Continuing Healthcare. We intend the CQC to pilot and develop its approach to these reviews in collaboration with NHS England, but also with other partners in the system. This should ensure that the methodology does not duplicate or conflict with any existing system oversight roles.
With this in mind, we believe that these amendments are not necessary, because commissioned services, which we would expect to encompass NHS Continuing Healthcare, are already included in these clauses. I hope that I have been able to somewhat reassure your Lordships. For these reasons, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is clear that new Section 14Z48 is an unambiguous abuse of delegated powers. It provides for a law to be created by the simple issuing of a paper. There is no real possibility of a coherent defence of this procedure and the Minister did not provide one, relying as he did on special pleading and the extraordinary notion that Parliament cannot handle complexity.
As the Bill stands, Parliament is bypassed and scrutiny is avoided. I remind the Committee that the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee have recommended the removal of this section. I again suggest to the Minister that if he wants to retain the powers set out in Section 14Z48, he should rework them between now and Report at least to involve scrutiny by Parliament via the affirmative procedure. If he does not, we will return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not have effect if the information involves the personal data of patients.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that the power to disclose information should exclude personal data on patients and is a probing amendment to see what purpose the Government thinks the power in the clause may be used for.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my amendment concerns patient data. I want to probe the meaning of new Clause 14Z61, proposed by Clause 20(2), which relates to the permitted disclosure of information by integrated care boards. It sets out, on page 27 of the Bill, a number of conditions under which disclosure can be made. They include when
“the information has previously been … disclosed to the public”
or
“the disclosure is made in accordance with any enactment or court order”.
That seems perfectly sensible. However, proposed new subsection (1)(f) contains a catch-all condition under which a disclosure can also be
“made for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of any of the integrated care board’s functions”.
That seems remarkably open-ended. My amendment seeks an assurance that this power excludes the personal data of patients.
We have already had one go at the issue of data and digital transformation, and I have told the House that I am right behind the efforts of the NHS and the Minister’s department to encourage the digital transformation of the NHS. The potential is clearly enormous. However, public confidence depends on the integrity of the system and having embedded in it a guarantee that every use of data will be consensual, safe and transparent.
The recent Laura Wade-Gery review, on which a number of noble Lords have commented, acknowledged some of those concerns. As she said:
“The field of data science is undergoing a revolution as new tools such as machine learning transform our ability to gain insights and improve outcomes. These advances, combined with the explosion of new data driven commercial business models, have caused citizens to be concerned about the privacy of their individual health data and the controls in place over its dissemination and use.”
There may be situations where a patient does not want a doctor—by the way, just for the Chief Whip’s reassurance, I have not spoken for 37 minutes as the clock says—to tell another doctor something about them, yet this can be ignored by those who want to copy records across a lifetime. Modern communications have created the capacity to copy medical records on a scale that can shatter medical confidentiality.
The experience of Care.data is surely a lesson for us. The decision to axe the scheme followed the publication of two reports that supported far greater transparency over what happens to the information, and opt-outs for patients who want their data seen only by those directly caring for them. A review by the late Dame Fiona Caldicott, and a second by the Care Quality Commission, recommended tougher measures to keep people’s medical information confidential. The Caldicott review said that there needs to be much more extensive dialogue with the public as to how their information can be used. As she said:
“Citizens have a right to know how their data is safeguarded. They should be included in conversations about the potential benefits that responsible use of their information can bring. They must be offered a clear choice about whether they want to allow their information to be part of this.”
This was brought home to me recently by NHS England’s announcement that it is to give trusts, as employers, access to the Covid and flu NHS vaccination records of their staff. I am fully behind the vaccination drive and sympathetic to the Government’s mandating of vaccines, but the announcement said:
“To assist Trusts with understanding the vaccination status of their workforce, we are providing a solution for Trusts to view the vaccination status of staff who are on the Electronic Staff Record … system. To do this, we are undertaking an exercise on Trusts’ behalf, to match ESR data, using NHS numbers, with vaccination data held in the National Immunisations Management System … which includes data drawn from all point of care vaccination systems. Following a successful import of ESR data into NIMS, a dashboard will be provided to each Trust detailing their workforce Covid and Flu vaccination uptake, drilled down to employee-level.”
Let me be clear: I support the vaccination drive, as I said, but am I the only one to worry about the access to confidential data that is being given? I recognise that we are talking here about electronic staff records as opposed to electronic patient records, but the principle of releasing patient data is the same.
I would like to hear some assurance from the Minister about the use of this clause and the open-ended nature of new Section 14Z61(1)(f), because, as I think we will shortly hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, such an open-ended disclosure provision in other legislation would be looked at with very great concern. Having said that, and having taken up 44 seconds, according to the Clock, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have failed in my duty, and not for the first time. I should have stated before calling Amendment 145 that the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely. May I apologise, and invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak?
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, this probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is essential, because it protects confidential patient data from being given out by an ICB in contravention of the ethics rules of the General Medical Council and other regulatory bodies.
When the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill arrived in your Lordships’ House in the autumn, it had clauses in it that gave the police, probation and prison services access to a patient’s confidential medical data as part of their role to reduce and prevent serious violence. As originally drafted, that Bill would have required GPs, CCGs and their staff to hand over that data. This was not just about those under suspicion; it could have been anybody involved in serious violence.
I had extreme concerns about this, and I tabled an amendment not dissimilar to Amendment 145. I was grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Ribeiro, the General Medical Council, the BMA and others in Committee on that Bill. We had meetings between Committee and Report with officials from the Department of Health and the Home Office, meaning that by the time we got to Report the Government had laid amendments to ensure that a patient’s personal data could not be demanded by the police, probation and prison services. It is now recognised that the medical regulators—the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other bodies—actually have the responsibility and the excellent ethical standards by which their members are expected to judge what they should do if they are asked for personal data.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would address what data an ICB may disclose by adding a subsection to protect the Government in the same way as happened in the police Bill, so that the personal data of patients should not be disclosed. This is a vital amendment. The Government have already accepted in this Parliament that a patient’s personal data must not be accessible by those other than clinical and clerical staff dealing with it, who must abide by the confidentiality rules of their regulatory body or by their employment contract.
This is even more necessary, because the Bill says in new Section 14Z61(1)(g), on permitted disclosures of information, that
“the disclosure is made in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence”.
That is even broader than in the original police Bill. Patient confidentiality is a fundamental ethical duty. It is crucial to upholding the trust that lies at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship. The new section will give the ICB the right to override that.
New paragraph (e) is also more far-reaching than the investigation of any crime. It says that
“the disclosure is made to any person in circumstances where it is necessary or expedient for the person to have the information for the purpose of exercising functions of that person under any enactment”.
So it is not the doctor or the ICB that has the choice about disclosing that information; they must take the word of the person making that request. That is total free access for anyone who says that it is necessary or expedient for them to have that information. Where is the protection of a patient’s individual and confidential data?
It also removes the decision from GPs, despite GPs having very clear and effective guidance from the GMC on when, in exceptional circumstances, they can give out data. I will not quote the whole of the guidance, because we do not have time, but there are two vital points that a GP must consider: the patient must consent, whether implicitly or explicitly; and disclosure must be permitted or must have been approved under a statutory process that sets aside the common-law duty of confidentiality. The doctor also has a duty, even when they have made their decision, to use anonymised information if practicable, and they must be satisfied that the patient has ready access to information explaining how their personal information will be used. It goes on, but I will not quote the rest.
One might hope that Ministers assumed when drafting the clause that confidential patient data would never be included, other than for the treatment of the patient. However, paragraphs (e), (g), (h) and (f), as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, outlined, put paid to that. If the argument is that the clause is needed because the ICB might have to share data with, for example, care providers or social workers carrying out assessments, that needs to be made clear, and it would be permissible. But, as drawn, it is far too brief.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, at least protects the personal data of patients. It is very straightforward and provides the protection that every doctor, nurse and patient would expect. So I hope the Minister will say today that he is happy to accept the amendment. If he is not, please will he agree to a meeting with those who have spoken in this debate, and invite the GMC and the BMA? If progress is not made on this, I will lay an amendment on Report and am likely to press it to a Division.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is also taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, having spoken on just about every police Bill in this House for the past 23 years, I am afraid that I could not let this amendment pass without comment. I refer your Lordships to my policing interests in the register.
As my noble friend Lady Brinton has just said, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has just gone through this House, had provisions that gave the police and other criminal justice bodies investigating possible serious violence, or plans to produce serious violence, the power to demand the confidential medical data of individuals. As drafted, unspecified police officers —that means any police officer, not just a senior ranking officer—could make requests to a GP’s surgery or a CCG, or their staff, to hand over the data.
What I found chilling was that the police would not be required to explain to the patient’s GP why they wanted the information, or whether the patient concerned was a potential criminal or possible victim—or even someone associated with the investigation, for example a possible witness or family member. After discussions with Peers, the General Medical Council, Ministers and the British Medical Association, the Government made their own amendments, making it clear that the police would not have this universal access to patient data. Instead, they would have to use the current, traditional method of approaching a patient’s GP directly and asking for the data, with the decision being made by the GP under the GMC code of ethics, as my noble friend Lady Brinton explained.
New Section 14Z61 gives the new integrated commissioning boards a duty to hand over personal medical data to a wide range of bodies that request them. However, I will focus on paragraphs (g) and (h), which are about police requests for data when they are undertaking criminal investigations. It is even more extraordinary that a health Bill is proposing to give the police even wider powers than in the recent police Bill. At least that Bill originally limited access to cases of serious violence. I will quote my noble friend from 25 October 2021, in debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill:
“It is quite extraordinary that this Bill proposes that any Home Secretary can, at will, demand that doctors and other healthcare professionals breach patient confidentiality, over and above their responsibilities of confidentiality to their patients and their commitments to their regulatory body.”—[Official Report, 25/10/21; col. 551.]
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name. He is not the only one to be concerned about this part of the Bill. My noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Harris have delivered powerful support and a demonstration of why we have to be absolutely vigilant about access to, and sharing of, personal data, as they were so successfully on the police Bill. We must not repeat those experiences.
We will talk further and more comprehensively about data later in Committee. In the meantime, Amendment 145, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained, tries to illicit from Government their intention behind these disclosure powers for ICBs in new Section 14Z61 in Clause 20 with regard to information, whether personal data is involved and what the safeguards are. New Section 14Z61 sets out the provisions whereby
“An integrated care board may disclose information obtained by it”
in the exercise of its power. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the catch-all condition in new Section 14Z61(1)(f) under which disclosure can be made
“for the purposes of facilitating the exercise of any of the integrated board’s functions”
seems remarkably open-ended. My noble friends have also pointed out the sheer width of paragraphs (e), (g) and (h), which go even further than those originally proposed in the police Bill and raise crucial questions for the Minister to answer.
Amendment 145 aims to ensure that an ICB cannot disclose information where this is patients’ personal data. In my last intervention on the group headed by Amendment 26, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expressed my support for the NHS’s digital transformation programme. It is clear, as the noble Lord says, that there is great potential growth in new technologies using data such as AI and machine learning. However, there is an absolute imperative to have the right safeguards in place in relation to duties and data. This is very much aligned with transparency in public information and engagement, particularly in this context. Transparency, choice and consent are crucial, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says.
We have all looked forward to the Goldacre review, but I am not convinced that it will range wide enough and cover the governance arrangements needed to preserve and enhance public trust in the sharing and use of health data, but we will see. I look forward to the debate towards the end of Committee when we discuss the wider aspects of the Bill, when we will produce further illustrations of the rather cavalier way in which the Government, the department and the NHS have treated personal data. Not least of these is what has been called the attempted GP data grab of last year. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances that the powers in Section 14Z61 will be very limited.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, from the perspective of a clinician, I support this amendment very strongly. If it is not adopted, I can see it being imperative, in any doctor’s consultation, to warn the patient that their data could be accessible and to be very careful about what is recorded in the clinical record. Very often, patients come to see a doctor, possibly at a very early stage of slightly disordered thinking or because they have undertaken a potentially high-risk activity, often in the sexual domain, and are worried that they may have contracted some condition or other. If you inhibit that ability to see a doctor early, you will further drive people into whatever condition is beginning to emerge, so it will not be known about until later. That applies particularly in mental health, where early intervention might prevent a condition from escalating.
I can see that, without an amendment such as the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, every clinical consultation will have to be conducted with extreme caution, because of potential access to data.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I an enormously grateful for this debate, because this clause and related clauses are critical both to achieving the digital transformation aims of the NHS, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to getting the healthcare system to work better together.
I am also grateful for the humanity and testimony of several noble Lords, exemplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who spoke movingly about the practicalities of patients going to see their doctors. I know from my own life and from my family how important it is to protect those relationships.
That is why I would like to hear a little from the Minister about what protections there are, because health data is and should be treated as a special category of data. What additional protections are there in the use of health data, including in the common law duty of confidentiality, the role of the National Data Guardian, the way the Caldicott principles will be used and the national data opt-out? What reassurances do we have that those special considerations will apply to this clause and its related components?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt and those speakers who expressed their concern about the open-endedness of what is in the Bill at the moment and the lack of protection for patient data. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on this.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, particularly for his brief and, as always when he speaks, his clear understanding of the amendment. It makes it so much easier for us to know where the noble Lord is coming from.
I am grateful to all other noble Lords who spoke on this issue, and I understand the interest in the integrated care boards’ power to disclose information that is personal data. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, public trust is essential in this and individuals’ data will be used lawfully and with respect, and held securely with the right safeguards in place. It will need to be proportionate, transparent and subject to individuals’ rights to access and correct information in use.
Let me further explain how we will make sure this happens. I assure noble Lords that the clause already restricts integrated care boards’ powers to disclose information by limiting these to the specific circumstances set out in the clause. Further, all use of personal data is subject to data protection legislation, including the UK general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. This legislation provides several key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s data, including strict rules and key data-protection principles for the sharing of personal data.
Under the UK GDPR, health data has to be treated as a special category. This data requires additional protections due to its obvious sensitivity. For this type of data to be lawfully processed, a further condition must be met, in addition to identifying a lawful basis, as set out in the GDPR and the Data Protection Act.
This data protection legislation applies to the use of all personal data and provides robust safeguards in relation to information and disclosure. Importantly, there are additional protections on the use of health data, including the common-law duty of confidentiality, along with the role of the National Data Guardian, who advises and challenges the health and care system to help ensure that the public’s confidential information is safeguarded securely and used properly. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, there are also the Caldicott principles; there are seven of these, which I am sure noble Lords are aware of, so I will not go through them all now. They provide guidance to health and care organisations on the use of confidential information. Along with this, there is also the national data opt-out.
I remind the Committee that new Section 14Z61 will apply, which provides when an ICB may disclose information obtained by it in the exercising of its functions. I emphasise that maintaining trust that healthcare data is being used properly is paramount. Individuals’ data will be used lawfully and with respect, held securely and have the right safeguards in place. None of the changes we are making will remove the duties of organisations to comply with the requirement of data protection legislation. Along with that, we are working with the Home Office to ensure that the protection and confidentiality of patient information is upheld within the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Appropriate safeguards are in place and the Bill makes it clear that information can be shared only in accordance with data protection laws.
I am concerned that this amendment could cut across the different pieces of relevant legislation, preventing the ICB from effectively discharging its functions where it may be necessary to disclose information, which may include personal patient data. This would include investigating complaints, making safeguarding referrals for patients whose welfare is at risk, complying with court orders and assisting criminal investigations. It would also risk a confusing data-sharing system, with different rules applying to different organisations.
I know that my noble friend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has agreed to talk about this further with the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Clement-Jones. He wants to meet civil liberties organisations, along with them, to discuss this subject further. However, I regret that the Government cannot accept this amendment. I hope that I have given the noble Lord some reassurance and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am of course grateful to the noble Baroness but I am not sure that she has entirely dealt with the concerns expressed. Because the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred a lot to the GMC, I should just say that, although I am a member of its board, I am not acting here on behalf of the GMC at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I signed the amendment and we both start from the basis of supporting digital transformation in the NHS, but we have always seen that it has to go hand in hand with the safeguards. That is why this debate is so important. We have heard powerful interventions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Harris, about why the police Bill had to be amended in relation to police access to patient information. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to the issues for clinicians if they did not feel that the integrity of the patient confidentiality system was sufficiently safeguarded.
The Minister has basically said that we need not worry, because the NHS will only deal with information lawfully, and she went through some of the protections, including the fact that in the Bill there are conditions before the integrated care board can release the information. She referred to the data protection legislation, the GDPR, the special category given to health data about patients and the Caldicott principles. She went on to say essentially that my amendment would cause problems, because it would get in the way of legitimate information being given by the ICB, which might have an impact on patient care quality.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(ba) members appointed by each of the local medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical Committees, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that primary care professions would have mandated roles within Integrated Care Partnerships with a member appointed by each of the practitioner committees.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 147 concerns the establishment of integrated care partnerships. Although the amendment is specifically about the membership of ICPs, I think that it is appropriate that I comment more generally on ICPs and their role. As I see it, the proposals on integrated care partnerships can be seen as an attempt to try to bind the NHS more closely into a wider system that delivers much wider services contributing to care and well-being.
Particularly at issue is the relationship between the NHS and its partner local authorities. If there is to be a genuine generational shift in thinking that moves the NHS from being a sickness service to one that contributes to the overall well-being of the public, that must be welcomed. Of course, there is a lot to do. At the heart of the issue must be who decides how the money is spent. Who sets the priorities and allocates funding down to place or to service line? If it is just the NHS itself through integrated care boards, that will not work. We have to widen the decision-making to ensure that other voices are heard.
What is missing is some assurance that integrated care partnerships are to have some focus not just on wider well-being but on the need to reduce inequalities and to leverage maximum social value for the area covered. Here, the skeletal nature of the Bill once again gives rise to many more questions than it answers. How are integrated care partnerships to be performance-managed? Will there be an executive? Where will the funding come from? Can the ICP actually deliver any services? Could ICPs be the hub for shared services across the NHS and local authorities?
We have so far heard very little about ICPs; there has been much more emphasis on integrated care boards. Many noble Lords have remarked that the Bill is too focused on the NHS. It is clear that, so far, much energy has been put into the establishment of ICBs and much less into the establishment of integrated care partnerships, which are due to be set up jointly between the NHS and the relevant local authority or authorities. That shows that the building blocks are flawed, because essentially local authorities should have been equal partners in the establishment of integrated care boards. If this was really an integrated Bill about the NHS and adult social care, surely local authorities would be equal partners with the integrated care partnerships on the integrated care boards.
I do not want to go over old ground, but the very fact that NHS England is excluding local authority councillors from the integrated care boards means that it does not want a serious NHS contribution on ICBs from local authorities. I can only take that as the reason for wanting to exclude local authority councillors.
Finally, I will make a general comment about ICPs. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised this earlier. I fail to understand why health and well-being boards are continuing in parallel with the integrated care partnerships. I hope that we might at some stage get an explanation.
That brings me to my amendment. I have concerns about the neglect of primary care and I think that local representative committees have been an important part of the NHS since its foundation. I see no reason why they cannot be assured of some kind of presence on the new integrated care partnerships.
We had a very good debate last week, led by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the role of primary care generally in these arrangements. The Minister said that it was important to consult the relevant primary care local representative committees, and that was why there was a provision under new Section 14Z52 to introduce a duty to consult anyone the ICB and its partner trusts considered appropriate when preparing the forward plan. But underlying my amendment is a concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who on Thursday asked whether the Minister was aware that the influence on key decision-making in the NHS was diminishing for primary care in general and GPs in particular.
In response, the Minister was clearly sympathetic to making sure that primary care was better represented and not dominated by acute trusts. He said that he was open to further discussions in this area and I hope that he will extend those discussions to the membership of ICPs as much as integrated care boards.
The Minister may say that ICP membership is best left to the local level, but I do not think that that is sufficient. We are fully entitled to agree the framework of the new arrangements. Primary care is at risk of being marginalised and that cannot be left to local discretion. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, Clause 21 is about representation on the integrated care partnerships, and new Section 116ZA specifies who should be on the committee of the partnership. The Bill currently specifies that one member of the ICP should be appointed by the ICB and one by each of the local authorities. The partnership is also free to appoint others. My Amendment 148 requires that one of these additional members must have responsibility for public health—and in that I include public mental health—and one must demonstrate that he or she can represent local voluntary organisations.
It is tempting in a Bill such as this to assume that all the members of these very influential committees should be from the major health organisations or local authorities in the area. However, there are many small community organisations run by charities or not-for-profit groups that play a very valuable role in providing services to local communities in a very cost-effective manner. Unless they are represented at ICP level, it is quite possible that their survival will be threatened by the new arrangements—and we heard in previous debates that they already do feel threatened. I am sure that the Government do not want that.
Similarly, public health has a major role to play in addressing many of the preventable diseases that contribute to health inequalities—and it looks after the tracing of communicative diseases. We saw the value of that recently when it was a great deal more effective than the national test and trace service at tracing the contacts of Covid-positive patients.
So, the work of both groups is very cost effective. If the ICB and the ICP are to use their resources efficiently and fulfil their duties to level up health inequalities, it is important that both groups are represented on the integrated care partnership. I echo the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: the Bill is quiet on the structure of and representation on the integrated health partnership. Given the duties that it is being asked to perform, it is perfectly reasonable for us to suggest that some of those important duties are properly covered in representation.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking in support of my Amendment 150, the issue is simple. We have much to learn about ICPs; I associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt.
My proposal is that the rules determining the membership of ICPs should be consistent with the rules for membership of ICBs. As the Committee will be aware, it has been agreed, with the amendment made in the House of Commons, that ICBs will not and cannot be controlled by the private sector, in any way. I believe that the Health Minister, Edward Argar, made the point of principle clear when speaking during the Commons Report stage. He said that
“ICBs will not and cannot be controlled in any way by the private sector, as NHS-accountable bodies guided by the NHS constitution and with NHS values at their heart.”
Let us just remind ourselves that the requirement added by the Government to Schedule 2 is that an ICB’s constitution “must prohibit” a candidate being appointed to it if the person making the appointment considers, in the Government’s words in the amendment,
“that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; cols. 119-61.]
We might not agree with the wording adopted by the Government, as previously discussed, but the principle is accepted on all sides.
So, as with ICBs, we should have a parallel provision for ICPs. In this, I am simply following what the Minister said in relation to ICBs: he wanted
“to put the matter even further beyond doubt.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 116.]
I emphasise “even further”. The debate here is not really about the precise wording of any amendment; it is about the principle of extending to ICPs the same protection that, as has already been agreed, should be extended to ICBs.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It is possible that, given the way in which ICPs are appointed—on the one hand, by ICBs, which are already protected by the Government’s amendment to Schedule 2, and on the other hand, by local authorities—it might be suggested that the issue simply does not arise and that protection is already there. However, if only to put the matter even further beyond doubt, why not accept my amendment?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, started what I hoped was going to be a discussion about ICPs.
My first question is this: who was consulted on the structure, membership and role of ICPs? This question has hung over all our debates from the beginning. The Minister has said several times that this is what the NHS wants—well, which bit of the NHS? Who was consulted? As far as we can see, in the role proposed in the Bill, it is not at all clear who was consulted on how ICPs should operate. Indeed, in a previous debate, we asked how this will work with the role of health and well-being boards. That has still not been answered. It is not at all clear why both things are needed; that is the first point. My noble friend Lord Hunt is right that, at the moment, the Bill raises more questions than it answers.
In particular, the idea that local councillors cannot be members is ridiculous and slightly offensive, because the role of the ICPs is to discuss strategy and local health infrastructure and delivery. Their role is absolutely vital.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very important point, because councillors can presumably go on integrated care partnerships and health and well-being boards but cannot go on the integrated care boards—but one of their officers can. What is the logic? Can my noble friend help me? So far the Government have given no answer whatever as to why. I know I am going on about this, but it is a fundamental issue: why are local authority councillors not seen as core partners on integrated care? It makes a mockery of the integration. There is no integration: they are setting up two separate boards. I do not know why they are not setting up one integrated board to cover the NHS and the partnership. It defies understanding. Why have they come up with this complicated arrangement and are continuing with health and well-being boards? Can my noble friend help me?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I certainly cannot help my noble friend, but I live in hope that the Minister can. It smacks of a fix. The Minister might not be prepared to say on the Floor of the House what exactly the fix was between the various bits of NHS England and various bits and other parts of the machinery. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, might know better than the rest of us what that fix was.
I will comment on my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment. The problem with it is that, as the ICPs are proposed in the Bill at the moment, they will not be spending any money or commissioning services. It is also important that they include the various important parts of our local health delivery systems, including pharmacists, dentists, GPs, social enterprises and the voluntary sector. As I read it, this amendment would exclude hospices, for example—which would be a ridiculous thing to do. So my noble friend might want to rethink that amendment, because it does not necessarily serve the intended interests of the ICPs.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the points they have raised. ICPs will play an important role in co-ordinating services, planning in a way that improves population health and reduces inequalities between different groups. It is right that we consider the best conditions for their success. I was asked where the idea for ICPs came from. It originated from the Local Government Association. We have had extensive consultation with both the LGA and NHS England. To be clear, councillors can sit on ICPs.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Is that the fix: that councillors are not allowed to sit on the ICBs, where the money is spent, but they are allowed to sit on the ICPs? That is not acceptable to me.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I do not see it as a fix. The consultation was much wider than just NHS England. In November 2020, NHS England ran a public consultation on the structure of ICSs, including NHS staff, patients and members of the public.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
May I ask the Minister whether councillors were consulted?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I do not know for certain, but I am sure their views would have been heard via the Local Government Association.
Lord Kamall (Con)
They were. Good. I got the answer just in time.
I will turn to Amendment 147, which would mandate a role for a member drawn from each area of primary care. With all amendments relating to the ICP membership, we want to be careful to give space for local areas to find a model of membership that works best for them. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, raised at Second Reading, it is right that in a country as large and diverse as ours, one size will not fit all. Therefore, it is right that local areas should be able to determine the model and membership that best represent their area.
We fully expect primary care professionals to be involved in the work of ICPs. Each partnership will need to involve a wide range of organisations and representatives from across the system, including professionals from primary medical, dental, pharmaceutical and optical backgrounds as they prepare their strategy. The department has published a draft list of representatives for ICPs to consider involving, which includes clinical and professional experts, including those from medical, dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic settings. The mechanism of how this is done will be down to local discretion. For example, one ICP may wish to formally appoint certain members, whereas a neighbouring ICP may wish to have an extensive range of consultees, and a third may decide to invite primary care representatives to join a subcommittee instead. We believe it is right that local areas are able to determine the model of partnership that best works for them, and this amendment would prevent that from happening.
A similar argument applies to Amendment 148. While we welcome the contribution of directors of public health and the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sector, I do think that we risk limiting the flexibility of ICPs. We expect public health experts to play a significant role, especially given their role in developing the joint strategic needs assessments that are crucial to guiding all planning, and their role in supporting, informing and guiding approaches to population health management.
Similarly, we expect appropriate representation from the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sectors, which will be able to contribute in respect of a number of different interests and perspectives. A number of noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about the reasons we should involve these sectors. We believe it would not be prudent, for example, to suggest that it may be appropriate for only one person to represent the local voluntary sector on a partnership, given the diversity of their involvement in health and social care.
I turn to Amendment 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her advice on that. I appreciate that the noble Lord might want to prevent anyone who works for, represents, or has a financial interest in a private health and care company, from being a member of an ICP. However, I would draw the noble Lord’s attention specifically to the recent experience of coronavirus, which showed that independent and voluntary providers were a vital part of the health and care picture. This amendment could exclude a significant part of the health and care sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly said. Given their scale and the central role they play, adult social care providers in particular would be potentially useful members of an ICP. It also risks leaving out, for example, dentists, pharmacists, opticians and many others working in primary care, and doctors other than GPs who work both in the NHS and privately.
We expect every ICP to have robust measures to ensure that formal conflicts of interest are managed carefully and transparently. It is also important to note that ICPs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, says, are not commissioners, and so will not be making decisions on the allocation of funds. Fundamentally, the ICP is working solely for the interests of people in the area. The experience of the health and well-being boards is helpful here, as they have similar flexibility in membership, and there have not been significant issues with conflicts of interest as they have developed their plans. We really expect the ICP strategy to be rooted in the people and communities they serve, and to be directly informed by the health and well-being boards and the joint strategic needs assessments. We are refreshing the health and well-being boards’ guidance to ensure that there are strong foundations in place at neighbourhood levels that the ICP can consult and build on.
Having said this, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important matter. However, as I have explained, we believe that these amendments run contrary to the principles of flexibility and subsidiarity that the Bill is based on, and therefore I hope that noble Lords will not press them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his amendment. I think, notwithstanding what the Minister said about some of the technical details, the principle that he put forward is absolutely right: clearly, the consistency with ICBs that he mentioned is really important. I am also very sympathetic with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and her amendment on the importance of public health and voluntary organisations.
We come here to the principle that some of us continue to be puzzled by the architecture we see before us. The Minister says that this was consulted on and the Local Government Association is fine and dandy about it but, with respect, that is not sufficient in terms of your Lordships and the rigour and scrutiny that we need to put into this legislation. Frankly, as my noble friend Lady Thornton suggests, it looks much more like a fix between representative institutions to preserve the current arrangements as much as possible.
I remain somewhat confused about the structure. The Minister said that health and well-being boards will feed into ICPs, but why? Think about what he said about the role of integrated care partnerships; it sounded to me like the role of the health and well-being boards. I just do not understand the differences. I understand that, in some parts of the country where the ICP will cover a lot of local authorities, there is an argument that you should continue with health and well-being boards at the local level, but I do not see why they cannot be sub-committees of the integrated care partnerships; the Minister referred to that. Why on earth do we in Birmingham need a health and well-being board as well as an ICP? I simply do not understand it.
If the Minister believes that this should all be set out at the local level, why can people decide locally not to have a health and well-being board? He may say, “Ah no, you need a framework”. Our argument is that you need a framework in relation to membership as well. The compromise here might be to set out in legislation, as we will want to do, certain conditions around local governance and then leave it up to the local level. In relation to ICPs, however, we cannot leave it as it is. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others to Clause 21 and Schedule 4 in the name of Lord Farmer would specify that integrated care partnerships consider how to integrate family help services into the provision of health and social care services, as relationships are recognised by research as a 'health asset'. ‘Family help’ is defined in accordance with the Independent Care Review’s starting definition. ‘Family hubs’ are named as key potential sites for delivering integrated paediatric health and family help.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all four amendments in this group in my name. I remind the Committee that I have already declared my interests, especially as regards integrated care and family hubs.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister, my honourable friend Edward Argar, recognised
“that the system has been calling for two different and important types of integration: integration within and across the NHS to deliver healthcare services within a defined locality, and integration between the NHS and local government and wider partners.”
He went on to say:
“The ICP is intended to bring together health, social care and public health to develop a strategy to address the needs of the area also covered by the integrated care board. If”—
I emphasise “if”—
“the ICP wants to go further, it can also involve representatives from the wider system, where appropriate, such as voluntary and community groups, and social care or housing providers. That will be up to the ICP, and we will welcome locally driven innovation to reflect local circumstances.”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 16/9/21; col. 332.]
I, too, welcome locally driven innovation to reflect local circumstances, as I will emphasise shortly. However, I am genuinely mystified as to why integration between the NHS and local government and wider partners is voluntaristic in the Bill. My Amendment 154 would exchange “may” for “must” and require integrated care partnerships to include in their strategy a statement of how health-related services could be more closely integrated with health and social care.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I lend my voice to this important group of amendments. I will explain very briefly why family hubs are so important to many of the big themes that we have been discussing in the Bill so far: prevention, early help and integration in particular.
Family hubs have a very important role to play in improving early intervention services and helping with integration and data sharing, as we discussed earlier, among public services and the voluntary sector. Importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, explained, the range of services available in family hubs often includes important services such as children’s health services, which are better delivered in a community setting and integrated with other family health services, rather than delivered in a hospital or somewhere that has a much greater focus on acute care.
The Public Services Committee, on which I served until very recently, produced what I thought was a very important report on vulnerable children recently. It put a national rollout of family hubs at the very core of a national strategy for child vulnerability, proposing that the most deprived communities be prioritised in the early stages of any such expansion. In our report, we set out what fundamental characteristics we thought should be at the heart of every family hub, including employing full-time family co-ordinators, offering addiction and domestic violence services, providing support for parents with poor mental health and organising parenting classes. I say that, because I hope that it illustrates the point I made about integration between health services and broader family support services.
I had the privilege as a committee member—I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was with me—to visit Westminster family hub. I sat down and talked to a young mother with two young children who had a lot of very difficult issues that they were dealing with. The mother explained how the help and support she was getting through the family hub, both with her health issues and those of her children, as well as a wider range of issues, were helping her to keep her head above water. I was so impressed with that family hub and the help and support it was giving, and the way it was integrating statutory services and the voluntary sector.
I will make two other brief but important points. First, family hubs will be working with children from birth to 19. I see that as important, because families face challenges at any time, not just when children are very young, and focusing solely on early years and not helping families with older children does not have the same sort of holistic approach. So it is extremely helpful if, during early years, families build up these trusted relationships with people they meet in family support hubs of the type I have described, rather than sever that relationship when the child reaches the age of five. Parents can continue to contact a familiar team and access that trusted source of information and advice.
My final point to emphasise is the importance of family relationships and relationship support. One key thing about family hubs that is very important is the work they do to prioritise help with relationships—it might be couple relationships, parent-child relationships or even sibling relationships. By being able to deliver counselling and various other programmes to address some of the conflict and breakdown that often affects families in these difficult situations, they often help avoid the whole family reaching crisis point, particularly to the extent that parents have to access the courts to resolve disputes. For all these reasons, I very much support the amendments.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Farmer. I declare my interest as a non-executive member of the board of Ofsted. I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading for my own family reasons. I echo everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said. It was a real pleasure to serve with her on the Public Services Committee.
I will praise the Government first, which is always wise. They are showing great commitment to family hubs and I believe that they are committed to the rollout. What concerned me when the committee took evidence from certain members of the Government was a sense of a lack of urgency. Everybody agreed that this was a brilliant idea, but different people from different departments had different ideas about how they should work.
We also took evidence from families, in private and in public. The stories we heard over and again were, as others have alluded to, that, “This could have been prevented if it had been addressed in a joined-up way”. We particularly heard from young children, “I had to tell my story over and again.” Imagine the trauma. This could have been prevented under a different model. These situations did not have to happen.
We have the building blocks to make sure that these situations do not happen, but I do not think the legislative framework is in place to help us to address that. For that reason, I am persuaded by my noble friend Lord Farmer and I am happy to support his amendment.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I am very supportive of what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said. My colleagues and I have been in this space for 37 years and we have built rather a lot of things in it. It has been very interesting to watch what happened in east London, when this new scheme from a new Government arrived in the middle of a group of communities that already had well-established relationships with very vulnerable families, with a whole range of opportunities emerging. I am sure it was unintentional—it is part of the danger of being overinfluenced by the idea that local authorities will sort this stuff out in the same old usual way that they have tried to before—but it was very disruptive for the social enterprise sector, which was already doing this stuff very effectively, with all the numbers to show it. I will not go into the detail now, but when you look at the detail of what actually happened, the present facilities cost £100,000 more than those being delivered by the social enterprise sector.
These ideas are really important. I am happy to take the noble Lord into this in a lot more detail. I encourage him to spend more time in the detail in some real places to look at the unintended consequences of what happens when new government programmes arrive in communities, with the best will in the world, with an overconfidence in what they think the state can deliver. I am very happy to have a further conversation with the noble Lord, but the detail of the long-term relationships with these families really matters.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments, partly from my own experience as a director of social services and Children’s Commissioner, but also because of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, raised.
I have three key points from history. As a director of social services in the 1980s and 1990s, I offloaded my local authority family centres to the voluntary sector because a survey of parents suggested that they would not come to a service run by the organisation that was likely to take away their children. That was a perfectly rational position and we should listen to what people say about that.
Fast forward to 1999 and parenting orders under the Crime and Disorder Act. We find that compulsion brought parents to the party but, when they actually attended, they found—not so much men but women—that they were being treated and given skills that enabled them to manage children, largely teenage children, much better than they had been. It was a great shame that we used the criminal justice system to bring people to a parenting tuition experience that they should have been given many years before.
This is a final point from history. Michael Gove made me—this was madness on my part, as well as his—children’s commissioner for the failing Birmingham City Council children’s services. Ofsted report after Ofsted report had been telling them of their deficiencies. We found that the group they could not handle, for which they had no effective responses, was teenagers. If we are to make any progress in helping people to help the family unit, we need to address the support given to parents during the teenage years, because they are really struggling, particularly mums.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly say that I am extremely optimistic about family hubs. They answer the challenge to solve the complexity around integration incredibly well. My noble friend Lord Farmer made the point that one cannot think of a better example of what integration looks like than family hubs. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, talked clearly and persuasively about the journey they have been on.
My noble friend has made the case for these amendments. Other noble Lords have made the case for updating the legislative framework. I ask the Minister to look carefully at what can be done to bring these laws up to date so that family hubs can thrive, as I believe they will.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing this important debate and to other noble Lords who have supported the amendments before us and spoken about how we can improve the support that families will receive through this Bill. As the Family Hubs Network rightly observes,
“prevention is simply listed in the Bill as one of several commissioning requirements of ICBs with no broad mention of children’s health”.
This group of amendments gives us the opportunity to sharpen this.
As we have heard, the issues that families face, in whatever form or shape, do not exist in isolation. In addition to the impact of financial, housing, social and other pressures, the physical and mental health of a child or young person affects the physical and mental health of not just their parents, but their wider family, and vice versa. It makes common sense to facilitate a healthcare system that is designed and resourced to actively take a holistic approach to the many issues that face children and those who care for them.
I cannot help but feel that the points raised today are not new. We have the experience of Sure Start to show us how effective properly integrated family services can be. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed:
“By bringing together a wide range of early years services for children under 5, Sure Start centres dramatically improved children’s health even through their teenage years.”
Early investment is crucial.
I hope the Minister will be keen to embed change in this Bill to replicate the success that we saw through Sure Start. The first step towards doing this is to make sure that integrated care partnerships are properly required to consider how family help services can be thoroughly integrated into our health and care system, so that family members—no matter what form those families take—are seen as both individuals and groups who have an effect on each other.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer and all noble Lords who spoke about their experiences. The creation of integrated care boards represents a huge opportunity to support and improve the planning and provision of services to make sure that they are more joined up and better meet the needs of infants, children and young people.
Before I go into the specific amendments, I make it quite clear, as my noble friend said, that the Government set out in their manifesto a commitment to championing family hubs. We want to see them across the country, but at the same time we must give democratically elected councils the choice to shape how services are delivered, bearing in mind some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Warner, whom I thank for their experience on this.
The Government agree that it is vital to ensure that ICPs work closely with a range of organisations and services to consider the whole needs of a family when providing health and care support. In preparing the integrated care strategy, the integrated care partnership must involve local Healthwatch and the people who live or work in the area. We are working with NHS England and NHS Improvement on bespoke draft guidance, which will set out the measures that ICBs and ICPs should take to ensure they deliver for babies, children and young people. This will cover services that my noble friend considers part of family help.
In addition, the independent review of children’s social care is still considering its definition of “family help”, and the definition published in The Case for Change may well be further refined as a result of ongoing consultation. It would be inappropriate to define the term in legislation at this stage, pre-empting the full findings of the review and the Government’s response to it. Also, it is important that there should be a degree of local determination as to what should be included in the strategies of ICBs and ICPs. In order for them to deliver for their local populations, a permissive approach is critical.
On Amendment 167, we agree that family hubs are a wonderful innovation in service organisation and delivery for families. The great thing about them is how they emerged organically from local councils over the last decade. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the key role he has played in advocating family hubs and bringing this innovation to the heart of government. The Government strongly support and champion the move but we are clear that they have to be effective and successful—they need to be able to adapt to local needs and circumstances. They also need to be able to operate affordably, making use of a diverse range of local and central funding streams.
In both these regards, local democratically elected councils should hold the ultimate decision-making power over whether to adopt a family hub model and how it should function. As such, I regret that we cannot support the amendment, which would place too much prescription on the decisions and actions of local authorities and risk imposing significant new financial burdens. For this reason, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his rather disappointing reply and those who supported these amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and my noble friend Lady Wyld, for giving such clear definition to the services and the advantages of family hubs. I take to heart the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, about unintended consequences. I would quite happily talk to him about this. I also take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that it is nought to 19, not nought to five. Families have so many problems with teenagers, as we see on the streets today, and family hubs can be a non-stigmatising place where help can be got.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about Sure Start. In a way, I have always said that family hubs are building on Labour’s Sure Start centres. However, it is not nought to five but nought to 19—in fact, nought to 25 for children who come out of the care system, et cetera, with special needs.
There might be concern that my amendments attempt inappropriately to set in concrete the policy of family hubs when it is constantly progressing. However, the changes I have described are not just about bringing the latest policy idea into the Bill. Absent of these references to places where families know that they can access help and be connected to the full gamut of local services and support, the Bill will not reflect the overarching direction of travel. Their inclusion requires health to be fully on board, which has not happened in the past, to the detriment of the success of previous policies.
Lord Mawson
“223CZA Financial duties of NHS England: the principle of subsidiarity(1) NHS England must exercise its functions in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and must promote the principle throughout the integrated care system in particular by ensuring that integrated care boards observe the principle.(2) The principle of subsidiarity is that responsibility for deciding how and where to use resources is as far as possible to be delegated to local areas in order to meet local needs and to promote local groups working collaboratively.(3) In doing so, the process and timing of procurement should take account of the benefits of long-term relationships and stable partnerships in delivering sustainable integrated solutions to local health issues.”
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate taking place in Committee over the last few weeks with great interest and noted the growing consensus that now exists across this Chamber for transformation and change. These debates have shown the House at its best. It is clear that the Government now have before them an opportunity to transform not only the NHS, its culture and its ways of working but the public sector, much of which is not fit for purpose in this century. People inside and outside these systems know this—listen to those who are leaving for early retirement.
As well as listening, I have been talking to colleagues around the country: those inside the NHS systems; those responsible for the development of the ICSs; and those outside who seek to transform the health and care world and who wish to partner with these systems. I will share a few concerns that I have heard, because they relate to my two amendments, Amendment 159A and 210A.
First, colleagues both inside and outside NHS systems have heard fine words from Governments before about change and transformation in health and care, but they are sceptical. They know that the Civil Service and government systems and mindsets are not fully fit for purpose. The Civil Service’s culture and mindset need to transform; it needs to get interested in what is happening among young entrepreneurs in Bradford, for example. The voluntary and social enterprise sectors need the Government to go beyond fine words and deal with, for example, the situation that my colleagues at the Bromley by Bow Centre have to deal with every day as they navigate—as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned last week—41 different funding streams coming up the silos from the Treasury, at enormous cost and wastage of time, as they try to deliver integrated services. If we are to build a more integrated health and care programme, these practical issues are going to get worse—not just in east London but across the country—unless we address this now.
Many years ago, we had a secondee from the Treasury in Bromley who told us how all tax revenue was paid into one bank account. How much does it cost to then spread this out across 41 government departments and programmes, only for it all to be brought back together to address the multiple, complex and interlocking issues that somewhere like Bromley by Bow faces? How much cost does all this add? No one knows. Is it 20%, 30% or more? No wonder we have a productivity crises.
The Single Regeneration Budget programme was an early attempt, some years ago now, by the Civil Service and the Government to bring funding streams together. What lessons have been learned in government and the Treasury from it? I suspect there is no memory of this programme in the system.
There is also a danger of the NHS and public sector culture imposing itself on the voluntary and social enterprise sectors, as they try to innovate and generate new ways of working—what I call putting old men in new clothes. I have seen this in the housing association movement, which I was involved with in the very early days, and in what happened to children’s centres, which were launched in Bromley-by-Bow by a Labour Government, which then unwittingly undermined our integrated model and ways of working with local families.
My colleagues in parts of the country can already see the NHS centrally trying to impose its old processes on them as they innovate, at the very moment there needs to be a two-way street and real learning taking place. The centre needs to learn from the micro, from the innovation platforms we have created, not impose its outdated systems on them. Government needs now to show a clear resolve to transform the culture of the NHS or people will become even more cynical. The whole system and culture desperately needs change, and the way into this is via the micro and practical details.
Yes, it will take time, but first we must be clear about why we are taking these initial early steps and where we are trying to get to. There is a real danger of our Civil Service systems unwittingly deepening poor-quality outcomes and a dependency culture. The centre should see these innovation platforms as a place that can teach the centre, not the other way around. I declare my interests here. We need new behaviours from NHS England, not last-minute processes that want everything tomorrow. The macro needs to learn from the micro; the whole system needs to return to first principles and create an environment which encourages healthy communities.
Levelling up is surely about addressing the UK’s productivity gap, especially in marginalised communities, and one way of doing that is via a healthy and thriving population. It is also the only way to stop the NHS taking an ever-greater percentage of the UK’s GDP. I suggest health is now everybody’s business.
My two amendments fit within this mindset and suggest some first steps that could be taken along this road. Let me now deal with my first amendment, Amendment 159A. True subsidiarity cannot be achieved without delegation of resources and the authority to allocate in a way which will achieve the intended and agreed objectives. For example, systems may wish to ensure that discretionary local services such as community centres, community transport, struggling family support and meals on wheels should be prioritised and sustained ahead of further spend on health capacity, given their key role in supporting ongoing independence and social cohesion and preventing the need for health services.
Place systems may choose to pool delegated resources in order to commission collaborative services at scale, where they jointly agree that they are not best placed to provide such services, and such discussions are already taking place in mature systems. For example, in north-west Surrey we have agreed to jointly commission dermatology services across two place systems. The point is that delegation to place does not work against the development of services at a wider scale where that is appropriate, but the recognition of this needs to come from the place level.
True transformation—true to the spirit of the Bill and the long-term plan and to achieving the intended benefits of integration—cannot be achieved without the freedom to invest those resources in a way which can unlock long-term benefits. This may require speculative investment in some cases, as well as investment in preventive services which do not offer rapid returns but are essential to maintaining the ongoing sustainability of services. We would not expect any of this to be done without due diligence on the capability of place-based partnerships and appropriate levels of holding to account for achievement of improvements and results. The ICS will have a key role in not only ensuring that funds are delegated appropriately but supporting place-based systems to build the capability to manage delegated funds effectively.
We need to make leaps in how health services are now delivered through integrated services and offers to populations, by thinking radically about who can support people best, and in what way, to keep them healthy, look after them at home where possible and provide services which understand people as individuals and meet their needs holistically.
This degree of change in public health, prevention and provision of services needs innovative and broad-based collaborations and partnerships between organisations—health organisations, local authority organisations, VCSE and business—tailored to fit the needs of the place. These relationships are not quick to build; they take time and effort. The work takes years and the impact can be seen only through long-term relationships and stable partnerships. For this to succeed, the ICS will need to embrace the principle of subsidiarity, delegating meaningful responsibilities and accompanying budgetary responsibility to place level. This may mean that standard procurement cycles and processes do not immediately bring the outcomes that the Bill envisages. More innovative processes and timings may be needed to ensure that the benefits brought through long-term relationships and stable partnerships are given time to be achieved.
Let me now deal with Amendment 210A. In general, NHS bodies do not currently make best use of their local voluntary community, social enterprise and faith sectors when procuring services to achieve key health outcomes, especially in prevention and early intervention services. This is all well understood but, somehow, we never seem to get beyond one-off experiments or short-term, time-limited initiatives. By contrast, the best local authorities have been procuring and partnering with their VCFS for many years, though this has become more difficult with recent funding pressures. There is an opportunity, therefore, for health colleagues to learn from their local authority colleagues in the ICS on best practice in this regard.
With NHS vacancy rates at their highest levels, together with waiting lists for treatment, now is the time to take a whole-system approach and look more collaboratively across the local community. There is also a strong value-for-money argument. Simply waiting for people to become seriously ill, which is what is happening in practice at the moment with regard to many mental health services—but not by design—and could equally be applied to services for struggling families, leads to very poor outcomes and is very expensive. Using VCFS organisations and others, with a combination of staff and local volunteers to create a coherent health-oriented rather than illness-oriented approach, will pay dividends, but only if there is real intention and focus over a sustained period of time. This is a long-term play, not a quick win, but vital none the less.
Traditional models are not working for the groups which can offer most value. Local charities and social enterprises tend to be funded on a hand-to-mouth basis using grants, so most cannot permanently invest in their services. This is despite a huge growth in charitable giving from the public, directed in the main at the NHS.
In north-west Surrey, we are looking at how we can give similar prominence to local charities supporting areas of deprivation and communities in need, but more needs to be done to enable charities and voluntary sector groups to be assured of ongoing funding to provide core services. Keeping such VCS groups active is essential to achieve insight into the needs of communities. There are innovative approaches such as Tribe, a platform developed by a technology business- person, Richard Howells, simply because he had become so frustrated by the inabilities of the NHS and care services to deal with his own mother’s care needs. Richard did not write a research paper; he created a practical solution, which is pretty impressive. When he shared this practical solution with the NHS centrally, there was a lot of interest and fine words but, in actual detail, no follow through.
We now need to allow these insights at the most granular level to inform the commissioning and targeting of services. Without this, we will not be able effectively to respond to specific areas of inequality or health risks, leading to ill health and pressure on services. The existing models of voluntary sector support need to be developed to enable and promote micro- enterprise creation on a far greater scale. This both protects the quality of services and enables individuals to gain training, support and income. It has the potential to open up a currently untapped resource of care support, which is critical in places such as north-west Surrey, where community care staff vacancies run at around 40%.
Employment and volunteering are themselves key determinants of well-being. Place-based systems will wish to use their spending power to leverage this benefit and invest directly in local employment, where it can be demonstrated to be the most effective use of resources. In north-west Surrey, we have achieved a virtuous cycle of supporting furloughed airline workers during lockdown through recruiting them into the hospital workforce, supporting the delivery of services and well-being of clinical staff, and reducing the risk of those individuals developing physical or mental health problems through inactivity and stress.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who will be taking part remotely.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the spirit of these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in his working life at Bromley-by-Bow and more recently in north-west Surrey, and in his very full speech, has demonstrated the significance to healthcare of the principle of subsidiarity, the freedom to innovate and the mobilisation of community resources. If ICSs are to mobilise the full power of place this must indeed be a governing principle.
Although there might be definitional issues to clarify, I particularly applaud the ambition expressed in Amendment 159A that resources should be used at local discretion to promote collaboration by local groups, and that the procurement processes should take account of the benefits of stable partnerships. How could anyone dissent from that? Yet, the experience of so many non-clinical and VCSE organisations is of chronic financial instability and of promising work being aborted because of policy discontinuity.
I will give one instance of damaging discontinuity of funding. The Alchemy Project used dance as a form of early intervention in psychosis. The project was developed jointly by Dance United, South London and Maudsley, and King’s College London. Two cohorts of participants were drawn from young people in south London boroughs where the rate of psychosis is very high. With no previous experience of dance, after four weeks they performed a specially commissioned piece at the Shaw Theatre and Sadler’s Wells. Academic evaluation demonstrated clinically significant improvements in well-being, communication, concentration and focus, trust in others and team working. The project helped participants to develop relationships with their peers and restore relationships with their families. The Alchemy Project had to be abandoned, however, when a fragile consortium of funders did not renew its funding. ICBs and ICPs will need to be less fickle and less prodigal, bolder in supporting innovation, and more consistent and farsighted in their relationships with their providers and communities.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I also support these amendments. Earlier in Committee, I described the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, as
“a man of infinite resource and sagacity, an entrepreneur and … a great achiever”.—[Official Report, 18/1/22; col. 1575.]
I am sure that, if noble Lords are not convinced, these amendments will further endorse my description.
I now add that the noble Lord is a very determined reformer. He has told us how the present systems serving the public are not fit for purpose. The Government are trying through this Bill to remedy that through greater integration and other measures. It was Edmund Burke who said that, if you want to preserve something important, you need to be prepared to reform it. Our systems are important and need reforming.
Amendment 159A is about the financial duties of the NHS in England and solidarity. In the previous debate, I mentioned Bromley by Bow, as the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Howarth, said. Bromley by Bow was the forerunner of other imaginative, ground-breaking and huge entrepreneurial schemes in the north of England, London and Surrey. The examples are breathtaking but they cost energy, hard work, original thinking and money. It is sad that these scarce resources are dissipated by the convoluted systems that we, the nation and the Government impose on burgeoning and, at the beginning, fragile schemes. However, Bromley by Bow is not one of these. It is well established but not secure due to having to navigate 41 different funding schemes, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said. Huge effort and wasted time are spent trying to integrate these schemes for the use of a single neighbourhood centre.
I strongly support Amendment 210A. The noble Lord is right: he paints a compelling picture of the future, which will be realised only if our public health, prevention and provision of services collaborate in partnership with local organisations. They understand the history, dynamics and strengths that permeate their local place—their neighbourhood. The noble Lord is also right that, to thrive, ICSs will have to embrace the principle of solidarity, which is the essence of a successful project; that includes the financial duties of NHS England.
I have lived in my community from the age of five. In another debate, I said that my father, a GP, knew his patients inside and out. I, too, know my villagers inside and out in a different way. I treasure the relationships I have made with local organisations. We fight for every shop and organisation that is threatened. We welcome newcomers. We have produced a pocket list of 45 organisations with a mantra on the front saying, “Newick”—my village—“is here for you”. It goes on to say that there is so much going on in our village and there is something for everyone, whether you would like a new hobby, to make new friends or just give something back to the community. Get active, get involved and get happy.
I strongly support Amendment 210A, which urges local providers in particular to be prioritised. I certainly support that. This is not about get-rich-quick developers, who have no regard for the nature of the community in which they are going to build, building bricks and mortar. In our village, we fight for employment, which is absolutely critical in local communities. It reduces traffic problems and helps to mitigate global warming. Above all, it goes some way to generating happy communities. It generates the Government’s intention to make place an important component of a stable community. Surely that is what we all want.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we on these Benches said everything we needed to say on this matter in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, when we had the substantial debate. I do not know when it was—last week, I think. These two amendments flow from that. We probably could have taken them then, but I am sure that the Minister will have useful things to say.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we return to the very important theme of subsidiarity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has brought us in both his amendments and his powerful speech, born of his immense experience in the real world.
I will begin with Amendment 159A, if I may. One of the main reasons for introducing this Bill was to ensure that existing collaboration and partnership working across the NHS, local authorities and other partners was built on and strengthened. This relates especially to the framing and monitoring of assessments and strategies. We intend for these assessments and strategies to be a central part of the decision-making of ICBs and local authorities. That is why we are extending an existing duty to ICBs and local authorities to have regard to the relevant local assessments and strategies. Furthermore, the integrated care board and local authorities will both be directly involved in the production of these strategies and assessments through their involvement with both the integrated care partnership and the health and well-being boards. As a result, they have a clear interest in the smooth working of the ICP.
More widely, there are already several mechanisms to ensure that ICBs and local authorities will have regard to the assessments and strategies being developed in their areas. First, health and well-being boards have the right to be consulted by ICBs and give NHS England and ICBs their opinion on whether the joint forward plans take account of the joint local health and well-being strategy. Likewise, as part of its annual assessment of ICBs, NHS England must consult each health and well-being board on how well the ICBs have implemented the relevant joint local health and well-being strategies.
There are what one might call insurance policies embedded in these arrangements. Each ICB must also include in its annual report a review of the steps it has taken to implement any relevant joint local health and well-being strategy. It must also consult the health and well-being board when undertaking that review. Finally, NHS England has formal powers of intervention if an ICB is not complying with its duties in any regard. Putting all this together, we think that it is sufficient to ensure that ICBs will have regard to both ICP and health and well-being board plans.
The emphasis is on collaboration. Implicit in that concept is the two-way street on the sharing of ideas and exemplars that the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, called for and illustrated in his examples. Given the strong collaborative measures in the Bill and the strong foundations of collaborative and partnership working across the NHS, local authorities and other partners on which this Bill is built, we do not think that further provision is required. We would expect an ICP to resolve disagreements through discussion and joint working rather than additional, potentially burdensome procedures.
Amendment 210A brings us once again to the role of non-statutory organisations in helping to create and sustain healthy communities. I want to stress straightaway that the Government hugely value the contributions of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors to the health and well-being of the nation. We recognise their important role in supporting the health and care system.
The Government fully expect that commissioners will also recognise this contribution and role going forward. This role will be particularly important in efforts to recover performance and move beyond a purely reactive service to building a sustainable and personalised health and care system, something the non-statutory sector is uniquely placed to offer. I think the lessons learned, so well described by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in the previous set of amendments, are widely accepted nowadays.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those helpful thoughts and reflections. First, on NHS England, we need to be very sure that a two-way street is established, because I worry that systems such as this are not learning organisations—we know this from experience—and they now need to become such if they are really to embrace an environment that is about innovation and more entrepreneurial activity. I put that on the record. We will watch what happens; I am sharing with noble Lords what is actually happening now, live, in some of these services around the country as they try to establish new ways of working.
I pass on apologies from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. They have supported these amendments but, because of the change in the timetable, were not able to be with us today. This debate is being watched around the country, and I am aware of a very interesting dialogue going on with people both inside and outside the system. We should all be encouraged by that and should build on it.
With regard to the Report stage and to these two amendments and my earlier amendment, my colleagues and I, with others in the system, will reflect on these discussions. We will, I hope, talk further with the Minister and other colleagues and think about what the next steps might be. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Lansley agrees, this might be a good moment to stop for lunch, rather than him having to start and stop perhaps mid-speech on his amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 26th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (26 Jan 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be speaking remotely in this debate. I should also alert the Committee that, should this amendment be agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 163 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 162A
Lord Lansley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another to this Clause, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to set, and from time to time revise, objectives and priorities for the CQC, but would require the CQC to consult the Secretary of State when it revises indicators of quality for the purposes of assessments under subsection (4).
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of Clause 26 is to introduce a process by which the Care Quality Commission inspects integrated care systems. The structure of this is the subject of my Amendments 162A and 164A. Those two amendments go together—they are not separate, but entirely linked. The purpose of Amendment 162A is to remove the process by which the Secretary of State sets objectives and priorities for the Care Quality Commission in undertaking such inspections of integrated care systems; Amendment 164A then seeks to insert a process by which the Secretary of State, and indeed others, are consulted by the Care Quality Commission over the quality indicators that it would use to assess the quality and performance of integrated care systems.
A bit of background would be helpful for noble Lords in this respect. Think back to what the Care Quality Commission’s existing statutory arrangements are in relation to reviews and performance assessments of existing bodies in the National Health Service. The structure is very straightforward. The commission is asked to set quality indicators, to consult on those and then to review against them and produce reports. I know from personal experience that the Secretary of State cannot direct the Care Quality Commission to undertake a particular review, but they can certainly make a request, and their role as steward of the whole healthcare system has certainly led Secretaries of State to do that from time to time. But the legislation does not permit the Secretary of State to direct the Care Quality Commission in how it does its job; it is an independent body corporate. There is intrinsic merit in the Care Quality Commission, as an inspectorate, operating independently. The structure of this clause in this Bill is at odds with the way in which the existing legislation is structured in the 2008 NHS Act as amended. The effect of these two amendments would be to restore the independence of the Care Quality Commission in undertaking its activities and in the way in which it goes about its job.
The Government’s drafting of the legislation is wrong anyway. There are references to objectives and priorities. The priorities are referred to in new subsection (3), inserted by Clause 26(2), which says that they
“must include priorities relating to leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of services.”
I have to say that this is teaching grandmothers to suck eggs. There is no way in which the Care Quality Commission is not going to incorporate such indicators of quality. We know that from the generic nature of the quality indicators that it uses generally for existing NHS bodies. The reference to setting objectives is not only novel but completely undefined. The Secretary of State can set whatever objectives they wish to; we do not know what they are and there is no indication of what they might be. Taking out references to objectives and priorities seems to me to be a very good thing.
As it happens—I declare my own role in this—in the 2012 legislation there was previously a process by which the Secretary of State set standards for the Care Quality Commission in determining what the quality indicators should look like. We actually took that out of the 2012 legislation, precisely on these grounds: that the Care Quality Commission is, and should be, as independent as possible.
I think this clause proceeds from the mistaken apprehension that the Care Quality Commission is a part of the management process of the NHS. It is not. If the Secretary of State wishes integrated care systems to proceed in any particular way, the Secretary of State has the means to do so available via the mandate; the Government plan to add specific powers of direction; and NHS England has duties that go in exactly the same direction. The Care Quality Commission is not part of the management process for integrated care systems; it is an inspectorate. If—and this is a risk we must avoid—the Secretary of State were directly intervening to set objectives for integrated care systems to be inspected subsequently by the Care Quality Commission, whereas NHS England is itself setting objectives for integrated care systems through its responsibilities and duties, those two may come into conflict.
For all those reasons, the Government would be well advised to accept these two amendments and put the Care Quality Commission into the independent role in relation to ICSs that it, and people working in the National Health Service, would recognise as being its role. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has set out the tensions underlying the Bill about returning to the Secretary of State powers over independent, arms-length bodies; specifically, in this amendment, the inspections carried out by the Care Quality Commission in its role as a regulatory body. He rightly reminded us of the current arrangements, which give the CQC the ability to set its indicators and which, frankly, work well. I will not repeat his arguments, except to say in a slightly wider context that almost every piece of legislation brought to Parliament by this Government has given Ministers more powers—including, as in Clause 26, the power to intervene and to change remits.
The noble Lord’s amendments maintain the independence that the CQC—and other regulatory bodies—need to be able to inspect and make rulings without fear of favour or influence from politicians, while ensuring that the CQC must consult the Secretary of State when it revises indicators of quality for the purposes of assessment. That seems to me to provide the requirement for the CQC and the Secretary of State to engage in dialogue, but without the political intervention outlined in Clause 26(2) and (5).
Can the Minister explain why the Government feel the need to remove the independence of the CQC—whether this is an issue of management, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said—and how giving the Secretary of State these powers can maintain the independence of a regulatory body?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is essential that we get the arrangements for the Care Quality Commission right throughout the Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for trying to do that through these amendments. If the health and social care provided is to be of the highest standards, we must ensure, through the powers of scrutiny and review in your Lordships’ House, that we enable the watchdog to have the proper tools and framework to achieve that, so I support the amendments.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, emphasised, this is about putting the responsibility in the right place to ensure that a key inspectorate can do an independent job and support proper integration and delivery. I hope the Minister will accept the good sense in these amendments.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Can I briefly ask my noble friend whether part of the thinking behind the current wording might be that the remit of the CQC may need extending? For example, when it comes to private operators of social care, the CQC currently does not have the power to look at the financial stability of those operators. Is this provision perhaps based on the thought that the Secretary of State may need to widen the remit and powers of the CQC? If not, we will be returning to this at some point.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this debate before the Committee. He has made some worthwhile points but I hope to be able to explain why I think his amendments should not be pressed.
My noble friend Lady Altmann is not quite right in what she suggested was the intention of Clause 26. Clause 26 will allow the CQC to look across the integrated care system to review how integrated care boards, local authorities and CQC-registered providers of health, public health and adult social care services are working together to deliver safe, high-quality and integrated care to the public. That will include the role of the integrated care partnership. These reviews serve several functions. They will provide valuable information to the public, help drive improvement, and review progress against our aspirations for delivering better, more joined-up care across the system.
These amendments would remove the requirements on the Secretary of State to set and approve the priorities for these reviews. They would also remove the Secretary of State’s ability to direct the CQC to revise the indicators of quality that it will determine for these reviews. Instead, the amendments would add a requirement on the CQC to consult on those indicators with the Secretary of State, prescribed persons and other persons considered appropriate.
I entirely see where my noble friend is coming from as regards the CQC’s independence, but I must tell him that we have thought about this issue very carefully and we think it is right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, should have the flexibility to set the overall strategic direction of these reviews, with priorities and objectives. That is not an open-ended facility. In the other place, we accepted an amendment to develop this further by making it clear that the priorities set by the Secretary of State must relate to leadership, integration, and quality and safety. The amendment would remove that certainty.
As I have already mentioned in previous debates, there will be quite a range of different forms of accountability and oversight within the system, including NHS England’s role in overseeing ICBs. As a result, we think that the Secretary of State should play a strategic role to ensure that the CQC reviews complement the other oversight and accountability mechanisms. This will be achieved, in part, through the Secretary of State’s approval of the quality indicators. To provide my noble friend with an analogy, we believe, as I am sure he does, that there is a proper role for the Secretary of State in setting the strategic direction of NHS England. He does this, of course, through the mandate.
Finally, the drafting of this clause is not an accident. It is drafted deliberately to protect the independence of the CQC in how it operates, while also encouraging consultation and collaboration. It will allow the CQC to develop its approach in collaboration with NHS England and other partners in the system. The CQC is already intending to develop its approach to these reviews co-operatively and is able to consider a wide range of views in doing so. We do not think it is necessary to require it to consult.
I hope this has given my noble friend some reassurance as to why we have taken the approach we have and, for these reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation, which, I am sorry to tell him, wholly fails to provide reassurance. First, he was wrong, in the sense that he maybe implied that my amendments would have removed the Secretary of State’s requirement to approve the indicators on which the commission chooses to base its reviews. That is left in at new Clause 46B(4)(b), so the approval of the Secretary of State for the indicators would remain. What is being taken out by my amendments is the requirement for the Secretary of State to set objectives and priorities. I am afraid that everything that my noble friend said went to support my view that there is an erroneous perception on the part of the Government that the CQC must be turned into an integral part of the management of the NHS and the integrated care system. That is simply not the case.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her support. I quibble with her slightly in a pedantic way. We should not talk about the CQC as just another regulator; it is the inspectorate. In my experience, inspection should never be regarded as a substitute for management. Quality is integral to the management of the service. The CQC is there to determine and review whether that quality is being achieved, which is why I am perfectly happy for the Secretary of State, and indeed others, to be consulted and for the Secretary of State to approve the indicators of quality that the CQC arrives at. Frankly, however, for the Secretary of State to go further and start to prescribe the way the objectives of the CQC are set in this way is directly at odds with how the CQC reviews and reports on other NHS bodies. I can see the drift of this. If we accept it, we will end up with the CQC being told by the Secretary of State what its indicators of quality are for every NHS body and setting objectives and priorities for the CQC right across the board, which is completely at odds with the independence of the CQC.
I shall make one final point. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Altmann. Exactly the same argument applies to Clause 137, although I have not tabled amendments to it. It creates the CQC’s additional scrutiny and performance assessment of social care functions. We should therefore come back to precisely the point that she is talking about, as she suggests.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will take my point and that we might have further conversations between now and Report. However, I have to tell him that it is not just me who raises these points; I have been asked by representative bodies within the NHS to do so. We should take them seriously and hope that between now and Report we might see whether there are better ways to structure Clause 26 to secure both the Government’s objectives and what the NHS would expect to happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come to the group beginning Amendment 164. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, will be contributing remotely to this debate.
Amendment 164
Baroness Wheeler
“(4A) The indicators of quality set by the Commission under subsection (4) must include—(a) whether national standards in the care of people with rare and less common conditions are being met;(b) whether the views of patients with rare and less common conditions are being represented;(c) whether people with rare and less common conditions have access to a named clinical nurse specialist.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require integrated care boards to be assessed by the Care Quality Commission on the provision of care for people with rare and less common conditions, in particular.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 164 heads this wide-ranging group and probes how the proposed Care Quality Commission rating system for ICBs’ work in practice, with a particular focus on rare and less common conditions, although this debate is more broadly relevant to all aspects of the CQC’s role.
Amendments 178 and 240 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have added my name, also relate to people with rare diseases and their access to innovative medicines and medicinal products, and the general need for awareness-raising about those conditions among health and social care staff. I remind the Committee of my role as vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. The noble Lord will speak to those amendments later.
The group also covers amendments on wider care and safety issues that impact on patients, including ensuring that liothyronine T3 is available to patients when it is prescribed by a doctor and the regulation of healthcare and associated professions. This includes safeguards to apply under the Secretary of State’s power to alter the professional regulatory framework; protecting the use of the title “nurse”; hospital food standards for patients and training for staff; reviewing the surgical consultants’ appointment process; and licensing aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures in registering cosmetic surgery practitioners.
The noble Lords who have their names to these amendments will speak to them, so I will leave them to it and concentrate on my rare disease issues and the matters that our Front Bench team have added their names to. Returning to the CQC, and following on from the previous debate on Clause 26, on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, regarding the role of the Secretary of State in setting objectives and priorities, overall, we welcome the extension of the CQC’s remit to ICBs but now need to understand how it will work in practice.
As it stands, the Bill establishes an overarching framework under which the CQC will need to determine for itself the quality indicators against which it will assess ICBs. My amendment raises the issues about the quality indicators relevant to those with rare and less common conditions. If the purpose of the rating system is to protect patients, it must help to ensure that national standards of patient care, where they exist, are being met. Under the NHS’s plans to jointly commission or delegate commissioning responsibility for specialised services to ICBs, set out in NHS England’s Integrating Care paper, an important assurance given is that specialised services will
“continue to be subject to consistent national service specifications and evidence-based policies determining treatment eligibility.”
Will the CQC ensure that services organised by ICBs are organised in line with these national specifications?
Moreover, people with rare diseases are concerned that if services are to be commissioned in some way by ICBs in future, rather than just NHS England, their voices may be lost. NHS England’s specialised commissioning team meets regularly with representatives of the rare disease community, including the SHCA, and it is important that ICBs can hear their views too. How will this happen and how will the CQC rating system act to ensure that this happens?
Finally, one of the key asks of patients with rare diseases to help deliver continuity in their care is that they have access to a named clinical nurse specialist, which is commonplace for patients with more common conditions. That continuity of care is an important marker of quality. Will the CQC rating system help to deliver it?
Beyond these questions are broader ones. If the bulk of the CQCs work will continue to focus on inspecting providers, can the Minister explain how it will ensure that its ICB ratings are not unnecessarily duplicative, given that providers will form part of ICBs? Also, the CQC looks at whether services are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Given that the first three of these should continue to be the primary concern of those providing care, rather than of the ICBs organising it, how will the CQC ensure that the new rating system clarifies rather than dilutes this accountability? How will the CQC’s work align with the wider performance management of ICBs undertaken by NHS England? How specialised services will operate is a complex area and I am happy for the Minister to write to me on some of the specifics of my questions.
As I said, I will speak briefly to other amendments in this group, to which Labour Front-Benchers have added their names. Amendment 243, tabled by my noble friend Lady Merron, covers the important issue of the protection of the title “nurse”, and is supported by three respected medical and healthcare professionals whose contributions I look forward to. The recent Health Service Journal survey found hundreds of roles that do not require Nursing and Midwifery Council registration but use “nurse” in the job title. While “registered nurse” is a title protected by the NMC, “nurse” is not. The term may be used by anyone in the UK to offer professional advice and services, and people with no nursing qualifications or experience, or who have been struck off the professional register, may use it.
Obviously, this is worrying and even dangerous—a dangerous trend which potentially compromises patients’ health. What progress is being made on the Government’s review of healthcare professional regulation following their consultation last year? Surely we must follow the example of other countries, such as France and Australia, in giving the consistently most trusted profession in the UK the recognition and protection that it deserves.
My noble friend Lady Thornton has added her name to Amendment 258, from my noble friend Lord Hunt, to the welcome new Clause 145, on hospital food standards. It underlines the importance of investment in the food served to patients in hospital and other care and treatment settings. It is welcome because it specifies food quality and standards and stresses the importance of recognising staff skills, experience and training, as well as ensuring investment in NHS kitchens and catering equipment to ensure that the highest standards can be maintained.
On Amendment 266 from my noble friend Lady Merron, we seek to give the Secretary of State power to introduce a licensing regime for aesthetic non-surgical cosmetic procedures and to introduce an offence of practising without a licence. This area is crying out for regulation. The Department of Health’s own report has said that non-surgical interventions which can have major and irreversible adverse impacts on health and well-being are almost entirely unregulated. We fully recognise that this is also a highly complex policy area. However, I understand that noble Lords concerned about this issue had constructive and positive discussions yesterday with the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister updating the House on the scope and discussions of the Government’s ambition in this important area.
Finally, I offer my strong support for my noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 176, which seeks to ensure that the general powers of the Secretary of State to direct the functions of NHS England include ensuring that when T3 is prescribed to patients with hyperthyroidism, the drug is made available to them. My noble friend rightly raises this issue at every opportunity, and I hope the Minister will have a bit of good news for him today and tell us that some real progress has been made. It is clear that many thyroid patients would benefit hugely from the declassification of T3 as a high-cost drug, back to a drug that is routinely prescribed in primary care. It is much cheaper now, and the many patients who were taken off the drug and continue to be denied it need to have it restored. The Government must ensure that the now updated NICE guidelines which reflect this new position are implemented consistently across the new NHS structures, rather than repeat the record of the nearly 50% of CCGs which failed to ensure that the drug is properly prescribed.
I will leave it at that, and I look forward to the debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I remind the Committee that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, will be contributing remotely. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have signed two amendments in this very wide-ranging group. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is Amendment 264 on the appointment of surgical consultants. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said in your Lordships’ House recently, 48% of advertised consultant posts last year went unfilled. Given our discussions about the workforce earlier this week, we need as many posts filled as possible and to remove any bureaucratic barriers to so doing.
Part of the problem at the moment is that trusts are having difficulties establishing appointment panels which can make these consultant appointments. Currently, the rules are too tightly drawn in the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and the subsequent 2005 guidance. The members of all the royal colleges across the UK have a wealth of expertise, but the current legislation says that only members of English royal colleges can help trusts fill their appointment duties. In its helpful briefing, the Royal College of Surgeons says that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh are excluded from being eligible to join these panels. This amendment would be a simple remedy and speed up the appointment of much-needed consultants, and I do hope that the Minister can agree to it.
I have also signed Amendment 266 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the urgent need to ensure that practitioners undertaking non-surgical aesthetic procedures such as lip fillers, injectables, thread lifts, semi-permanent make-up, laser treatments, piercings and tattoos are properly trained and licensed. These treatments are easily available to members of the public, but without the safeguards required when being carried out in the health sector. I am afraid that we see daily in the press and media reports on the many problems when treatments go wrong, which can include infection, disfiguration and burns, among other serious issues. When treatments do go wrong, it is usually the NHS that has to pick up the pieces, so I believe it is very much in the interests of the Department of Health and Social Care to accept this amendment.
The signatories to this amendment have been working with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, alongside a coalition of public health organisations and industry representatives, so that we can make sure that a licensing scheme can be introduced for all non-surgical aesthetic procedures. This will enable the setting of appropriate standards, a level playing field for practitioners and, importantly, protect consumers in this sector.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 178, 266 and 293. Amendment 178, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is important for people with rare and less common diseases. The amendments could be a lifeline for people who have rare conditions who use products that may be the only substances that work. There is an enormous selection of rare conditions. It can be a desperate situation when some medicines are developed but take a long time to be given the all-clear by NICE. Some medicines are not available in England on the National Health Service but are available in other countries, sometimes even in Scotland. That is devastating and frustrating.
I support Amendments 266 and 293, on the cosmetic surgery industry, which must be made safer. It is extraordinary that this business is only partially registered. Many people who have such a procedure take for granted that the practitioner will be registered and fully insured. There have been some disastrous results when things go wrong with a beauty procedure. I know of some plastic surgeons who work only in the National Health Service, as they do not want to be tarred with the same brush as uninsured cowboys. Amendments 266 and 293 deal with a wide selection of cosmetic procedures, some of which are psychologically important to many people. There is wide interest in making this trade safe and getting it registered. I hope the Minister realises that this is an important matter that needs putting right.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 176, the second amendment in this group, and two other amendments. I shall start with Amendment 176 which is concerned with the treatment of thyroid patients who continue to be denied liothyronine, otherwise known as T3, as the most appropriate treatment for them. For some patients, the standard treatment is not effective. T3 has proven to be a much better treatment, but tragically, a few years ago the manufacturers grossly inflated the cost of T3 by a massive 6,000%. Understandably, NHS England and its associated prescribing advising machinery strongly discouraged the use of the drug and, as a result, many patients had T3 withdrawn and suffered quite considerably or had to fund it privately or source it from abroad. Happily, the price of T3 has come down by 75%, although it could go down further, but I believe it is no longer categorised as a high-cost drug.
The problem is that clinical commissioning groups still treat it as a high-cost drug, so the situation is still very difficult for patients who need it—those for whom the standard treatment is not appropriate. The current guidance states that T3 can be prescribed to patients who have unresolved symptoms on the standard treatment if it is initiated or confirmed following a review by an NHS consultant endocrinologist. A statement in July 2021 restated NHSE guidance, but it has not been followed by clinical commissioning groups. A survey done recently by UK thyroid charities, to which I pay huge tribute, says that 44% of CCGs have not fully adopted the national guidelines or are wrongly interpreting them.
What are we to do? What is the situation here, where we have clear guidance that is not being followed? This goes back to our previous debates about the various mechanisms being brought in to ration treatments, against national guidance or technology appraisal advice from NICE. It is the same issue. I am not expecting the Minister to issue a direction but I am expecting him to tell CCGs and, in future, integrated care boards to get off their backsides, start implementing the guidance properly and realise that this is no longer such a high-cost drug. I appeal to him to do something about that.
I also hope that the Minister will do something about hospital catering. I confess to your Lordships that I am president of the Hospital Caterers Association, where I work very closely with some great professional staff who have to work with their hands tied behind their back. Often they do not have the resources to provide the high-quality food that everyone wants and expects.
During Covid we saw in many local NHS facilities a determination to do everything possible to improve nutrition for both patients and staff. Miraculously, hot food was made available to staff overnight, which, as noble Lords know, seems to have been beyond the capacity of the NHS for many years. I do not know why I am looking at the former Chief Nursing Officer as I say this; I think it is an appeal for support.
This clause is highly welcome as I believe it will lead to higher standards, but my amendments would enable the caterers to deliver on them. The first key point is this: they need the resources to be able to do it. The amount of money spent on hospital food per day at the moment is simply not sufficient. Secondly, we need more training for staff. The training programmes have disappeared, and we need to get them back in to give staff the opportunity to show what they can do. Thirdly, we need to make sure that NHS trusts and foundation trusts are fully on board with bringing forward these regulations. There is no doubt that the efficiency programmes have taken their toll on the budgets for hospital catering and that, equally, the old-style national training schemes fell away and have not been replaced. The pay grade of qualified chefs and cooks needs to be reviewed to reflect the importance of their role. This issue is important in terms of the standards of food and nutrition for our patients and for the well-being of our staff.
My final amendment in this group is Amendment 264. What links all these amendments is that we need more consultants appointed—a small effort to enable us to improve the efficiency of the system. I remind the Committee of my GMC connections in relation to this. The amendment would add the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and their associated dental faculties, to the colleges that may be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. My amendment was inspired by the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, which noble Lords might be surprised to learn has an office in Birmingham because many consultants who work in the English NHS are members of the Scottish colleges.
There seems to be a lacuna in the current regulations. According to the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996 and subsequent guidance issued by the department in 2005, only the Royal College of Surgeons in England is permitted to review surgical consultant job descriptions and send a royal college representative to the advisory appointment committees when it comes to the appointment of consultant surgeons. Other elements of my amendment apply to the appointment of physician clinicians, and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine are also supportive. Although the process and guidance apply only to NHS trusts, foundation trusts are encouraged to follow it.
The Minister has yet to accept any amendment to the Bill. The usual line from the Government is, “We will do this when legislation is available to do so.” Here is a great opportunity for the Minister, as we are here on day 6 of Committee, to get up and say that he is going to accept my amendment.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I declare an interest as the patron of the National Association of Care Catering, a position that I took over from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I admit that, when I had this great honour thrust upon me, I had little idea what I was getting into—and I have discovered a world of highly dedicated, professional people whose contribution to the health of the nation is very much overlooked. I managed to attend their national conference in Nottingham last October, and I have to say that it was one of the most harrowing afternoons I have spent, as they talked about what they had gone through as the people who supply catering not only in hospitals and acute hospitals but in care homes, as well as doing meals on wheels.
I will pick up one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made, on training. He is absolutely right that this area has suffered a great deal because of various changes not just to training in the NHS but to the training in higher education. We do not have a recognised qualification in care catering in this country, yet these are people who have to produce food for people who have dysphagia, multiple food intolerances and dementia, people who quite often are suffering from malnutrition when they come into hospital, and people who have allergies and often suffer from dehydration. The people who have worked in this field, and some of them have worked in it for many years, suffer a deep sense of frustration, which is that when young people in school or college show an aptitude for or a willingness to go into the world of catering, they are directed towards restaurant catering, because that is where the teachers and lecturers think the money is to be made. Actually, catering for people with difficult medical conditions is a lot more complicated.
I say to the Minister that I am also really impressed by the specialist companies that work in this field—those that produce specialist menus and enable people to order ingredients for complicated menus in complicated settings, as well as those that manufacture cutlery and crockery and vessels that can be used by people whose interaction with that sort of thing is hampered. These can bring a dignity and focus to something that is much overlooked—but talk to dieticians and you will increasingly understand the importance that food plays in maintenance of health and recovery.
I do not know whether or not this will make it into the Bill, but will the Minister go back to the department and ask whether his officials might meet some of the people who do a remarkable and much overlooked job, day in, day out, and who these last two years, perhaps more than anybody else in the NHS, deserved the clap, if only people knew what they had done?
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, in this rather large group of amendments, I shall take us from catering to my Amendment 242 on professional regulation. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for adding her name. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests, in particular as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland. I am involved with the employment of regulated allied health professionals.
Clause 142 gives the Secretary of State far-ranging powers to alter the professional regulatory landscape, with the potential to make significant changes to how certain health and care professions may be regulated, including the power to remove professions from, or bring professions into, statutory regulation.
The UK model of regulation for healthcare is rigid, complex and needs to change to better protect patients, to support our health services and to help the future workforce meet future challenges. The case for reform has been acknowledged.
Whether a health and care profession falls under regulation is a major decision affecting not only the professions themselves but employers, patients and service users who place their trust in those professionals. My Amendment 242 is a probing one. I want to explore some of the issues that will be particularly important for the Government to consider as and when they might seek to use these extended powers.
I want first to thank my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for the time they have taken so far to discuss the issues around my amendment. We are all agreed on the importance of encouraging greater collaboration between regulators, with the ability to share data and intelligence, but I remain to be convinced that the legislation is being used to reduce regulatory silos, which is crucial to reducing regulatory failures in the future.
I want to be clear that I am not advocating for a single super regulator, which would be a step in the wrong direction, not to mention complicated, disruptive and expensive. I would rather harness the best elements of professional regulation and give the regulators the tools to work more closely together and share best practice more consistently.
I accept that work is being done in the department on various regulatory reform initiatives. These are all important, but it strikes me that they are all focused on individual regulators and amend specific operational issues, rather than looking at the landscape as a whole and what could be achieved.
We have sadly seen all too many reviews and inquiries which have identified regulatory silos as a key factor in why something went terribly wrong. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s First Do No Harm report highlights the issue starkly, but the Paterson inquiry, the Sir Robert Francis report on Mid Staffs, the Shipman inquiry and others have all underscored the value of greater collaboration between regulatory bodies, sharing data and intelligence as well as adopting shared professional standards. Reducing and removing silos is also good for professionals and employers, with benefits in terms of intra-professional learning and for professional and patient safety.
I am grateful to the Health and Care Professions Council for its briefing, but I was concerned to note something which regulators have stressed to me: that due to their tightly defined duties, they have often been forced to resort to informal memorandums of understanding to try to make the system work better. That is piecemeal and inefficient— frankly, I would be extremely disappointed if the Minister in his response was to rely on such MoUs to fix the issue.
Do not the powers in this Bill offer a chance to look at things differently: a whole system regulatory approach rather than a set of silos? Amendment 242 identifies some principles and considerations that I believe the Government would find beneficial in developing this more collaborative landscape.
Maintaining regulatory independence is crucial. The Government have rightly recognised this in other legislation recently, but I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that this remains a cornerstone of any future regulatory reform proposals. I would be grateful for reassurance that no regulatory reform would be undertaken by the UK Government without working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that it worked for all parts of the UK.
I particularly want to highlight the benefits of multi-profession regulation, which, as the CEO of an organisation that relies on a range of expert allied health and care professionals registered with the HCPC, I see at first hand, supporting improvements across professions that are increasingly interconnected. As the Minister is aware, the HCPC regulates 15 professions, so is able to utilise common frameworks and outcome-based standards. This approach could, and should, be spread among all the professional regulators.
This is particularly important as the Government, NHS England and NHS Improvement seek to create a more flexible workforce with an ability to move between professions, work as multidisciplinary teams and support career progression. From my own experience, I know that this is positive, but we need our regulatory system to keep up with innovations in delivery. Can my noble friend the Minister therefore tell us about how we can harness the benefits of multi-profession regulation and how he anticipates this will influence the Government’s thinking in terms of reform? Collaboration and the development of a system-wide approach to overcome fragmentation and silos is critical to the future success of regulation. It is an enabler of better care, and a collaborative structure would generate considerably higher and richer levels of data.
Finally, this holistic approach would offer an opportunity to create consistent criteria for making decisions about which professions may be brought into or taken out of regulation. Could the Minister put it on record today that the issues in the amendment are principles that would govern the future use of the powers within Clause 142, that they are all principles that the Government are actively considering and that no decisions on regulatory change would be taken if the criteria set out in this amendment were not met? Once again, I thank him and his team for his engagement so far, and I look forward to his response today. I hope we can continue discussions between now and Report.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and Amendment 264 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Yesterday I was chastised—wrongly, in my view—for speaking at length. Such boldness requires training in speaking up, confidence in being right and using authority. The comments came from a government Whip, who happens to be a registered nurse. As a doctor, I am used to that. When a nurse speaks up, patient safety improves, health equity improves, collegial relationships are stronger—again, as a doctor I can vouch for that—and healthcare systems improve. This is because of their training. Not recognising legally the status that the title of “nurse” brings to those that are highly trained and qualified and on a nursing council register is wrong.
We all know what a nurse is; a nurse is highly trained, highly competent, can do the job well and is on a nursing register. Anybody else is not a nurse. It is right, therefore, that we recognise this and give it a legal status. Furthermore, the NHS and health providers should not employ anyone as a nurse who does not meet the above criteria. I understand that last year there were 195 advertisements for nurses in the NHS which did not say that the qualification of being registered was necessary. In my view, that is wrong. I strongly back this amendment, and I look forward to the contribution of my noble friend Lady Watkins.
Turning to Amendment 264 on the appointment of consultants in surgery, I am a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, so I speak on behalf of all surgical colleges. Let me give your Lordships an example: there is a surgical post empty in Birmingham. A highly qualified person, who was well-trained in Scotland and holds a fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, is a key candidate for application but cannot be appointed because the Royal College of Surgeons of England cannot provide an assessor. On the other hand, there is a surgical vacancy in Glasgow, and the top candidate is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England but can be appointed without a Royal College of Surgeons of England assessor being there. That is a total anomaly.
A person can be appointed who is fully trained in Scotland, is a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, works in Cambridge, applies in Cambridge, but you cannot have an assessor from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. In all other specialties—the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, of Ophthalmologists, of Radiologists, of Psychiatrists, of Anaesthetists, and in public health—the assessor can come from any part of the United Kingdom. This anomaly can be stopped very easily. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it is not a big deal; just change it in legislation. I do not know who opposes it.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the term “nurse”, which is protected in law at the moment only for those who are a “registered nurse”. This means that anyone can describe themselves as a nurse, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, outlined. They can even describe themselves as a nurse if they have no qualifications or experience—or, perhaps more seriously, have just been struck off the register. As somebody who was a member of the forerunner to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, I can say that we do not strike people off the register lightly, so the risks of such people being at large and describing themselves as nurses are serious. For this reason, a petition was created calling for the title “nurse” to be protected further in UK law.
In the initial response by the Government to the petition, recognition was given that the protection of professional titles
“provides assurance to the public that someone using that title is competent and safe to practise.”
The response references a consultation by the Department of Health and Social Care on professional regulation, Regulating Healthcare Professionals, Protecting the Public. In the Nursing and Midwifery Council response to this consultation, the nursing regulator recognised issues around the limitations of “nurse” not being a protected title and said it did not think that its current powers are sufficient,
“given that they are primarily based around titles that are not widely understood by the public or used by the professions.”
This amendment is designed to ensure that there are sufficient regulatory levers to be able to protect the public in the future.
Nurses on the NMC register find it difficult to understand why the Government are reluctant to protect the title. As part of the statutory regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was mandated that registered nurses would be part of the clinical commissioning group governing body. In Regulation 11 of the National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Regulations 2012, the CCG governing body is required to include at least one registered nurse within its membership. This created a statutory commissioning role for nursing leaders in England that will be lost should this not be required within integrated care boards’ executive membership. Please can the Minister explain whether guidance will include a recommendation that there should be a registered nurse as part of the executive team on integrated care boards?
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 264, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to which I have added my name. In so doing, I remind noble Lords of my own interests, particularly as a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of London and an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh.
This is a critical amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, indicated, strongly supported by my noble friend Lord Patel. Currently, the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996, with additional guidance provided by the department in 2005, restricts membership of advisory appointments committees for consultants to certain royal colleges, as we have heard with the appointment of surgeons by the Royal College of Surgeons of England alone—and, indeed, for physicians by the Royal College of Physicians of London. This is an anomaly. The medical royal colleges across the United Kingdom are recognised in terms of the postgraduate training that they are able to supervise, the continuing professional development they are able to provide and, indeed, collaborate with regard to postgraduate examination which is required for provision of the certificate for the completion of specialist training. However, when it comes to the question of consultant appointment, there is this restriction.
Noble Lords might ask why it is important that this matter be dealt with. The provision by a medical royal college of a professional member to serve as part of the appointment process for a new consultant is critical. Those representatives provide expertise and insight with regard to the nature of the job description, the requirements for the individual post, and the assessment of individual candidates as part of the selection process on the day.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, can I just take us back to Amendment 266, to which I have added my name, before we lose sight of it? It was helpfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and its purposes were explained very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I just want to add a bit of context, which I hope will commend itself in particular to my noble friend Lord Howe on the Front Bench, in that he and I tackled together the PIP breast implant problems that emerged in December 2010 and which led directly, subsequently, to us asking the distinguished first medical director of NHS England, Bruce Keogh, to undertake an inquiry. Since the report of that inquiry, we have made considerable progress. Most recently, noble Lords will recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, took through the Private Member’s Bill from Laura Trott in the other place to assist in the regulation of Botox treatment for under-18s.
The point is that there is still unfinished business. Amendment 266 relates to giving the Secretary of State the power to set up a licensing process for non-surgical cosmetic procedures—not through the CQC in this case, because the CQC regulates healthcare professionals, but almost certainly through the mechanism of asking local authorities to undertake a licensing process. It gives the Secretary of State all the flexibility that we have grown accustomed to legislation having to give them, but it does so in a way that enables the regulation that would be brought in using this power to be proportionate, being very clear that it should apply only to those activities that present a significant risk. It makes sure that it takes advantage, for example, of the national standards that have been put in place by the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners. It would be very helpful in trying to mitigate the risks associated with non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
Amendment 293 in my name is a follow-up to a Private Member’s Bill that made no progress. It again follows Bruce Keogh’s report and looks to give the General Medical Council the legislative opportunity and requirement to bring forward a scheme to put surgeons who have a specialty relating to cosmetic surgery on to its specialist registers. With Amendment 293, we have the benefit of being able to do this by virtue of the recommendations in recent years from the Cosmetic Surgery Interspecialty Committee of the Royal College of Surgeons. It gives us an opportunity to give those who wish to undertake surgical treatments for cosmetic purposes the opportunity to see who is on the specialist register. All this relates to the safety of those undertaking cosmetic treatments, which is a large number of people; there is a large amount of activity and a significant need for the consumers of these services to have a degree of protection. I think we can make progress on that.
In the rest of this group, we have another opportunity to take action. My noble friend was right when she spoke about a more general approach. She will recall that, in April 2014, the Law Commission produced its recommendations on the regulation of healthcare professionals, so there is an opportunity to do something here. If we do not do it in this Bill, it would not hurt for the Government to tell us more about how they might make progress on the broader regulation, in addition to what is being proposed here.
I want to mention two other things. First, we had an earlier debate about access to innovative medicines. This is another opportunity for my noble friend to tell the Committee that NHS England is proceeding with its consultation on the implementation of the innovative medicines fund. Secondly, we do not need to repeat the short debate we had in Grand Committee not so very long ago under the auspices of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who enabled us to present a lot of arguments about the future of NHS Resolution and clinical negligence within the NHS. We do not need to repeat that, but Amendments 178 and 297E would of course help us in that direction, not least by repealing the redundant NHS Redress Act 2006, which has never been implemented. With that thought, I pass the ball to the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 266 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and Amendment 293 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley for all the reasons that my noble friend just articulated. I will not repeat them as he put them so very well. However, I would say to the Minister that, coming from the innovation space, I can see that the technologies for both cosmetic surgery and non-surgical cosmetic interventions are improving all the time. There is an incredibly rapid pace of change. They are set to continue to get better and better, so the marketplace is getting more sophisticated and their popularity is also exploding. We have been briefed on evidence about the role of social media in promoting non-surgical cosmetic interventions in particular. This is exciting, because it is great that people have access to these interesting products, but also extremely worrying, because not all the surgeries and non-surgical interventions are successful. It is the right time for the Government to intervene, so that we have a register of cosmetic surgical practitioners and a much clearer regulatory regime for non-surgical interventions.
I am pro cosmetic surgery. As a young boy, I had an inherited condition of having very big, sticking-out ears, which my father had and my cousins and aunts have, and it was miserable. I had them pinned back and I am very grateful that that happened. It meant that I could be a much more confident person as I grew up. I am pro cosmetic interventions; if people want to use the benefits of medicine to improve their confidence in the way they look, I applaud that. However, standing next to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I am also aware of Bruce Keogh’s extremely good report and the very large number of interventions that have not gone well. I know that the Minister’s instincts are not to intervene unless absolutely required and my suggestion to him is that we have hit that moment. The marketplace is exploding and now is the right time to intervene.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as I address Amendment 266, I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. I stress that this amendment has been supported by the Beauty Industry Group, which represents 10 industry organisations—two voluntary registers for cosmetic practitioners, the Mental Health Foundation and others.
There are currently significant gaps in our regulatory system. Environmental health and licensing professionals work at a local authority level. They inspect, register and license premises for a very limited set of procedures, such as acupuncture, tattoos and piercing. Even for these procedures, however, there are no nationally set training programmes or qualification requirements for somebody to practise. For the riskier beauty procedures, such as the injectables, there are only voluntary registers of accredited practitioners. They have some approved education and training but that is not mandatory.
That means that there are many unaccredited practitioners on the high street providing services to people directly with no checks. A licensing scheme, as outlined in the amendment, would provide appropriate qualification and competency standards for practitioners wishing to practise, which is key to improving safety. The amendment as drafted is an open power for the Secretary of State, so it is easily amended as new procedures come online and on to the marketplace. The weakness of existing legislation in the area is that it fails to cover many of the newer treatments that are now popular.
When things go wrong, it is the NHS that has to pick up the pieces. Infections, injuries, scarring, burns and allergic reactions from a range of procedures often all end up in the NHS, sometimes with people being hospitalised and disfigured. Injection of fillers—or botulinum toxins—into blood vessels can cause dying back of tissues as well as blindness when administered by people who really are not adequately trained and certainly not registered. That means that there is no recompense for people damaged by these practitioners, who have no medical insurance or qualifications. In addition, there are unauthorised advertisements that breach advertising standards. There are strict laws around prescription-only medicines such as botulinum toxin, but these advertisements seem to bypass those.
Among members of the public who have had cosmetic procedures, alarmingly, three-quarters were given no information about the product, volume, brand or batch number of whatever was being used and just under three-quarters were not asked anything at all about their psychosocial or mental health or any body image issues. It is a vast and complex area and there are gaps in regulations. We need a national framework of standards with qualifications that can be recognised, so that there is a clear badge for members of the public.
To briefly address Amendment 297, I suggest that it is not needed because dermatological surgery and plastic surgery are subsections of medical practice and already registered with the General Medical Council. This gets nearer to credentialling than to requiring a separate qualification. These are doctors. They are highly trained, they have gone through a recognised training programme and they have been often examined as part of their exit from their training in whatever procedure they are undertaking.
I remind the Committee that, in a recent letter from the right honourable Michael Gove, he said that he is considering a licensing scheme. I hope the Government will see that this amendment would allow such a scheme without tying the Government down, and I hope that they will accept it, as well as Amendment 264 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for which I should declare that I am an honorary fellow of the of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. I think the contents of the amendment would go wider than simply surgical procedures. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine was established as a separate medical college in 2008, but the guidance and regulations were written prior to that, so they are completely out of date for what is now emerging as a major specialty across medicine. That amendment would rectify a lacuna.
Lord Borwick (Con)
Briefly, I support Amendment 176 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I first declare two interests as a patron of thyroid charities, particularly the Thyroid Trust, whose leader, Mrs Lorraine Williams, has done great work on behalf of patients. I should also declare that I once suffered from Graves’ disease, with an unpredictably hyperactive thyroid gland. This may have been one of the few parts of my body that was hyperactive, but it was surgically removed and, ever since, I have taken daily levothyroxine. However, some patients cannot take levothyroxine but need liothyronine instead. It is a shame that some patients have been unable to get that drug when they need it so badly. I know that the NHS must control total drug costs, but the history of its control of that particular drug has perhaps not been perfect. The fault is originally that of the manufacturer, not the NHS, but it is patients who have suffered. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would solve this problem.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lord’s, I shall speak to Amendments 178 and 240, and I remind the Committee of my interest as chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance.
Amendment 178 deals with innovative medicines and medicinal products. The debate on this amendment is very timely, given the recent conclusion of NICE’s review of its methods and processes and the current consultation on the innovative medicines fund. Both the review and the IMF consultation are to be welcomed. It is clear that they will result in improvements in the system of assessing medicines and medicinal products, particularly in respect of analysing and addressing uncertainty and incorporating more real-world evidence into decision-making. However, it is also clear that both the IMF proposals and the outcome of NICE’s review are at risk of falling short of the hopes of many patients, clinicians and the life sciences sector more generally in a number of important ways.
First, there is still a lacuna in NICE’s approach to considering treatments for rare disease. For ultra-rare diseases—those affecting fewer than 1,000 people—NICE retains its highly specialised technologies process. For more common conditions—those affecting more than 25,000 people—NICE has its separate technology appraisal process. But for patients with rare diseases—those affecting between 1,000 and 25,000 people—there is no process, and so treatments for these patients have to be considered instead through the unsuitable technology appraisal process. This gap sets us apart from other countries, such as the more generous ASMR system in France and the AMNOG system in Germany for evaluating rare disease treatments.
It was therefore very disappointing to see that the case for the rare disease modifier was again rejected in NICE’s review. It was rejected on the grounds that society does not value treatments for rare disease more highly than those for more common diseases. Those representing rare-disease patients would contend that the fact is that these treatments are inherently costly. The Government accept this in relation to ultra-rare disease, so why do they not do so for rare disease treatments? I would be grateful if the Minister could address that specific question when he replies.
Secondly, NICE’s own consultation looked favourably on reducing the discount rate at which NICE assesses the future costs and benefits offered by a treatment, saying that such a change
“could make a particularly big difference to some treatments, like gene therapies.”
However, NICE has now said that this change would not be possible, due to the views of “system stakeholders”, and this has disappointed many people. When the Minister replies, I would be grateful if he could expand on what “system stakeholders” really means in this context. Who is NICE talking about and why did it assign conclusive weight to their views?
Thirdly, the system in England still fails to formalise the input of patients and clinical experts in the way that, for example, the SMC in Scotland does through its patient and clinical engagement process.
Finally, proposals for the innovative medicines fund now move far beyond the originally planned narrow focus on autoimmune and rare diseases. This causes some SHCA members to worry that rare diseases will get less attention than originally envisaged.
These proposals fall short of the hoped for bridge between the MHRA’s licensing process—which reforms are speeding up in some cases—and NICE’s reimbursement process. Without such a bridge, earlier licensing will not deliver benefits to NHS patients, and ultimately companies will lose interest in making bespoke licensing applications to the MHRA. The Government’s own figures—the life sciences competitiveness indicators, published by the Office for Life Sciences—demonstrate that it is already the case that the per capita uptake of new medicines remains lower and slower in this country than in comparable countries.
Our Amendment 178 suggests that the Government review the situation by the end of the year, when we will have a good half year of experience of the changes to NICE and the operation of the IMF, and when we will be able to see that the hoped for improvements have materialised. I hope that the Minister will consider this suggestion.
I now turn to Amendment 240, which seeks to probe the Government’s actions to improve awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals. There are more than 7,000 rare diseases, and it would clearly be impossible for every healthcare professional to receive training on every single one of them. However, as the Government’s rare disease framework notes, healthcare professionals can improve their awareness of rare diseases more generally, be more alert to considering them and be provided with the educational resources that help them recognise rare diseases in patients. Healthcare professionals can also be better supported to help signpost patients with rare disease to information about their condition and to help them understand it.
In a 2016 survey by Rare Disease UK, it was found that 70% of patients were not provided with sufficient information on their condition following diagnosis, and that 35% of patients given information did not understand the information that they were given.
More recent surveys demonstrated that these challenges continue. The Government’s national conversation on rare diseases in 2019 found that almost one in five people living with a rare condition reported that a lack of healthcare professional awareness of their disease was the number one challenge that they faced, and healthcare professionals themselves identified it as the second biggest challenge they faced behind only the well-known difficulties in obtaining an accurate diagnosis. I accept that healthcare professional regulators can do only so much to make improvements, but it would be helpful to understand from the Minister what steps they might be able to take to help better embed rare disease content in training frameworks.
Finally, there is a wider question of how the Government currently track progress in increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals. How do the Government do that? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 266, I shall not speak for long because everything has been said. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, explained the problem very clearly as did other speakers.
The only reason I want to speak is that in April last year I spoke in favour of the Private Member’s Bill introduced to this House by my noble friend Lady Wyld which sought to prevent cosmetic procedures being performed in England on people aged under 18 unless under the direction of a medical practitioner. The Bill was passed with cross-party and government support. As a result, children are now better protected. It is high time that we protected the population at large. When one hears of all the side-effects and that people can buy a product online and inject it into themselves or somebody else, it feels like the wild west, and the consequences can be quite dramatic, as we have heard. I very much hope that the Government will be able to support this amendment. This is not complicated and needs to be done quickly.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, because I am former chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. I shall speak very briefly in support of Amendments 164 and 178 in his name and that of my noble friend Lady Wheeler.
Every reorganisation of the NHS leaves patients who have a rare or less common condition anxious about how their particular needs will be assessed, how they will be met and even how they will be noted. It is sadly true that the rarer or more specialised a condition, the more it comes down to a postcode lottery whether the patient will be able to access care in spite of established national standards. Not only is it harder to access care, it is also harder for these patients to access the support groups or information networks which are vital when finding out the sometimes rare information about these conditions. The suggestion in Amendment 164 that the CQC assess the provision by ICBs of care for those with rare or less common conditions would provide the assurance that is so badly need.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in part because I listened to the lecture with which we started this session but more because it is an old anecdote, I shall forbear from telling my hospital food horror story. However, I will pick up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about hospital food and how hard people are trying to improve the situation. This relates to the answer the Minister gave me on Monday in Oral Questions. Of course, it is dependent on the budget that caterers have and the quality of the food that is available to them. I was pleased that the Minister then said that the Government are looking to tackle government procurement to improve the quality of vegetables and fruit. In terms of joining up the dots, that is a useful point to make.
On Amendment 243, I offer the Green group’s support and note that, having been in your Lordships’ House for only a little more than two years, I have debated a very similar amendment at least once before—I think it must have been on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. We have all seen briefings that are very much a cry from the heart from the nursing profession for this to happen. Surely we can get this into this Bill.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for omitting to say that I am a registered nurse on the NMC database. I think this is important in relation to Amendment 243.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I have a few words about some of the amendments in this wide-ranging group.
Amendment 243 would protect the title “nurse”. I know from family members that the qualification of registered nurse is always hard won, the result of very hard work. It involves rigorous basic training, often followed by further training in a specialty such as mental health nursing or surgery. The title provides a high level of trust among patients and the general population, because we know that a nurse must be registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, or a different responsible body for dental or veterinary nurses. There should therefore be clarity about who can use the title, and it could be sorted out very simply by the Minister—I hope he will do it.
A further anomaly, which the Minister can easily sort out in his reply, is that of the appointment of surgeons. I hope he will remove that anomaly as well.
I commend the work of my noble friend Lord Sharkey on rare diseases. I will not repeat what he said about what is needed, but I hope the Minister can give him some assurance.
I strongly support Amendment 266 on the need for a register for those who practise aesthetic non-surgical interventions. I will not repeat what my noble friend Lady Brinton and others have said about the reasons for this.
Amendment 293 requires a special register for cosmetic surgery. It is important that we have an up-to-date, comprehensive and rigorous method of assessing and registering the qualifications of surgeons safely to carry out cosmetic surgery. The question is: how is that done? I have received a briefing from the GMC, which tells me that it does not support the creation of a separate register for cosmetic surgery practitioners. Instead, the GMC believes that its proposal to move to a single GMC register that includes all doctors, anaesthesia associates and physician associates, and special annotation with work to develop relevant credentials, will provide additional assurance beyond that which could be provided by a separate additional register.
We are told that something better is coming down the track and that the forthcoming regulatory reform programme is intended to rationalise and streamline registration across all the UK healthcare regulators, and will allow the GMC to deliver an accessible, flexible and discretionary registration framework for all registrant groups. That is why the GMC believes that that will provide greater flexibility to develop and amend registration rules and improve its ability to innovate. Given the rapid development of new spheres of medicine and practices, such flexibility could be advantageous.
I understand that the GMC is now developing credentials with royal colleges and health education bodies, and that the first group of those is led by one on cosmetic surgery, plus four other disciplines. So, while I heartily agree with the intention of Amendment 293, I ask the Minister: when will the regulatory reform mentioned in the GMC briefing be completed? When will Parliament be able to see it and, in the meantime, how can we be assured that the current system gives the assurance on patient safety that is required?
I too support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on hospital catering and I too will resist giving my anecdote.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and for sharing their knowledge and expertise—and, in the case of hospital food, not sharing their tales of inadequate and unhealthy food. I will try to answer as many of the questions as possible but, given the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, of being advised by a nurse Whip, I am keen to make sure that I do not suffer those same warnings, as it were.
On rare diseases, specifying requirements in the way proposed by the amendment would restrict the ability of the CQC to collaboratively develop its assessments of integrated care systems. However, the Government are committed to improving the lives of people living with rare diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, rightly talked about the UK Rare Diseases Framework that we published in January 2021, which set out our key priorities for tackling rare diseases. England’s action plan will be published at the end of next month.
I have had conversations with some in the life sciences industry who are keen on the fact that we are focusing on rare diseases and extremely rare diseases, and see that as a positive. One of the things that we are trying to do across government is to make sure that we are seen as a hub for expertise in rare diseases and especially rare diseases. One of my predecessors as a Minister suffered from a rare disease. The momentum is still there in the department to make sure that we tackle the issue.
Also, the CQC, through its ICS assessment methodology, will seek to understand how system leaders are monitoring and meeting the needs of the local population, including those with rare diseases. We expect the CQC, in collaboration with system partners, to use its experience as the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England to develop an approach to those reviews. I know that noble Lords may be tired of hearing this but it is important that the legislation allows the CQC flexibility to do so.
On Amendment 240, while the Government have sympathy with the need to raise awareness, we do not consider it appropriate to put such a requirement into primary legislation. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord about our programmes and our push to raise the profile of rare diseases and extremely rare diseases. We prefer that all healthcare professional regulators require professionals to have the necessary skills and knowledge to practise safely, including awareness of rare conditions. It is the responsibility of the regulators to determine what specific role they should play in raising awareness of rare and less common conditions.
On—and I apologise if I mispronounce this—liothyronine and the power of direction, the NICE guideline on the assessment and management of thyroid disease, as the noble Lord acknowledged, does not recommend liothyronine for primary hypothyroidism. NICE states that there is not yet enough evidence that it offers benefits over levothyroxine monotherapy, and its long-term adverse effects are uncertain. If new evidence was to emerge, I am sure NICE would consider it.
In addition, we must be careful not to override NICE guidelines. But, given the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Borwick, I would like a further conversation, if that is okay, to see what can be done in this area, as well as where it is appropriate for me to act and what conversations would be appropriate, given the noble Lord’s experience as a Health Minister.
On Amendment 178, we are committed to further strengthening the innovation metrics and to improving our understanding of how innovative medicines and these products are used in the NHS. Noble Lords will be aware that following the publication of the final report of the Accelerated Access Review, the Government established the Accelerated Access Collaborative—AAC—last year. In fact, last year alone we helped over 300,000 patients access proven innovations, resulting in 17,000 fewer hospital admissions and 140,000 fewer days spent in hospital.
As noble Lords are aware, we published our ambitious Life Sciences Vision, which laid out our priorities. We want to make sure that the NHS is seen as a partner in innovation and that research is embedded into everything the NHS does. I know that this has been raised in relation to other amendments. We are currently developing implementation plans for delivering on these commitments.
As noble Lords acknowledged, NICE is in the final stages of the review of its methods and processes, and is proposing a number of changes that will introduce real benefits to patients, including rare disease patients. The Government are also committed to developing an innovative medicines fund, which my noble friend referred to, and a consultation on detailed proposals for the fund closes on 11 February.
Finally, our rare disease framework outlines the key priorities for rare diseases in the UK over the next five years. One priority area is to improve access to specialist care, treatments and drugs.
On hospital food, although we recognise the expertise and declarations of the noble Lords who spoke, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary because the issues are already covered, either as part of the ongoing work to implement recommendations from the hospital food review or in the NHS food standards document, to be published in spring 2022.
The Government are supporting NHS England to implement the recommendations from the independent review. These recommendations cover a broad range of issues, including nutrition, hydration, healthier eating and sustainable procurement. It is important for me to learn more about this as a Minister, given what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about many people not receiving the recognition they deserve. It would be appropriate, perhaps, for us to meet and follow this up.
In addition, the Government already have sufficient legal powers and obligations to enable them to consult on proposed food standards, and we have engaged with NHS trusts, the food standards and strategy group, and the NHS food review expert group through the NHS food review. We will continue to do all this.
On Amendment 264, the regulations already allow trusts to seek alternative members to contribute to the process. They can be from colleges such as the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine. However, the Government agree that the changes proposed by noble Lords in Amendment 264 would potentially be advantageous —to put it that way—and we have undertaken to review the situation with officials.
The National Health Service Act 2006 stipulates that consultation with affected parties must be undertaken before any changes are made. Therefore, before we jump to it and agree, we are required to consult the relevant parties. It does seem a clear-cut case, but we are still under a duty to consult.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that, to have any changes in the appointment of surgeons, the department would have to consult first. I assume that the only body it would need to consult is the Royal College of Surgeons, which I understand is sympathetic to the change. If that is the case, it is a simple matter, so can it not be consulted before Report?
Lord Kamall (Con)
If it is as straightforward as the noble Lord suggests, I will see if that can be done.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their many expert and very informative contributions. It has been a fascinating debate on a number of issues.
On specialised care services and rare diseases, I note the Minister’s comments and thank him for some of his reassurances, but there were some issues that he did not cover, particularly in relation to my noble friend’s Amendment 178. However, I welcome the dialogue that is taking place on these issues, and the recognition of their complexity, and am very hopeful that that will continue. We will take stock to see if anything else needs to come back on Report. I also thank my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for her support on this issue.
In the general debate, noble Lords will, I am sure, follow up on the points that they made, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just did. I thought the contributions of my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on the hospital food situation, really drove home the importance of this issue. We must make progress on it and move forward.
On the title “nurse”, strong support was expected and we certainly got it from across the House. I hope that progress can be made. The issue will not go away, as the Minister knows, and neither will the determination of my noble friend Lord Hunt to pursue the issue of the availability of T3 for thyroid patients. We hope that progress can be made on that, because again it is a situation that a must be addressed.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords made valuable points on the vital need for a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures, again underlining the need for urgent, step-by-step progress, and demonstrating in particular why the current situation is unacceptable. Progress can be made. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, it was seen in the recent Private Members’ Bill on Botox fillers. We need progress to be made, and steadily.
Finally, on the reference to when the review of the regulatory system will be completed—the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also raised this—the issue was about timescales. We know there is a review. We are told that KPMG is on the case and has delivered its report, but we need timescales and action as soon as possible.
With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Place based integrated care and Primary Care Commissioning Boards
(1) Each place based integrated care board is to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State for an area within an integrated care board.(2) An order establishing a place based integrated care board must provide for the constitution of the board.(3) Before making, varying or revoking an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the integrated care board in which the place based integrated care committee is intended to operate;(b) the relevant local authority or local authorities;(c) the integrated care partnership in which the place based integrated care committee is intended to operate;(d) the local healthwatch organisations whose areas coincide with or fall wholly or partly within the proposed area of the place based integrated care board; and(e) members of the public living within the proposed area of the place based integrated care board.(4) The place based integrated care board may arrange under a scheme of delegation from the integrated care board for the provision of such services or facilities it considers appropriate for the purposes of the health service that relate to securing the improvement—(a) in the physical and mental health of the people for whom it has responsibility, or(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment in these people.(5) In imposing financial requirements on integrated care boards under Section 223GB of the National Health Service Act 2006, NHS England may give additional directions in respect of placed based integrated care committees.(6) Integrated care boards may give place based integrated care board directions as to any of the functions to which it has given delegated functions. (7) The Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (bodies to which that Act applies) shall be amended as follows.(8) After paragraph 1(k), there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—“(l) Place Based Integrated Care Boards.””Member’s explanatory statement
It’s likely that ICBs will set up place based entities which may take many of the key commissioning decisions at the local/Constituency level. This amendment puts place based integrated boards on a statutory basis and subject to Parliamentary oversight and meeting in public.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 165 and 166 are rather more focused than the last group. They are probing amendments, rather than me urging that Ministers take the specific wording of them.
One of the rather surprising characteristics of integrated care systems is that they are not defined in the Bill, although people talk about these entities all the time. The statutory parts are integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships, but much of the real power, decision-making and influence potentially lies with non-statutory groups, whose membership, governance and procedures are not regulated. These are placed-based partnerships, provider collaboratives or networks, primary care networks, or companies accredited to the health system support framework. My two amendments would put the first two of these non-statutory groups on a statutory basis. Place-based partnerships are described and supported by NHSE and the Local Government Association as the foundation of integrated care systems. I am very grateful to the policy research unit in health and social care systems and commissioning at the University of Manchester for its very helpful work on this.
In our debate on primary care, the Minister referred to his hope that integrated care boards would
“exercise functions through place-based committees”.—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1852.]
It is pretty clear that many ICBs will delegate considerable responsibility to them. I can see the potential for that, but given their increased responsibilities, there are legitimate questions to be asked about how place-based committees are to be held to account. What are their governance arrangements? Who will serve on them? What are their leadership arrangements? What functions will they be allowed to carry out? The noble Earl, who I think is responding, may say that that is best left to local decision-making. I see that up to point, but rather like with ICB governance, surely some framework and safeguards need to be built around them.
A similar argument might be made in relation to provider collaboratives. Such collaboratives are essentially partnership arrangements involving two or more trusts or foundation trusts. Participation is mandated for trusts providing acute or mental health services. They are expected to be part of one or more provider collaboratives, with discretionary participation of other providers. Such collaboratives may form at supra-ICS level, may partially cover multiple ICSs and may cover multiple places. Additionally, providers may be members of multiple overlapping collaboratives. The collaboratives may contain acute or mental health members only, or may include wider membership such as community providers and primary care. It is anticipated that they will deliver systems’ strategic priorities. The original White Paper, Integration and Innovation: Working Together to Improve Health and Social Care for All, indicates that “significant” delegation to both place level and provider collaboratives from integrated care systems is expected. It is also suggested that, in time, provider collaboratives may play a role in oversight. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said:
“we have new provider collaboratives which, in fairness, is where the power in the NHS will lie. The Bill makes no provision for them in terms of transparency, openness or accountability”.—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1789.]
This was confirmed on 2 December by the Health Service Journal:
“In the minds of most acute trust chiefs, it is provider collaboratives and groups, and not integrated care boards that will wield the greatest influence (although the former may act through their representation on the latter).”
So I want to put a few questions to the Minister. First, what degree of oversight will be exerted over the formation of these arrangements, and by whom? Secondly, if a lead provider contract is in place, or if providers agree how to spend their respective resources as a provider collaborative, who would oversee that arrangement and where would accountability lie in the delivery of outcomes or in the case of poor performance? How would it be ensured that the work of provider collaboratives took into account the interests, aims and work of the wider health and social care community, including the patient voice?
On the latter, the NHS England design framework made it clear that the involvement of patients, unpaid carers and the public is expected at place and system levels, with requirements for public meetings and published minutes in both the partnership and the NHS board. It is not specified how provider collaboratives, where significant decisions regarding the planning and provision of services may be made, will be publicly accountable.
I believe that the Government are going to discuss with noble Lords the formation and governance of integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships. I suggest that that discussion be extended to look at the position of place-based committees and provider networks, because at the end of the day Parliament is entitled to establish some kind of framework and governance and transparency arrangements without going too much into the minutiae of the detail. On that basis, I hope that the Government might be prepared to take away these amendments as part of that broader discussion. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may make two quick points. At an earlier stage in the Committee, using the example from the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, in relation to Bromley by Bow and north-east London, I asked why the legislation cannot allow clinical commissioning groups, as they have established themselves over years, to continue as place-based committees or subsidiary elements of an integrated care system. I am sure that many of them would be willing to do so; we should allow them to do exactly that, because there is otherwise a gap in relation to how large ICBs will do their place-based work.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to what I said about provider collaboratives. I still think it. Where are we going to end up with this? It will be with NHS England having within it, as each integrated care board has within it, the provider interest and the commissioner interest. The Government purport to be abolishing the purchaser/provider split. Every Secretary of State prior to the former Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, seemed to believe in it, with the exception of Frank Dobson. There was a reason why we did that: because it is a fact. We might legislatively abolish the purchaser/provider split, but, in reality, it will exist. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said earlier, if that conflict of interest is not properly recognised and managed, it will emerge with potentially damaging consequences. Transparency about how provider interests are to be properly managed inside the NHS is not something I yet see in the substance of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree to think hard about this and perhaps talk about how we might give transparency and accountability to that conflict of interest.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 165 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This is a small but important group of amendments.
I have added my name to the amendment because I am interested in what is happening to primary care and particularly the voice of GPs in the new arrangements. Frankly, we are not hearing much about them. As it stands, the legislation will place NHS trusts and foundation trusts in quite a privileged position in deciding how plans are made and resources allocated. I am not quite sure where the voice of GPs comes into the new arrangements. I understand that NHS England has commissioned a review of the role of primary care in the NHS structures, but my understanding is also that it will not report until after the Bill has been passed if we continue with the current timetable. Frankly, by then, it will be a bit late to make sure that we have got the arrangements absolutely right.
It is right that primary care commissioning is undertaken at a local level by people with relevant knowledge and skills, and with the necessary experience of what primary care needs to look like at locality level. That is why it is right that the new place-based partnerships are to be given that commissioning role. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think it is important that these primary care commissioning arrangements are established in statute, because it is only if that happens that Parliament will be clear about the accountability arrangements and the governance and leadership. It is also important that there is real transparency in the system. At the moment, it all feels a bit opaque. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances on this point.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I just wanted to respond to the last set of very important questions that have arisen. It is fair to say that the Bill increases the accountability for commissioning primary care services locally, as compared with its predecessor, the 2012 Act. That is because one consequence of having GPs represented on the clinical commissioning groups was that clinical commissioning groups could not, therefore, be the commissioners of local primary care services, at least in statute. One had the paradox that the most local of all the services in the NHS was stripped out from the local commissioning bodies, the CCGs, and instead given nationally to NHS England, as a work-around to deal with the conflict of interest that GPs would otherwise have had in commissioning themselves on the CCGs.
In practice, the CCGs have been given the ability to influence those local commissioning arrangements but, to be clear, that is not the accountability mechanism set through the 2012 Act. What this Bill does is to improve the position, in that it is local integrated care boards that have that local commissioning responsibility for GP and other family health services, as compared with NHS England nationally.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we have been reminded many times during the debates in Committee of the aims of the Bill to improve the health and well-being of the population, to improve the quality of care and to use NHS resources sustainably through integration, co-operation and collaboration. Of course, the point at which these resources are used at the coalface, known as “place” in the Bill, is in these place-based organisations. To ensure integration at this level, we are told that the ICB must create an integrated care partnership, otherwise known as a place-based integrated care board, which probably has an acronym as well. There is, however, very little detail about those, despite their crucial importance, and these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, are an attempt to put a bit of flesh on those bones.
I put my name to Amendment 166, but I could just as easily have put it to Amendment 165. Amendment 166 says that, within the place-based partnership, there should be mandated a provider network board with duties delegated to it by the ICB. It would be under parliamentary scrutiny and have an obligation to meet in public. These networks already exist and exert considerable influence, but it is essential that they operate in this new integrated care system under a regulated constitution, with obligations to consult and financial provisions. This amendment would ensure the transparency, for which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, called, over how well integration is operating at this very important level so that there can be proper control and accountability and scrutiny as to where the money is being spent and whether it is achieving the duties placed on all these systems by the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments; I have added my name to both of them. They are about transparency and legitimacy, raising very important questions which the Minister needs to answer.
I go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said at Second Reading, which I think my noble friend referred to. He said that
“we have new provider collaboratives which, in fairness, is where the power in the NHS will lie. The Bill makes no provision for them in terms of transparency, openness or accountability.”—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1789.]
I do not need to say any more than that. The Minister needs to answer that question, because it needs to be resolved before the Bill completes its passage.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing us back to the subject of place-based structures and taking us into the issues relating to provider networks. I hope it will be taken as a given that the Government have sympathy with the intentions behind his amendments.
On Amendment 165, we absolutely agree on the importance of place, and I hope I can provide the Committee with reassurances on that score. First, the linchpin to the accountability issue is, I suggest, the ICB constitution, which is required to set out how its functions will be discharged. That may include how functions will be carried out by committees and sub-committees, which will include place-level committees. The best size for an ICB area varies according to local circumstances, and some of the smaller ICB areas are coterminous with the local authority. In those systems, place arrangements will quite rightly look very different from the large ICB areas.
ICBs need to be clear about the expectations and roles of place-based structures, including what they are responsible for commissioning, what powers have been delegated to them, and what resources they are responsible for. The current legislation provides for the ability to establish place-based structures and set them out clearly in ICB constitutions. However, Frimley is not Cumbria, and Essex is not Manchester. We want to give ICBs the flexibility to determine structures that work best for them. To help them do that, NHS England has the power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions, and is working with CCGs and the current non-statutory ICSs to develop model constitutions for the future ICBs. Those constitutions will, of course, also have to be approved by NHS England before the ICB is established. This approach should achieve the right balance, because it allows us to support ICBs to develop, without the danger of putting in place further legislation which could act as a barrier to future evolution. Requiring the establishment of a separate place-based board is simply not necessary and would come at a bureaucratic cost.
I turn to Amendment 166. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about transparency and accountability for groups of providers working together where they are exercising functions that an ICB has delegated. I shall come on to the concern expressed by my noble friend Lord Lansley, about the purchaser/provider split. Provider collaboratives are intended to deliver the benefits of scale, with providers working together to implement best practice and reduce variation in access, experiences and outcomes for patients and populations. For example, this could involve sharing workforce and managing capacity on a wider scale. Depending on the local circumstances, such arrangements may include a delegation of ICB functions. ICBs and providers should have the flexibility, in line with guidance that will be issued by NHS England.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Has the Minister actually seen the model constitution that will be imposed by NHS England, and does it do what he is suggesting it does? Maybe the rest of us could see it, too.
Earl Howe (Con)
My understanding is that it is work in progress—so no, I have not seen it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Is it not then unsatisfactory that we should complete the passage of the Bill without having sight of the constitution, so that we can be assured that the assurances that the Minister is giving us will in fact work?
Earl Howe (Con)
I do not think that is a reasonable ask by the noble Baroness, if I may say so. I am trying to describe a structure that should deliver what I am sure she wants to see—safeguards and good pointers for ICBs to make their own decisions, while also ensuring that some of the pitfalls mentioned in the debate are not fallen into. If I can let her see the work in progress, I shall certainly be glad to do so—I do not have a problem with that—but I suggest that it is not necessary for her to do that to accept the proposition that I am trying to put forward.
As I have mentioned, the Bill requires an ICB to set out in its constitution how its functions will be discharged, including any arrangements to delegate functions to provider collaboratives. Furthermore, as an additional safeguard, the Secretary of State may impose conditions on the exercise of the power through regulations.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, is he in a position to answer the question I asked about the timing of the review regarding the position of GPs within this new set of arrangements?
Earl Howe (Con)
I shall need to write to the noble Baroness about that timing because I do not have it. I meant to say that I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, for his intervention on the way in which we hope that primary care will be better built into the commissioning arrangements than it has been up to now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her helpful interventions on primary care, which were very important.
In essence, the noble Earl said that we should be reassured because, either through the constitution of the ICB or through the more general guidance given out by NHS England, appropriate accountability and monitoring arrangements will be put in place. I accept that, but there are questions about the guidance and the constitution which mean that we may well want to come back. I think it would be appropriate for Parliament to give some oversight approval to that.
We are a bit jaundiced about NHS England guidance because we still cannot get hold of the guidance put out 10 or so days ago about the make-up of ICBs and the new timetable, which I mentioned on our previous Committee day. It is on something called nhs.net but not even our Library can get hold of it because there is a security wall around it, and I do not understand why it has not been put into the public domain. That is why we are a bit wary of any guidance that is going to be put out. I cannot resist saying that I hope the guidance is not going to say that local authority councillors cannot be on the place-based committees, because that would be a mistake. It could be helpful in some places for them to be so appointed.
On the more general issue of purchaser-provider tension, we have had a really interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that every Secretary of State apart from Frank Dobson, of blessed memory—my first ministerial job was serving under Frank before he was persuaded, if that is the word, by Tony Blair’s persuasive skills to go and fight Ken Livingstone for the mayorship of London—believed in it.
The point is that, whatever you call it, there is clearly going to be a relationship between the organisations of the NHS that have the dosh handed out by the department and those organisations that provide the services. There is going to be an unnecessary tension and an issue of accountability and monitoring. The puzzle that some of us have is how that is going to work within the integrated care boards when the big providers are sitting around the table. I think the clue was given in the Health Service Journal, which said:
“In the minds of most acute trust chiefs, it is provider collaboratives and groups, and not integrated care boards that will wield the greatest influence”—
an interesting phrase. I suspect the real dynamic is going to be between those collaboratives and the chair and chief executive of the integrated care board, while the board itself, which looks as though it is going to be very large, will be the legitimiser of those discussions and tensions. Still, it is a bit of a strange beast.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, raised the issue of CCGs and the fact that, because they were essentially membership organisations of GPs, they could not do the nitty-gritty of managing the contracts, which in the end was kind of half-devolved down to them but with accountability held at the NHS England level. That illustrates the problem of having providers and commissioners around the same table. For very good reasons people want to encourage them to integrate, but that poses its own challenges.
I think it is inevitable that we are going to come back to this issue. This has been a very good debate and I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(4A) A direction under subsection (1) may be given only in relation to a particular instance, not generally.(4B) A direction under subsection (1) must provide for the direction to cease to have effect on a date specified in the direction, which must be no later than one year from the date the direction was given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the other amendments to Clause 39 in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would reduce the scope of the Secretary of State powers to direct NHS England by adding safeguards and additional exceptions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we come to Clause 39, which I think is one of the most significant ways in which the Bill will increase the powers of the Secretary of State over the NHS. The clause gives a general power of direction over NHS England in the exercise of its functions. It is a very significant change from the legislation the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, put through in 2011-12. It also is clear that many NHS bodies are, like the Nuffield Trust,
“concerned that these new powers will result in a more politicised NHS, with ministers dragged into micromanaging how local services work.”
I do not think you can consider this clause without considering further clauses in the next group, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in relation to the power of the Secretary of State to intervene at any time in proposals to change services. In addition, Part 3 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to move responsibilities between several arm’s-length bodies in health and to abolish them. We have already had the CQC debate today, about an increase in the Secretary of State’s capacity for intervention. There is also the question of the regulators, which will be discussed later, which again leads to the individual professional regulators, which, again, the Secretary of State can abolish.
Although I am going to talk about the general direction, I do not think you can do that without thinking about the other accretions of power that the Bill takes. Together, I believe it is a fundamental difference —a change in philosophy—from the 2012 legislation. NHS Providers, with which I have discussed this extensively, is concerned. As it says:
“Clinical and operational independence must be maintained in order to ensure equity for patients within the service; the best use of constrained funding; and clinical leadership with regard to prioritisation and patient care.”
Although I do not want to completely open up this debate, I have to say that the allegations made by Conservative MPs about threats made in the last few days by Government Whips, over the funding of services, are very apposite to how a power direction might be used by Ministers under this Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall intervene relatively briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quite rightly said that this is a significant departure from the intentions of the 2012 legislation. The 2021 Act, among other things, created the body that is now NHS England and gave it independence. None of that independence was intended to mean, nor has proven to, that it was not responsive to even the day-to-day wishes of a Secretary of State, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, would verify. What it did put in statute was that, if the Secretary of State wants to set something as an objective of NHS England, they put it in the mandate. If the Secretary of State requires a change to those objectives, they publish a revision to the mandate.
Going beyond it is, I think, the product of circumstances where we had a Secretary of State who was encountering an emergency and thought he could press lots of buttons and things would happen, but pressed some and they did not. I think, even in his experience, that was more outside NHS England than inside it— I may be wrong, but that was certainly my impression. The point is that the Secretary of State did not even realise what powers he had in an emergency; they are all there and he was not required to change the mandate, because it was an emergency. In a public health emergency, none of this, strictly speaking, is within the same bounds.
Ministers have quite rightly said that this is the Bill the NHS asked for. But Clause 39 is not the clause that the NHS asked for; it is the opposite of what it is asking for. There are many practical issues. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right; if it appears, including to the senior people and bright youngsters, that power is going to shift from NHS England back to the Department of Health and Social Care, they will go and work in the department. One of the things I was most pleased about was that some of the brightest and best, including civil servants in the department who I knew well, went to work in NHS England, because they thought, “This is a great future.” That is terrific, because one of the problems was that NHS managers were being imported into the Department of Health, rather than bright policymakers going to the NHS. The NHS is too important an institution for it not to have the best possible policymakers under its own purview.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Walmsley, have done a sterling job in trying to mitigate a general power of direction for the Secretary of State. Frankly, I have not heard a case for it, it is contrary to where we are and where we need to go, and the simplest thing is to simply take Clause 39 out of the Bill.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Hunt, on this set of amendments, with which I totally agree. I want to dilate for a few moments on the realpolitik of being a Minister in the great, august organisation called the Department of Health and Social Care. I can say some things that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, as a former elected Minister, possibly cannot.
When I ceased to be a Parliamentary Secretary and was promoted to work with the big boys and girls as a Minister of State, and had to deal with issues such as reconfiguration, poor performance and so forth, I became used to regularly meeting elected MPs who wanted to tell me about the errors of their ways in decisions that had been taken in the public interest. There was a steady flow of them, which, if I may say, tended to get bigger the nearer you got to an election. If people wanted to go through the archives, I would refer them to the history of Lewisham Hospital and of Chase Farm Hospital, to name but two.
Very often in these situations, it is not about closing a whole hospital but about re-engineering—we will come to some of this in the next group. I give the example of stroke services in London. It is re-engineering a particular set of services, which the local MP is then put up for trying to ensure that change does not happen. That is where you need to help Ministers do the right thing, when it is in the public interest to make changes. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, help Ministers do the right thing.
The point the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made is absolutely valid. In many of these circumstances, it becomes very difficult if you are an elected Minister—as distinct from an appointed Minister, who does not have to face the electorate—to resist some of the local pressures to avoid change which would be disadvantageous to a local hospital. For those realpolitik reasons, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is on the right track and we should support the amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Clauses 39 and 64 give the widest possible powers of intervention to the Secretary of State and even the power to delegate that power to someone else. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords clearly believe that the Government are going too far, hence the large number of amendments in this and the next group.
I believe that the Clause 39 powers could justifiably be used only in the case of some cataclysmic failure of the NHS. There are four questions to ask. Is it possible that the Secretary of State would ever need these powers of intervention at an operational level, given that he already has the mandate? Does the Secretary of State have any other powers which could be used prior to this atomic bomb of a power? Has the NHS survived well enough over the last 10 years without the Secretary of State having such powers? Does Clause 39 upset the balance between the Secretary of State and the autonomy of NHS England? I think the answers are no, yes, yes and yes—your Lordships can work it out.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012 removed the Secretary of State from this sort of meddling. I thought at the time that it might also avoid him or her taking the blame for failure, but that was just me being cynical and there has actually been no failure of political accountability over the last 10 years. The ninth report of the House of Lords Constitution Committee refers to this issue. It notes that, in 2011, it
“raised concerns that that Bill could erode ministerial responsibility due to the proposed duty on the Secretary of State to promote autonomy for persons exercising functions in relation to the health service. What is now section 5 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was amended, such that the Secretary of State instead must have regard to the desirability of securing autonomy. This helps ensure a balance between enabling those providing health care services to deliver services in a manner that they consider appropriate, whilst ensuring ministerial responsibility.”
The Constitution Committee believes that, in combination with Clause 64, the powers taken for the Secretary of State by Clause 39 would undermine that autonomy and upset the balance. They also risk
“undermining accountability by making it more difficult to understand which body is responsible for a particular function of the NHS.”
The fact is that the Secretary of State already has the power to change the mandate of NHS England—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out—to adjust its funding or to bring political pressure upon it to behave in certain ways, without the need for the powers in this clause. Indeed, I think it would be very unwise to use these powers, and he or she will certainly get the blame if it all goes pear-shaped. The Bill, as has already been pointed out in some detail by noble Lords, the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee, gives the Government considerable regulatory and guidance powers, about half of which allow no parliamentary scrutiny at all. Does that not give the Secretary of State enough ability to ensure things are done in the way the Government wish? The Secretary of State already wants to be Henry VIII; does he also want to be King Herod?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am nearly convinced that I should have put my name to the opposition to Clause 39 standing part of the Bill.
We have had a very informed and interesting debate which comes to the heart of the balances of power that the Bill seeks to change. My noble friend Lord Hunt set out concerns over Clause 39, which gives general powers of direction to NHS England. Amendments 174A, 174B, 175A, 176A and 175 seek to mitigate the power and to put in safeguards. This is very much in tune with concerns expressed across the Committee, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and by the Constitution Committee. Our amendments stop short of that from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but theirs is a more elegant solution in many ways. However, the Minister will need to explain why some powers of direction are required, and we on these Benches will listen very carefully indeed.
This is all part of the balance between the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, especially to Parliament, and the powers the Secretary of State has to enable them to discharge their duties. If there is a clear and consistent solution to this, we have yet to hear it. In a way, we are repeating debates we have already had in Committee. The Bill has been severely criticised as a clear and disturbing illustration of disguised legislation, and it will need to be changed. We will need to move on to proper talks about how to do that.
On whether Clause 64 should stand part of the Bill, the issue is a different one. The 2012 Act introduced the formal notion of NHS bodies having autonomy, and since 2003, foundation trusts have had some degree of at least theoretical autonomy. But in the years of austerity a lot of that has gone, and all trusts of all kinds are simply struggling to manage day by day. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who observed that the difference between a trust and a foundation trust was a distinction without a difference. For some years, the process of managing foundation trusts has been the same as for trusts.
We have been hearing in our recent deliberations about local flexibilities. Our scepticism about this has been strong, because it appears—and this group of amendments addresses this—that any flexibility will be as great as NHS England permits. Let us not reject autonomy. Why remove the duties to promote autonomy? Why not replace them, for example, as the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said, with a duty around subsidiarity and localism?
I will not repeat what was said by the Constitution Committee, but it was very critical of the powers that the Secretary of State seeks to take. Indeed, I raise a different issue: the fact that I thought NHS England was undertaking implementation of the Bill before it has finished its passage through Parliament. It is all part of the same pattern. Since we have an undertaking from the Minister to respond to that concern, we will look for an undertaking from him to provide an explanation and perhaps further discussion about why he wants autonomy removed from the Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and for challenging the issues around the power of direction. We believe that we must have the right framework for national oversight of our health system. Following the merger of NHS England with Monitor and the Trust Development Authority, NHS England will be one of the largest arm’s-length bodies in government, responsible for over £130 billion of taxpayers’ money. Without this power, we would be expanding the functions and responsibilities of NHS England without ensuring that there are enhanced accountability measures in place.
Accountability must run from NHS England to Ministers, from Ministers to Parliament, and from Parliament to the public. This is what the power of direction supports. Indeed, a number of politicians from different sides agree that if you walked out into Parliament Square and asked people who is responsible, they would expect us to have answers. Therefore, we want to make sure there is the appropriate power of responsibility.
I also want to give reassurances that we expect the situations where the Government issue directions to NHS England to be rare. Where it does happen, Ministers will of course ensure that the direction is clear, appropriate and has suitable timeframes. It is paramount that this power can be deployed quickly when required, and limiting it to specific instances, or prescribing a time limit as to its efficacy, would undermine the intent of these provisions.
That said, we agree it would be inappropriate to use this power to intervene in clinical decisions, and we have specifically exempted this in the Bill. For example, we have made sure that a direction cannot be given in relation to drugs, medicines or—interestingly, given our previous discussions—on treatments that NICE has not recommended or issued guidance on. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, rightly questioned the draft guidance that NHS England has given—we are trying to find a copy of that. However, we recognise the unique role the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care plays in the system. The Secretary of State could use the powers to request to see the guidance developed by NHS England before it is published, to ensure that NHS England is working effectively with other parts of the system, such as local authorities, given the concerns that both the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised.
On Amendments 176A and 174A, we have already included a number of exemptions to the power of direction in the Bill to ensure the Secretary of State is not able to intervene in day-to-day operational matters. There is also no intention that the power will be used to direct NHS England on procurement matters. Any decision to exercise the power will be subject to and guided by general public law principles and general statutory duties. This means, for example, that Ministers will have to use regulations where they exist, as they do for procurement, and that the Secretary of State cannot direct NHS England to breach procurement regulations, since this would be unlawful.
In relation to allocations to ICBs, NHS England uses a formula to allocate NHS resources to different parts of the country based on long-standing principles of equal opportunity of access for equal needs and informed by the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. There is no intention to use the power to interfere in this process.
In relation to local organisations, I make the point that the Bill will provide more practical autonomy at a local level by strengthening local leadership and empowering local organisations to make decisions about their population, while also allowing for national accountability. This is the approach we want to take with this power: directing NHS England only on the functions it holds in respect of local bodies, to provide necessary support and assistance to them, especially if they are failing. It is also vital that a power of this nature is accompanied with appropriate safeguards and transparency requirements.
On Amendment 174B, which relates to public interest, the clause already ensures that all directions must be made in the public interest.
On Amendment 175A, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has called for directions to be laid in Parliament. It is already the case that any direction issued must be made in writing and will have to be published. This will allow Parliament to hold Ministers to account for use of this power.
On Amendment 175, Ministers already work in partnership with NHS England, and any direction made would come after close working and considered discussion. NHS England will continue to make the vast majority of its decisions without direction, consulting the Government as it needs to. We believe that this power provides additional transparency by ensuring that where Ministers direct NHS England, it is clear, published and available for scrutiny by all. Any direction will come after a considered discussion with NHS England and advice, including on the impact and deliverability of such a direction. Ministers will of course consider, with NHS England and others, that the priorities being set are the right ones and whether they are affordable. However, it is important that we do not put in place too bureaucratic a structure that would bind Ministers’ hands when decisions have to be made quickly.
I end by addressing the questions put forward by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about Clauses 39 and 64 being removed from the Bill. Clause 39 is part of our ambition to put increased accountability for the Secretary of State at the heart of these proposals while committing to the NHS’s clinical and day-to-day operational independence. We reiterate that the power will add to the existing ways that the Secretary of State and NHS England work together. The mandate to NHS England, which has been an established means of providing direction since 2013, will continue to be the main place for strategic direction-setting.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Let me give my noble friend one simple example of how this could shift decision-making from NHS bodies to the Secretary of State. We discussed previously, in an earlier group, the availability of in vitro fertilisation services. There will be pressure on the Secretary of State to issue a direction that the NICE recommended availability of in vitro fertilisation services should be provided. By what means is the Secretary of State going to say, “No, I can’t issue such a direction”? It is entirely within his power to do so. The pressures will all be on the Secretary of State to issue directions to do things that the NHS locally may choose or choose not to do. The power will shift. Is he aware of what he is wishing for?
Lord Warner (CB)
Before the Minister answers that question, could I add another? We have had 10 years’ experience of NHS England under three chief executives and a number of different chairmen. Can the Minister give any examples of where the powers the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, gave the Secretary of State have been inadequate for them to give direction to NHS England?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Secretary of State cannot issue a direction to CCGs or ICBs on any of this using this power. We have been clear that direction cannot be given in relation to drugs, medicines or on treatments that NICE has recommended or issued guidance on. I gave the example of where we want this guidance—with the draft guidelines published for ICBs. The Secretary of State would be able to intervene and ask to see that guidance—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend again but let us be clear: the Secretary of State would be asked to give a direction in line with NHS guidance. There is nothing in the exception in Clause 39 which says that the Secretary of State cannot give such a direction.
Lord Kamall (Con)
If my noble friend will allow me, I will have to consider that and write, and make that available to all noble Lords.
We have included a number of exceptions to the power of direction in the Bill to ensure that the Secretary of State is not able to intervene in day-to-day operational matters. For example, there is no intention to use the power to direct NHS England on procurement matters.
On Clause 64, the rationale for removing these duties is twofold. First, the pandemic has highlighted the importance of different parts of the health and care system working together. The clause removes some barriers in legislation that hinder collaboration between system partners. It facilitates collaboration between NHS England and system partners and enables broader thinking about the interests of the wider health system. Secondly, removing the Secretary of State’s duty to promote autonomy will put increased accountability at the heart of the Bill.
Overall, these clauses encompass flexibility, allowing Ministers to act quickly and set direction, while balanced with safeguards and transparency requirements to ensure that they can be held to account. I understand that there are a number of concerns about this group of amendments and others. I am sure we will have a number of discussions, but in the meantime, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very significant debate, because when the Minister referred to the fact that Ministers needed to have the answers, I realised that the intention is to go back to command and control from the centre. It was quite clear: that is the intention. I think that is very depressing, because I do not believe that the NHS is going to benefit at all. When he said that this will strengthen local accountability—oh no, it will not. There is no local accountability whatever in this structure. I am sorry to say this again, but the fact that the Government are taking local authority councillors out of ICBs is a visible demonstration that this is a centrally driven health service from the Department of Health.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 26th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (26 Jan 2022)
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I would much prefer that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, should open on this group. I will speak to the question of whether Clause 40 should stand part when that has happened.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 179 and the other amendments in my name. I thank the noble Lords who put their names to these amendments: the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel. We are told that the driving force of the Bill is to ensure that health and care services are delivered at place; and to empower local leaders—leaders who know what their local communities’ needs are and who will make decisions about how care is delivered. I am sure that is music to the ears of my noble friend Lord Mawson.
We are told that the integrated care systems—the ICSs—will be given the flexibility to plan, to commission and to provide services according to the specific needs of their population. This principle is undermined by the unchecked power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State over local configuration of services. I am pleased to tell your Lordships—particularly my noble friend Lord Howe, who is on the Front Bench for this item—that Amendments 179 to 183 have the support of a number of influential voices. These are voices from the health and local government sectors, the NHS Confederation, the King’s Fund, NHS Providers, the LGA, the BMA, National Voices and the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. These organisations cover NHS leaders, local authorities, clinicians and patients. It is significant that they are united in their deep concern about the powers that the Secretary of State would have over local reconfigurations as the Bill currently stands.
Of course, there is an existing system for local reconfiguration and it works very well. It is overseen by the Independent—that word is very important—Reconfiguration Panel, the IRP. This has helped take politics out of the difficult decisions surrounding services. Crucially, the current process for service reconfiguration starts with local consultation and consideration of clinical advice. These elements are fundamental, and they must be maintained in a future process. In short, the Secretary of State should be able to intervene in a decision about local services only once local people have had their say on the proposed changes, and once clinical advice has been considered. It will be to the detriment of patient safety if it has not. Under the existing arrangements, when the process takes too long, it has often not been about the IRP but about the Secretary of State’s failure to reach a decision, yet the Government state that the new powers are needed to speed up the process.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who is participating remotely.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, of which I have the honour to be a member, has advised the House, as has the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that this Bill is a skeleton or framework Bill. It provides a multitude of vaguely delineated powers and duties. It is often impossible for noble Lords to scrutinise these meaningfully because their meaning is so unclear
The Bill is also an instance of a growing tendency in the Government’s legislative practice to create “soft law”—that is, guidance, rules and directions which are not susceptible to parliamentary scrutiny but are, in, effect binding. It also creates “hard law”, which is not susceptible to parliamentary scrutiny, as in the Henry VIII power in Clause 15, but is subject only to the negative resolution procedure.
This manner of legislating is part of a pattern documented in a long series of reports by the Constitution Committee, drawing the attention of the House to Henry VIII clauses which are convenient to the Executive but subversive for parliamentary democracy, and to the creation of delegated powers enabling Ministers to bring in significant policy change subject to little or no parliamentary scrutiny. The DPRRC has reported that the Bill contains no less than 155 delegated powers.
What is egregious, however, are the autocratic powers that the Bill accords to the Secretary of State. I had sought to indicate that I wished to speak on the previous group, but there was some confusion, and the Chair did not invite me to do so. I hope therefore that noble Lords will bear with me as I take us back for a moment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, noted Clause 39, entitled
“General Power to Direct NHS England,”
states:
“The Secretary of State may give NHS England directions as to the exercise of any of its functions.”
It goes on to say:
“The directions that may be given include a direction as to … when or how a function is, or is not, to be exercised”
and
“matters to be taken into account in exercising a function.”
The autocratic power provided by Clause 39 is exacerbated by Clause 64, which repeals the duties previously placed on the Secretary of State to respect autonomy within the NHS.
The mischief, which the noble Baroness’s amendments in this group seek to mitigate, is further compounded by Clause 40 and Schedule 6, which confer comprehensive powers on the Secretary of State in regard to reconfiguration of NHS services. Effectively these three clauses together confer upon the Secretary of State, with only the exception stated at proposed new Section 13ZD in Clause 39, mainly in relation to clinical discretion, absolute power over the NHS.
We are told that the Secretary of State has no intention of bossing NHS England around and that he needs powers to sort out failures within the NHS system. In our earlier debate today on continuing care, and in his response to the last debate, the Minister said it is not the Government’s intention to interfere unduly in the affairs of ICBs. However, in a letter to the Times today, referred to by the noble Baroness, the chief executive officers of the King’s Fund, NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation warn of the danger that the Bill may lead to politicisation of decision-making in the NHS, of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, described in the last debate and which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just explained. The fact remains that Clauses 39, 40 and 64 make the Secretary of State untrammelled master of the NHS.
With such power comes temptation, not least for Department of Health officials. What might “unduly” mean in practice? The Secretary of State may often refrain from interfering, but too often he, or officials acting in his name, may not. In any case, to accord the Secretary of State such excessive power is wrong in principle. The legislation should strike an acceptable balance between the autonomy which NHS leaders and managers need if they are to do their jobs well, responding as they judge appropriate to local needs, and a due accountability of the NHS to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. Here, however, we have neither. The Bill concentrates power over the NHS in the hands of a Minister who is poorly accountable to Parliament in the exercise of much of his power.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak to this group of amendments. I recognise that a public service as important as the National Health Service has to be democratically accountable to the Secretary of State and Parliament. I also recognise that the broad provisions of the Bill have wide support outside this House from organisations ranging from the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges to the representative organisations spoken of today, the Patients Association, and many others which, at the inception of these proposals, came forward to advocate for them.
However, unfortunately, when we turn our attention to Clause 40 and Schedule 6 there is no such support for the measures therein. These provisions manage, perhaps uniquely, to combine being unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable—a legislative trifecta that has little to commend it.
The measures are unnecessary for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. There is already a well-established mechanism for local consultation, under which democratic local authorities can, if concern arises, bat a proposal up to the Secretary of State for a national decision with the advice of an independent expert panel. There is also established public law in this area, which can be tested through judicial review. Just about nobody, nationally, or locally, thinks that the proposals in this part of the Bill are needed. They are, in effect, a solution in search of a problem.
As well as unnecessary, these proposals are undesirable. They would confuse and obscure accountability for the quality and safety of patient care. The Court of Appeal held in Nettleship v South Tyneside and Sunderland CCGs in 2020 that there is no duty to include in a public consultation options which local commissioners deem to be unviable, unrealistic or unsustainable. Yet Schedule 6 would allow the Secretary of State to impose service changes that local clinicians, local patient groups and, indeed, local authorities deem unsafe or unviable. This clearly cuts across the statutory responsibilities of local boards for the safety and quality of care.
Where the Secretary of State has imposed such a service change on the local NHS, is it the Secretary of State who will then be in receipt of Care Quality Commission findings and scrutiny? Is it the Secretary of the State who will be on the receiving end of medical negligence claims, or potentially criminal proceedings? This set of measures completely obscures the well-established accountability for the quality and safety of local care.
I believe that these measures are unnecessary and undesirable, but they are also unworkable. As worded, the definition of a reconfiguration is vague and overly broad. It could capture just about any change in service provision. On page 197, the Bill refers to changes that have
“an impact on … the manner in which a service is delivered to individuals.”
That could cover just about anything, and if hospitals are proposing such a change, they have a duty to notify the Secretary of State.
By contrast, the long-standing Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013, with which your Lordships will be intimately familiar, set a higher hurdle, which is that the consultation requirement applies to
“a substantial development or variation”
in services. In its place, we would instead have, through the Bill, a set of processes that would lead to second-guessing, centralising and politicising, a furring-up of the NHS’s decision-making arteries, which, had these measures been in place during the pandemic, would have handicapped the response, at precisely the time when the NHS needs to be agile and adaptable, and will do nothing to advance the changes needed across front-line care delivery.
For all these reasons, I believe that if the Bill is passed in its current form, Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will become a running sore, not only for patients and local service but for Ministers. There are two possible ways forward. There is the proposal that Clause 40 do not stand part of the Bill, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would surgically excise the problem, or there is the group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, which would apply sutures, analgesics and disinfectant. Either approach could work, but one or the other is needed.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am very glad I delayed my speech so that I could hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, because I agree with everything he said.
My name is on Amendments 179 to 183 in this group. I shall try not to repeat the comprehensive explanation by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, of the problems these amendments would address, which are similar to those that we debated in the previous group. I hope that the Minister will accept that the proposals in the Bill as they stand are overcentralising, and that this issue will have to be addressed by the Government on Report.
I agree very strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Howarth of Newport and Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who made unanswerable contributions. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, these provisions are unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable, and they confuse and obscure accountability. I hope the Minister will take very seriously what is being said because the Bill’s ambition is to increase transparency and accountability. That is right, but it surely should be prioritised at a local level since that is where services are delivered. The Bill undermines that principle. It thinks accountability should lie in Whitehall, yet there has been no strong call to enable the Secretary of State to intervene earlier in the reconfiguration process and, anyway, there is already an established role for the Secretary of State in cases that are referred. Those processes should not be undermined.
Amendment 179 would change the definition of a reconfiguration of NHS services to ensure that only complex and significant changes to NHS services should be considered. Surely that is right. Amendment 180 would require the Secretary of State to consult all relevant health overview and scrutiny committees plus those organisations delivering relevant services locally along with the integrated care board. That must be right. Amendment 181 would require speedy decisions, and that must be right. Amendment 182 would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement demonstrating that any decision made by the Secretary of State on a reconfiguration proposal is in the public interest and has been taken with patient safety as a priority. That must be right. Crucially, Amendment 183 would prevent Secretary of State acting as the catalyst for a reconfiguration. That, too, must be right.
I hope the Minister will understand that there is much concern about the proposed new powers for a Secretary of State to intervene at any stage in a local service reconfiguration without any need to demonstrate the basis of the information on which their decisions might be reached. There is already a clear process for reviewing proposals for NHS reconfigurations, which are health overview and scrutiny processes charged with establishing whether proposals are in the best interests of their local communities.
What the Government are proposing is not in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope they will take note of the concerns expressed by the NHS Confederation and many others and bring back further amendments on Report to address them.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. She introduced them very comprehensively and I agree with what she said. My noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham added to it, so much has already been said and I need to be extremely brief.
I concur with my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham that outside bodies, including professional organisations in medicine, oppose these powers and that they will lead to more chaos rather than solving problems. As a clinician, I find the unchecked powers for Secretaries of State over local service reconfigurations that the Bill proposes astounding. Local service reconfigurations should be driven by clinical advice and expert assessment of what services are needed to meet the health needs of a local community with patient safety at the heart, as well as considerations about what resources are available in terms of workforce, infrastructure and the proximity of alternative services.
The powers in the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to initiate service changes without any consultation. How can any Secretary of State feel sufficiently qualified to be making unilateral judgments about what constitutes “safe”? The existing, largely successful, processes, which have already been mentioned, take account of clinical advice and the views of local communities in the final decision have been effective. The noble Baroness gave the example of Kent and Medway stroke services, which were held up by the Secretary of State, not by the consultation. I strongly support these amendments and I hope that the Minister will think about removing the provisions from the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I put my name to Clause 40 stand part, and I think that is the best way to go. I shall add one or two things. First, as Secretary of State, I asked the now noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, to lead the independent reconfiguration panel, and I never had cause to regret doing so. Secondly, I can say something which other noble Lords cannot, because I am on this side, and I am hoping that we continue to have Conservative Secretaries of State for many years hence. They will be much better off if they do not do this. If the Government take Clause 40 out, they will equally not regret doing so.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I described at Second Reading, or at some point in a meeting with the Minister, an attempt to save Ministers from themselves. I do not understand why on earth the Government want to put this burden on them. The Government have set out an ambitious programme for reform of the NHS. Why put in a clause that guarantees that that reform will be stalled? We know that reconfigurations—most of us have experienced the issue locally, if not nationally—are very difficult. There is always local opposition, often from some leading consultants, and to get it through you have to be very determined. The noble Lord, Lord Warner is right; once Ministers can intervene at any point—for example, if an MP’s local services are threatened with an unpopular change—even in the Lords, the pressure on them to intervene can be huge.
Lord Lansley (Con)
If anyone cares to look at it, it was also a very good illustration of the benefits of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. Not only did it do something that Ministers could not do; it also did something that NHS management did not do. It is not that we are giving it back to the NHS to do what it likes—it genuinely does something independent.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Indeed, we have a rigorous process involving the overview and scrutiny committee, as has been said, plus an Independent Reconfiguration Panel. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, it is rather like the last debate: before us we have a set of amendments which seek to constrain the power of Ministers, and then an amendment which seeks to remove this power. I am clear that we should try to remove this power, and that this is the best course. It will be very interesting to hear from the Minister exactly why Ministers want to put this burden on them, and what benefit they can possibly see in it.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I want to briefly make clear my support for this group of amendments and try to be consistent with what I said on the previous group. The only amendment which causes me to have pause for thought is Amendment 183. The NHS, perfect in every form of course, has been known to have its arteries fur up occasionally. Sometimes there is a need for scale in some services. I want to mention three or four services where scale, after clinical consideration, is important. Pathology is a good example, where we need to have more scale than many of the local pathology departments. Another one, which the Royal College of Surgeons has advocated, is elective surgery hubs, which may mean taking stuff away from a particular local hospital. Another good example is the issue of stroke specialisation, which is beneficial for patients. I have given you three examples where we do not want to totally neutralise the Secretary of State. Sometimes Ministers have a use; it may be few and far between, but occasionally they have some use. We do not want to say that you cannot ever be a catalyst for change. That seems a bit drastic in Amendment 183, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to think about that, because sometimes scale is important, with clinical advice for the benefit of patients.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am in favour of surgical excision. I oppose the powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 40 and Schedule 6 to intervene in decisions on reconfiguration of health services. Far be it from me to want to protect Conservative Secretaries of State for Health from themselves, but I warn that if they use these powers they will eventually get the blame.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, gave a number of very good reasons why this clause should be deleted from the Bill. My reason is somewhat different. I think these powers are very dangerous. We have recently seen how the Government’s powers to provide or withdraw funding from a proposal, let us say, to build a new school or improve infrastructure in a particular constituency have got them into trouble. We have heard allegations made against Government Whips by Members of Parliament of actions which could be criminal offences of bribery. It is alleged that, in seeking to ensure support for their leader, they are threatening Members of Parliament that funding for their projects, which have already been declared to be in the public interest of their constituents, will be withdrawn unless they behave in a certain way, so political considerations would trump public interests.
Like the former Member of Parliament to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, all politicians know that the provision of a new hospital or clinic or, on the contrary, the closing of a healthcare setting are very sensitive considerations in elections. All parties ensure that the voters know their views on these matters at election time and in between elections. The Prime Minister knows this. Why else would he put such emphasis on his promise of 40 so-called new hospitals by 2030 if this were not the case? It makes a good headline, even if we know that some of them are not new and some of them are not hospitals.
The powers of reconfiguration sought by the Secretary of State in Clause 40 would give the Government the ability to change the decisions of those put in place locally and well qualified to make them in a non-partisan and needs-based way, thus allowing the Government to wield unwarranted political power. It is probable that this Government would not be able to resist doing so, for the wrong reasons, and it is incumbent on all parties to stop them by deleting Clause 40 from the Bill. Indeed, I do not think that I would be in favour of giving these powers to any Government of any political party; they are just too liable to be misused.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think the Minister is probably getting the message by now. I shall speak to my Clause 40 stand part debate and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron. Somebody said earlier that we can be sure that the proposals to allow greater powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in reconfigurations is not something that the NHS asked for. That is almost certainly true.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her great coalition- building; she is very good at building coalitions in support of the things that she cares about, and she has definitely managed to do that with this group of amendments.
Noble Lords have pointed out that, at the moment, we have a system which works. It may be slow, and it is absolutely true that it has processes which take too long, but there are elements of public and patient involvement through consultations. The changes made in 2012 under the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, brought in four tests and some rigour of external independent evaluation. The core of that process still exists. As a non-executive member of the board of the Whittington, I can say that this is exactly the kind of thing that we have been involved in in our own hospital.
The consultations might be improved, but they will not be improved at all by this proposal. In fact, I think that this clause is very odd indeed. It is a bad idea, and it adds nothing to the core of this Bill and its central aim, which is to grow place-based independent and innovative healthcare, and it probably needs to go.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their contributions. I would be pretty blind or deaf not to understand the level of concern across the Committee. However, if noble Lords will bear with me, I shall try to set out some justifications. I preface my remarks once again by saying that I strongly hear the views of the Committee, and I welcome the fact that previous Ministers and Secretaries of State are warning us not to fall victim to this, as it were.
I start by explaining some of the justifications. It may be helpful to start with some of the observations. The public expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes service change. We see the new intervention powers enabling the Secretary of State to act as a scrutineer and decision-maker for reconfigurations, to intervene when, for example, they can see a critical benefit or cost to taking one or other course of action, or to take action where there is a significant cause for public concern. Having said that, we accept that public concern could well be a political one, so we understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords.
We expect this power to be used infrequently and, when it is used, it will be done proportionately and transparently. All decisions made using the new reconfiguration call-in power in the Bill must be published, which will ensure transparency and proper scrutiny. The new call-in power for reconfigurations will allow the Secretary of State better to support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including from the public health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians in a more timely way.
I turn to Amendment 183. Given the role of the Secretary of State, it is proportionate to ask him or her to ask local commissioners to consider service change where there is concern. Once again, we do not expect this power to be used frequently, and all service changes, regardless of whether a Secretary of State has been a catalyst, will still be required to go through due process and where appropriate local consultation. Before any proposal was agreed, the planning and assurance for a proposal would still have to include strong public and patient engagement, consistency with a current and prospective need for patient choice, a clear clinical evidence base and support from commissioners.
I turn to a couple of points from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, who said that the powers were unnecessary, undesirable and unworkable. To look at the necessity of the power, the current system can lead to referrals coming very late to the Secretary of State, and the power will allow the Secretary of State to intervene earlier to avoid that. For example, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege referred to the Kent and Medway stroke services reconfiguration proposal. One reason why it was lengthy was the need to review the right options for the system. We are hoping that it goes something like this—that you could either knock heads together or, as someone put it more starkly, have a sword of Damocles over them to come to a decision more quickly. But once again we understand the concerns.
I turn to Amendment 180. It is vital that all local views, including that of the health overview and scrutiny committees, are represented in the reconfiguration. The new power in the Bill will not replace the important local scrutiny and engagement that plays such an important role in service change decisions, and a duty for those locally responsible for service change proposals to consult local authorities will remain. It is right that for commissioners and providers who are responsible for planning, assuring and delivering reconfigurations the duty to consult HOSCs and other local stakeholders continues. We are also introducing a duty for NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts to provide information and other assistance required for the Secretary of State to carry out functions. That will allow the Secretary of State to take into account local views. We expect the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to consider the views and carry on the way it works.
On Amendment 181, we recognise the importance of timely decision-making—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that the Government and his department do not trust NHS England to fulfil this function any longer?
Lord Kamall (Con)
No, we are saying that, where there is an issue and it is taking a long time, this measure allows the Secretary of State to come in in a more timely manner rather than waiting for a late referral.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister goes on—just so I do not lose the thread here— could he tell us why the Independent Reconfiguration Panel has to go? What are the problems with it? Why do we have to move it off in order to bring in a politicised system with the Secretary of State making the decisions?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I must clarify here. I have said that we expect the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to continue to consider views. We are not getting rid of it.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
So that presents a problem. What does the Secretary of State do, and what does the independent panel do? Is it a question of the scale of the change that is being proposed? Where are the boundaries?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Secretary of State will be advised by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, especially where there is a difficult decision that takes time, just as in the case of the Medway.
On Amendment 182, the Secretary of State’s decision-making process must already take into account the public law decision-making principles, all relevant information and his legal duties, including the public sector equality duty. The Secretary of State is also under several duties in the National Health Service Act 2006, including to promote a comprehensive health service and to support continuous improvement in services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
There are a lot of marginal seats, and there is going to be a general election in two and a half years—maximum. A lot of the reconfiguration proposals usually relate to smaller places with smaller hospital or DGHs because their viability is often in doubt. So it is quite clear to me that any MP, particularly government MPs, will immediately take any threat of that sort to their local services to the Secretary of State. That will not speed up the process; it will guarantee the opposite. The signal that I would get from the health service as a result of this is: “Forget reconfiguration proposals until after the next election because you ain’t going to get any through.” That is why we think this is a disastrous move.
When the Minister says there will not be many interventions, that is just nonsense. The moment that MPs know the Secretary of State has the power to intervene at any stage, they will be knocking at the door of the Government, who will wilt under that pressure, because that is what happens. Then they will go back and say, “We need to have an independent review of that before you start the process.” There are so many dodges available to a Minister, if you want to dodge making a hard decision in this area, that it will completely paralyse the health service. That is why this debate is so important because it is related to the last one; the result of Ministers gaining direct control will be to delay and reverse, and I am afraid that the hopes that Ministers have for a dynamic, forward-looking health service will come to nothing.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I ask the Minister to consider the point that I was trying to make about Amendment 183. The Minister and the Government have got this the wrong way round: if he is actually concerned about levels of efficiency, the supply of services and the issue of scale—and the issue of scale is a very real one—then he needs to be at the front of the process, not the end of it. It is a bit late in the day to be having these ideas about scale in a particular set of services when you have gone through the agony of the local consideration of reconfigurations. As a Minister, it would be better, if I may say so, to set out your views at the beginning with the clinical arguments for why this makes sense. Doing it at the end is bound to lead to suspicions. That is why I was asking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to look at the wording of Amendment 183. I say to the Minister that he is putting his involvement at the wrong part of the process.
Lord Kamall (Con)
We agree with the noble Lord. We do not want to waste time by being able to come in only late in the process. To avoid egregious uses of power, all uses are subject to public law principles and challengeable by judicial review.
We agree with the intention behind Amendment 216 but we do not feel it is necessary. Commissioners, NHS England, NHS trusts, NHS foundation trusts and a range of other bodies are required to have regard to the NHS constitution in performing their functions, as set out in Section 2 of the Health Act 2009, which goes wider than this proposed duty that would apply to the Secretary of State.
In addition, the NHS pledges that all staff will be empowered to put forward ways to deliver better and safer services for patients and their families. If a service change is material, the commissioner has a duty to consult with all impacted parties to understand their views and these existing engagement duties can encompass NHS staff. Anyone can respond to a public consultation and there is well-established process and precedent for taking these views into account. Beyond the pledge itself, it is the responsibility of an employer to ensure that staff are appropriately engaged and involved in service change decisions. The need to engage and consult is contained within organisational policies and relevant employment legislation.
I have heard what a number of noble Lords have said, especially former Ministers, Secretaries of State and others involved in the system, and it is quite clear that I need to go back and consult further. In that spirit, I ask that noble Lords do not move their amendments, and hope that I have explained the reasons why.
Lord Crisp
“(a) an individual trust, and(b) the capital expenditure limit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment along with the other amendments in the name of Lord Crisp to Clause 54 seek to deliver the legislative proposals agreed with NHS England and NHS Improvement in 2019.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, my five amendments to Clause 54 follow on quite closely from the discussions we have just been having about direction. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Morgan of Huyton, and my noble friend Lady Neuberger for their support for these amendments.
The Bill introduces a new power for NHS England to set capital spending limits for NHS foundation trusts. There are two points of context that are worth exploring here. First, obviously the Bill is all about integration, partnership and collective action, within which individual parties need to retain some autonomy as well as giving out more, or perhaps pooling, some sovereignty at the local level. We should also be aware that at the national level NHS foundation trusts’ capital comes within the overall capital allocated by Parliament, and so recognise that, at the end of the day, there needs to be some kind of reserve, backstop power to set foundation trusts’ capital limits.
It is all about achieving the right balance. I understand that three years ago, as part of the thinking behind these wider changes in the NHS when they were being developed, NHS England and NHS Improvement agreed with foundation trusts a set of proposals for this that were set out in the NHS’s 2019 legislation proposals. I am sure my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham can comment on that as appropriate. This clause cuts right through these agreements.
My explanatory statement makes the terribly simple point that what I am trying to do here is to
“seek to deliver the legislative proposals agreed with NHS England and NHS Improvement in 2019.”
I do not see why that is not happening. So, my first question to the Minister is: please could he explain what has changed since 2019 and why the agreement that was struck then is no longer good enough for the current circumstances?
Secondly, these capital freedoms are important. NHS foundation trusts need to be able to invest in order to deliver their services. They need to be able to do so for their boards to be able to exercise their own accountability, and they need to be able to plan. There is also a slightly softer reason why these are important as well, which is about motivation. It is very clear that working efficiently to generate capital to create that freedom is a significant motivator for clinicians within these trusts. I say that as somebody who led two trusts—not foundation trusts—into trust status in the 1990s, and I know how big an issue that is in terms of the staff within these organisations.
So, against that background, these directions should be exceptional and not the rule, and these amendments set out quite clearly ways to make this work in practice. Amendment 188 states that any direction must be about an individual trust and for a specific region and not in any sense a blanket action. Amendment 189 says that it should be used only after all other means of managing a capital expenditure problem have been exhausted; it must be very much a last resort. Amendment 190 says that NHS England should account to Parliament for the action, giving the reasons—telling the story, if you like—and publishing them so that they can be seen very clearly. Amendment 191 makes it clear that any directions should cease after one year, and Amendment 192 is more minor tidying-up. This is a very clear set of amendments which would put in place the 2019 agreement. I see no reason why that should have changed.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, why is this a change from that agreement? What has changed? Why can we not just have that agreement? Secondly, does the Minister agree that this must be very much a last resort, and therefore needs to be hedged round with these sorts of amendments? Thirdly, will the Minister ask his officials to look at this again, perhaps with the involvement of representatives of NHS foundation trusts and NHS Providers, as indeed happened in 2019? I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, aim to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to limit the capital spending of NHS foundation trusts and to ask for the reinstatement of the 2019 agreement. It is important to note that these amendments do not remove the powers as a whole but tighten them to avoid changes by the Secretary of State to funding that would delay capital works which are needed and urgent on health and safety grounds.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to say that I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We are grateful to him for tabling them, and indeed for presenting them so very well.
I also rather enjoyed the opportunity from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to think back to 2011, as I think it was, when I went to visit Watford General—I probably announced a new hospital then, but I cannot quite remember. She said the local connections were all funded by the local authority, and I seem to remember paying for the roundabout outside Watford General Hospital, because it was so instrumental to the process of the redevelopment. Anyway, that is by the way.
What I am really looking for from my noble friend on the Front Bench is to understand the mischief to which the Government’s proposals in Clause 54 are the remedy. Certainly, when I was Secretary of State—which is a long way back; we were not in deficit but we did not have a lot of money—the issue every year with the capital expenditure of FTs was that they always told us that they were going to spend a lot and then did not spend anything like as much. To account for that in the public accounting system, we had to make some heroic assumptions about how much less they would spend than they said they were going to spend.
It may be that the department is saying that the way we get round all this is to set very tight limits in the first place—to say where we think they are going and what we think they can spend. This, frankly, is a recipe for disaster for many trusts, because the reason they underspend is that there are so many difficulties in planning and executing capital expenditure projects.
I am trying to find out the purpose behind the Government taking such strong powers in relation to capital expenditure. I rather hope that they might see merit in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in fairness, there is logic to the broad direction being set out by the Government here. As the financial health of foundation trusts improves, their ability to seek self-generated capital investment will, in all likelihood, be much higher, looking over the next four or five years, than it has been during the more constrained financial circumstances of prior years. So it is not unreasonable to have a set of measures in the Bill that would enable Ministers to ensure that the NHS sticks with the capital expenditure, voted for by Parliament, for the NHS in any given year; nor is it unreasonable on the part of the Government to seek to ensure that there is a mechanism by which that capital can be allocated fairly across the country according to need, rather than purely according to an individual institution’s ability to finance it.
All that being said, rather than this being a fundamental matter of principle in the way that our last two discussions have been, these amendments have a lot to commend them. They are entirely pragmatic and put the right safeguards around what should be only an emergency power. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, laid out, that was the basis on which a consensus was achieved back in 2019. It provides good incentives at trust level for sound financial management and, frankly, it provides a bit of a pressure release or a safety valve against an overly artificially constrained capital settlement in certain years or parts of the country.
I very much hope that, in the constructive spirit with which I think these amendments are being advanced, this is something that the Government might consider favourably.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of University College London foundation trust. I want to echo everything that has been said. I do not really understand why what was a carefully negotiated agreement seems to have been reneged on. I think it would be great to have some kind of explanation from the Minister as to why that should be the case.
I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that some of those freedoms for foundation trusts are essential, and that fettering foundation trusts too much will not do much good. I really want to agree with everybody and not waste any more time, but please can we have an explanation?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked: what is the problem to which Clause 54 is the solution? But I want to know why the Government think that Clause 54 is the solution to the real problem. The real problem is that, over recent years, the funding focus has been on revenue to support the greater demands made on the health service, and, apart from occasional injections of extra capital funding, capital budgets have been inadequate. In the meantime, hospital trusts of both types—foundation and NHS—have found it impossible to keep up with the need for repair and maintenance to buildings and plant and, crucially, to invest in modern technologies that would enable them to deliver more effective care.
An NHS Confederation survey prior to the spending review in October last year found that 81% of leaders said an insufficient capital settlement could impact their ability to meet estate and service safety requirements, and 69% of leaders said a poor capital settlement threatens their ability to fully embed digital transformation in their care and even hampers their efforts to maintain staff levels or keep appropriate records of patients who need elective care. Many of our hospitals and clinics are located in very old buildings and some certainly show it, but capital funding has not kept up with demand for years, and this new Secretary of State power in Clause 54 will not solve the wider problem. St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington will need £1 billion to repair the hospital or services could be shut in six to nine years. Many buildings on the site date back to the hospital’s founding in 1845. One part of the hospital can no longer be used, as the building will no longer support the weight of modern hospital beds.
Annual statistics show that each year we do not invest enough and the problem only becomes bigger. We must keep reminding the Government of the consequences of this. It is worth noting that many areas of the country with the worst health outcomes have older estates, so upgrading these estates will lead to better outcomes for these populations. This is a health inequality issue. The problems are not confined to England. I could tell noble Lords some terrible stories about my local hospital in Wales, where health is devolved. It is easy to find examples of maintenance issues from hospitals, as these get a lot of coverage. The headline “Hospital roof crumbling” is always of interest to local media. However, there are also thousands of small community hubs and mental health trusts that desperately need new and updated facilities and equipment too, and they cannot shout as loudly. The backlog currently stands at £9.2 billion, with half of that, as we have heard, described as involving a high or significant risk to staff and patients.
The new powers for the Secretary of State proposed in Clause 54 would restrict the spending of any individual foundation trust in the same way as NHS trusts are currently limited. This may appear to be fair, and I do not oppose the principle of the Secretary of State having the power. However, it appears to me to be contrary to the principle of freedom of the foundation trusts as outlined by the Government when they were set up, and certainly contrary to the agreement made by NHS England and NHS Improvement with the sector through the September 2019 legislative proposal mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which was the result of detailed negotiations with NHS Providers on behalf of their foundation trust members. The reason given by the Government is that this is in order to avoid the overall health budget being exceeded. However, the power needs to be a very narrow reserve power, to be used when all else has failed, and that is what these amendments would ensure.
The Health and Social Care Committee in another place has made it clear that the powers should be used only as a last resort. It has to be remembered that, if a repair needs to be done on the basis of health and safety but is not done, it is the trust that will be blamed for any harm that comes to staff or patients, not the Secretary of State. They are accountable, and that is right, but it does not help them to keep people safe. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has tabled this group of amendments to narrow the scope of the power, to ensure in outline what must be done before it is used and, crucially, in my opinion, to require the agreement of Parliament. Currently, the proposal, like many others in the Bill, cuts Parliament out completely. Where the Government are proposing to wipe out an agreement with the sector which is only just over two years old, there must be compelling reasons, mitigating actions and parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for introducing this group of amendments and setting out for your Lordships that what we need to see is a reasonable system of checks and balances which will serve financial flows and objectives and where, if tensions arise, they can be resolved quickly, fairly and transparently. Certainly, these amendments provide for this.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing this debate before the Committee. I have listened to him and other noble Lords with care. Before I turn to the detail, it may be helpful if I explain the reason why Clause 54 is in the Bill.
Clause 54 originated as a legislative proposal made by NHS England and NHS Improvement to the Government in 2019. In making this recommendation, NHS England, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, worked closely with representatives of the foundation trust sector. The key principle behind this clause is a recognition that the interests of the whole system should be prioritised in decisions about capital spending while also respecting the freedoms and accountabilities of NHS foundation trusts.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked whether it was our intention that the power in the clause would be a last resort—absolutely yes. Clause 54 is a reserve power to be used only in extreme circumstances to avert the risk of a foundation trust pursuing its own private capital objectives—if I can put it that way—that are not prioritised at a system level. I say to my noble friend Lord Lansley that that is the potential mischief that the clause is trying to address.
The control will operate in the context of the new NHS capital regime, introduced in 2020-21, at ICS area level with planning at a system level to take a holistic view of the local healthcare needs and balancing the allocated operational envelope for providers at that level. Having a power to set capital spending limits for NHS foundation trusts, as can already be done for NHS trusts, ensures an equitable distribution of capital to better enable the investments with highest priority and that achieve the greatest benefits for patients.
At this point I will push back, in the nicest possible way, at the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the actual level of capital spend. At the spending review 2021, capital spending was set to increase over the Parliament to £32.2 billion for the period from 2022-23 to 2024-25. That includes a £5.9 billion capital investment for the NHS to tackle the backlog of non-emergency procedures and modernise digital technology. As a result, the Department of Health and Social Care’s core capital budget will reach its highest real-terms level since 2010.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Governments always tell us how much money they have spent, but the question is always: has it met the demand? The money that the Minister has just mentioned is to try to cover the backlog of elective procedures; it does not cover the backlog of repairs.
Earl Howe (Con)
There will be money to address the backlog of repairs within that total.
Of course, it is our intention that a capital limit would be imposed by NHS England only if other ways of resolution had been unsuccessful. I will take the Committee through some of the detail, because it is important.
Amendments 188 to 192 would further restrict how the power can be applied. Amendment 188 would modify the clause by inserting “individual trust”. This modification is unnecessary because new Section 42B already ensures that an order relates to a single trust.
Amendment 191 would limit the order to one financial year, but, instead of that, the guidance prepared by NHS England will set out that any capital expenditure limits will apply to individual, named foundation trusts. We envisage that most will apply for the period of budget allocation, which is a single financial year.
Amendment 189 would insert steps that NHS England must take before applying the control and limit when an order may be made. The amendment also links the power with the capital planning function held by ICBs in new Section 14Z54. That plan may not always relate to a single financial year and can be amended in year; for example, for big capital projects, the plan could be set for several years, and in such a scenario it would be difficult to determine whether a foundation trust exceeded the plan in the early years. Amendment 189 would undermine the ability to impose the limit in a timely way and would mean that any limit could realistically be applied only when an overspend had already occurred or was committed to. That would risk funding being unfairly taken away from other areas.
Amendments 190 and 192 contain a requirement to lay a report before Parliament alongside a statutory instrument containing the order. That would cause significant delays in the power’s application. There is already a requirement in the Bill for NHS England to publish any orders which place a capital limit on a foundation trust and for guidance to set out the circumstances in which it is likely to impose a limit. We expect the guidance will also state that representations made by the trust will be published by NHS England.
As I mentioned, it is our strong view, supported by NHS England, that the powers and safeguards in the Bill create a proportionate and fair balance. These measures will ensure that if a foundation trust were actively to pursue capital expenditure that is not aligned with local priorities or affordable within local budgets, there is a means to prevent this as soon as possible.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I thank the Minister for that reply. I have one point to make and one question. My point is that an NHS foundation trust may cover an area that is bigger than one ICB, and some of the bigger ones obviously do, so it does not quite work in the way that the Minister talked about. My question, and it is my final question, is: will officials re-engage with NHS Providers on behalf of NHS foundation trusts to discuss this matter further in the light of what we are saying so forcefully to the Government about pragmatic solutions to find a way forward to achieve the right balance and what the Minister has said in his response?
Earl Howe (Con)
I had not quite finished the remarks I was going to make, so perhaps the noble Lord will bear with me. I was trying to say that the measures will ensure that there is certainty for all providers about their capital expenditure. It will also prevent the need unfairly to take planned funding away from other providers, such as NHS trusts, where NHS Improvement and, in future, NHS England, set routine capital expenditure limits just to keep expenditure within system control totals, or national capital limits when a foundation trust exceeds its capital limit. Operational detail of how capital expenditure limits are set is best dealt with, we think, in guidance, where we can ensure flexibility and future-proof the provision, rather than in the Bill.
I hope that those remarks are helpful and will persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment this evening. I say to him, as I did at the start, that I have listened carefully to the points he has made in support of his amendments, and points made by other noble Lords, and I undertake to take these points away for further consideration between now and Report. I am aware that my officials are working closely with NHS Providers on a number of issues, and I very much hope that we can resolve any points of difference to everyone’s satisfaction.
Lord Crisp (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, for the very clear message that has been given. I also thank the Minister for that reply and those final remarks about thinking about this further and discussing it as appropriate with NHS Providers. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt when the Committee was making such good progress. This clause brings into effect Schedule 10 as an NHS payment scheme, which is to replace the national tariff. Unlike the debates that we have just had about Clauses 39 and 40, I have initiated this stand-part debate not to argue that we should simply take it out but because I simply do not understand yet what the precise differences are that the Government intend between the national tariff and the new payment scheme. I am trying to find out more about it in order that we stand some chance, not least at Report, of seeing whether there is a reason to amend or simply approve what the Government are proposing.
We could have a long debate about this but I am not proposing to do so. If I may, I am going to ask a few questions of my noble friend but do not expect to receive all the answers straight away. These are often things that are easy to put down and send to noble Lords, because we will then have a chance at this stage to think about them before Report.
I can see one obvious difference. In new Section 114A, inserted by Schedule 10, new paragraph (b) includes in the payment scheme provision for payments for public health functions under the NHS Act 2006, which is specifically excluded in the tariff. I can see a difference. Beyond that, I start to lose track of what the differences might be.
The tariff under the 2012 legislation allows not only for payments for episodes of care but for services to be bundled; it allows for year of care budgets; I think it allows for—I cannot see any reason why it does not, and certainly work was done to look at this—outcomes-based pricing; and it allows for local price agreements or national prices. Many of the things which, on the face of it, the new payment scheme is designed to allow, seem already to be allowed. What are the differences?
My first question to my noble friend is this. There is no reference in the new NHS payment scheme to what are effectively national prices, such as the national tariff—if we ignore the word “tariff” and remember that it includes the word “national”. To what extent is the new NHS payment scheme designed to do away with national payments or national prices? In new subsection (3), there is different provision for the same service by reference to different circumstances or areas. We could therefore have regional and local pricing set nationally. That, to me, is an innovation, though I am not sure whether or not it is intended.
Secondly, the national tariff made specific reference to non-discrimination between providers by reference to their status, including, specifically, not paying private providers more than could be paid for a public sector or NHS provider. This new payment scheme refers to different provision for different descriptions of providers. Is it intended that the power should be taken back to pay different amounts to private providers than are paid for public sector providers?
On the payment scheme, there is a very complicated subsection, subsequent to that, that talks about provision of services resulting in
“a fair level of pay for providers of those services”
and refers to differences in costs and services provided. What is intended by that? On differences in services provided, I can see, for example, that if a price is being paid to one provider for a routine service and another provider—which may often be the NHS provider—provides intensive care back-up, the fact that this back-up is available should be reflected in the price they are paid, because, inherently, they have to provide additional resources for it. Is that what is intended? Are other differences likely to result from this?
I then come to my final, and in a way most important, question. I have discussed the point about the Government appearing—the noble Lord told me I was wrong about this—to have abolished the purchaser-provider split. Maybe I was wrong, because here, under the rules that are to be set, we find that they
“may allow or require a price to be agreed between the commissioner and the provider of a service.”
Under all this, the purchaser-provider split has re-emerged, somewhere in Schedule 10. Is that what this means, and is it to be agreed by negotiation or by reference to some other mechanism? One of the fundamental issues about the national tariff was that it was intended to be a negotiated outcome between NHS England and NHS Improvement, on behalf of the commissioners on one side and providers on the other. Who is going to engage in these negotiations and who will be the court of appeal, as it were, in relation to that? What is intended by the Government?
I ask all these questions because we just do not know any of the answers—I certainly do not, but maybe I am missing something. If the Government can share further information about some of these points, that would help me to know whether we want to help speed the clause on its way, or interfere with amendments on Report. I move that the clause does not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I wish to address Amendments 201A, 201B and 201C—my name has been left off Amendment 201A for some reason, but I support all three. Indeed, I support the stand-part debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
I have attended virtually the whole debate in Committee and have been pretty sparing in my contributions, but on this occasion, I am going to make three speeches in one. I have been asked to pass on the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who is unable to be here this evening, particularly given the time—though we are meeting a bit earlier than we perhaps expected. The same is true of my noble friend Lady Blower. Both my noble friends have considerable experience in this area and wanted their thoughts to be added to our debates this evening.
My noble friend Lord Hendy tabled these amendments. I have his remarks here; what he says might be of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in that he explains that this Bill, among other things, is designed to facilitate the outsourcing to private contractors of NHS services which are currently carried out in-house. That may not be explicitly stated, but it is clearly one of the underlying aims.
That is the Government’s policy, even though it is firmly opposed by most of the citizens of this island. That said, the purpose of these amendments is to protect NHS workers from the consequences of this policy. Usually when public services are outsourced, the contractor makes profit by reducing the number of staff performing the work formerly done in house and by cutting staff wages, terms and conditions. The TUPE regulations mitigate that process, but usually only by delaying it.
These amendments do not prevent staff reductions consequent on outsourcing beyond the protections in TUPE. In any event, the danger of staff reductions is diminished, bearing in mind that at the end of last year the NHS had 93,000 vacancies and an additional 110,000 staff off sick, half with Covid.
Amendment 201A seeks to prevent cuts to the wages, terms and conditions of NHS staff who are outsourced, and prevent contractors’ staff on worse terms undercutting in-house staff. It does so by requiring that the pricing rules for paying contractors must preserve, then and for the future, NHS staff rates and terms as negotiated between the NHS unions and NHS employers. Payment of those prices will depend on honouring those terms.
I hope the Minister will accept the legitimacy of the need to protect NHS staff in this way, perhaps—my noble friend adds—by better drafted amendments than mine. I am sure the Minister recognises that NHS staff need protection from wage cuts consequent on outsourcing. We must not have a two-tier workforce.
NHS staff are grossly underpaid and the real value of their wages is falling. After years of pay freeze, last year’s miserable 3% wage increase is destroyed by 6% inflation this year. The inadequacy of their terms and conditions is the prime reason for the extraordinarily high level of vacancies—a vacancy rate that increases as more and more work is done by fewer hands. Only heroic dedication by NHS staff prevents the vacancy level becoming a catastrophe.
Amendment 201A also protects against a different kind of two-tier workforce: contractors using the NHS payment scheme to fund salaries above NHS rates to attract certain categories of staff away from NHS posts. The current starting salary for an NHS nurse is £25,655, whereas the equivalent in the private sector is £37,500. No one could begrudge nurses earning whatever they can for their vital work, but NHS funds should not be used to finance a higher rate outside the NHS than within it.
Amendments 201B and 201C are intended to ensure that unions are among the consultees on the likely impact of payment schemes. Obviously, the workforce should be consulted.
My noble friend Lady Blower added her name to all three amendments, and she draws our attention to the fact that my noble friend Lord Hendy is one of our foremost labour lawyers. Some in your Lordships’ House have long experience of trade unions and trade unionism. I therefore hope that they will recognise this quotation:
“Trade unions have been an essential force for social change, without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under capitalism.”
That was not Marx, Engels or any of the great leaders of the TUC, or a general secretary of a major trade union. The quotation is actually from Pope Francis. Given that we all want to live in a decent and humane society, we should all promote the important role of trade unions. This is in part what these amendments would do; they are about fairness and justice for workers.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I shall briefly make two points. First, having looked at this quite carefully, it is good to see that there is nothing in the proposals for the payment scheme that would intrinsically give rise to the concerns just articulated. Secondly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there are very good answers that can be provided, even if not now, to the questions that he poses. One starting point would be to look at the judgment that the Court of Appeal handed down at the end of 2018, which essentially confirmed that what he said is correct. It is just about possible to torture the 2012 tariff system to make it fit for purpose, but an incredibly elaborate set of workarounds is required to do so, with an enormous amount of bureaucracy and that covers only about 60% of the fund flows in the National Health Service. Hence the desire for something more flexible, which this set of clauses enables the NHS to take forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is very gratifying that so many noble Lords have decided to come in to take part in a debate about NHS finances tonight; I am very grateful for that.
I shall speak briefly to Amendments 199, 200 and 202A in my name. Amendment 199 provides that the Secretary of State must set out rules for determining the price to be paid for NHS services. Amendment 200 ensures that the key policy documents covering NHS services are approved by the Secretary of State. Amendment 202A provides that the rules must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I am very pleased that the complexity of NHS funding was not mentioned in great detail tonight, but there has been speculation about how funding may work and how the various financial responsibilities in and across ICSs may develop. What we think we know is that complex funding approaches, such as payment by results, will become less important. In Clause 70 and the associated Schedule 10, however, the Bill is wonderfully uninformative. It just says, “Out with the old”—the national tariff—“and in with the new”, the NHS payment scheme. I am again with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in saying that these questions need to be answered, because they will affect the regulations, procurement rules and so on.
The payment scheme—actually, I am not going to talk about the history of the NHS payment scheme at this time of night, but, unless the Minister can justify it and answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, this part of the Bill should be quietly dropped. We seem to have something that works, so why replace it with something that we do not know very much about?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and echo her gratitude to all the noble Lords who have turned up for this group of amendments.
Before I turn to specific amendments, it may be helpful to make a few general points about the new payment scheme and explain why this clause should stand part of the Bill. For many years, the national tariff improved access to services and drove up quality across the NHS. The new scheme will build on that success. NHS England will continue to make rules determining the price paid to a provider, by a commissioner, for healthcare services for the NHS, or for public health services commissioned on behalf of the Secretary of State. Also, expanding the powers to enable NHS England to set prices for public health services, such as maternity screening, will allow for seamless funding streams for different care episodes.
However, we need to update the NHS pricing systems to reflect the move towards a more integrated system focused on prevention, joint working and more care delivered in the community. This will support a move from a “payment by activity” approach, towards an approach that promotes integration and early intervention, while discouraging perverse incentives for patients to be treated in acute settings. It will allow flexibility over the current pricing scheme, and allow rules to set prices, formulas and factors that must be considered when determining the prices paid. I assure noble Lords that, when developing the scheme, NHS England will continue to consult any persons that it considers relevant, which will include ICBs, NHS trusts and foundation trusts, as well as trade unions and representative groups. I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the valuable role that trade unions play in a free society.
I turn briefly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Lansley. On regional variation, the NHS payment scheme will encourage commissioners and providers within an integrated board area to work together to agree prices that are in line with the rules set out in the scheme. To date, only one provider has applied successfully for local modification, and closer working within ICBs should remove the need for disputes. On paying different providers differently, there may be scenarios where it is appropriate to pay non-NHS providers different prices from those paid to NHS providers, to take into account differences, different starting costs or a different range of services provided. There may also be cases where the financial regimes of different providers make it appropriate to set different prices or pricing rules. When setting any prices, NHS England will aim to ensure that prices paid represent a fair level of pay for the providers of those services, as well as fair pay between providers of similar services. We will not introduce competition on price rather than quality. We hope that these changes will increase the flexibility and reduce transactional bureaucracy at the ICP level.
I must disagree with the proposal in Amendment 199. While the Secretary of State will remain responsible for setting out overall funding for NHS England, NHS England, alongside Monitor, has set the rules successfully since 2013. I cannot see the benefit of this duty being transferred to the Secretary of State, beyond separating it further from those making operational decisions in the system. Following that logic, we must also reject Amendment 202A. However, I assure noble Lords that the payment scheme will be published in the usual way, and your Lordships will of course be able to table Questions, secure debates, hold us accountable and ensure that the mechanism is scrutinised.
I turn to Amendments 201B and 201C. As part of the broad consultation duties, we expect NHS England to work closely with trade unions and staff representative bodies, such as the Social Partnership Forum, NHS Providers, the Healthcare Financial Management Association and all the royal colleges, when developing the national tariff.
On Amendment 200, I assure your Lordships that the NHS payment scheme will be published by NHS England following consultation. The Secretary of State will also have the general power to require NHS England to share the NHS payment scheme before publication, not to publish a payment scheme without approval, and to share the contents of the scheme should that be necessary.
On Amendment 201A, in setting the rules for the payment scheme, NHS England will of course want commissioners to consider staff pay, pensions and terms and conditions. NHS England will continue to take account of cost growth arising from uplifts to Agenda for Change. New Section 114C makes it clear that, before publishing the payment scheme, NHS England must consult any person that it thinks appropriate. Again, in practice we expect this to include representative bodies and trade unions. NHS England must also provide an impact assessment of the proposed scheme.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the department and NHS England remain committed to Agenda for Change. Independent providers will remain free to develop and adopt the terms and conditions of employment, including pay, that best help them attract and keep the staff they need. However, we expect that good employers would set wage rates that reflected the skills of their staff.
On Amendment 202, it is right that the commissioners and providers of NHS services should be able to make representations and, if they feel it necessary, object to pricing mechanisms set by NHS England in the payment scheme. That is why we have retained the duties to consult commissioners and providers. We have also retained the ability for ICBs and providers to make representations and to formally object in response to consultations on the NHS payment scheme, as they can with the national tariff.
The current prescribed thresholds are set by the National Health Service (Licensing and Pricing) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, and the current objection thresholds since 2015 have been set at 66%. My department consulted on these thresholds in 2015 and it remains the Government’s view that they are proportionate, preventing the delay of future payment scheme publications and giving the NHS the certainty that it needs to plan for future financial years.
If I have not answered all the questions from my noble friend Lord Lansley and others, I ask noble Lords to remind me and I will write to them. This has been a very important discussion—as we can see by the attendance—and I hope I have given enough reassurance to noble Lords for them not to move their amendments and have explained why the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister’s response to that short debate and for the other contributions. I shall certainly look at the Court of Appeal judgment—was it the Court of Appeal? —and try to work through precisely where the problems are. There are two ways of dealings with this issue. One is to scrap the national tariff and put in a new payment scheme. The other is to start with the national tariff and ask what the problems are and how we are going to deal with them, and I would quite like to work that through.
We may come back to this because there is an issue about how far the payment scheme is a national payment scheme and how far it becomes a local and varied one. That is a very interesting question, as is the way in which discrimination between providers may be implemented and for what purposes.
For the moment, though, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his response and for his promise to follow up on issues.
Baroness Meacher
“(1AA) The regulations must make provision—(a) for anyone with a diagnosis of terminal illness to be offered a conversation about their holistic needs, wishes and preferences for the end of their life, including addressing support for their mental and physical health and wellbeing, financial and practical support, and support for their social relationships,(b) that, where that individual lacks capacity for such a conversation, it is offered to another relevant person, and(c) that for the purposes of section 12ZB a relevant authority must have regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations in making decisions about the procurement of services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the scope of the regulations as to patient choice includes those at the end of life.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 203, I declare my interest as chair of Dignity in Dying, the sister organisation of Compassion in Dying. This amendment is supported by Marie Curie, Together for Short Lives, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder and the Alzheimer’s Society, as well as Compassion in Dying, a national charity which enables people to prepare for the end of life. I thank them all for their support and their briefing. I apologise—I have cut my speech to the bone in light of the late hour.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, both dealing with end-of-life arrangements, and I support both of them. Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would put on the face of the Bill an extremely important provision—that of giving anyone with an end-of-life diagnosis the right to a conversation about their needs, how and where they want to die, and how they can be given the support they need to achieve that. This is long overdue. Our excellent palliative care and end-of-life healthcare clinicians and professionals carry out an invisible yet vital service to people. But unfortunately, it is not universal.
Why, oh why, as a nation, do we hate to talk about dying? I have seen both the best and worst in practice. Indeed, very recently, a friend in hospital who was told that he had a few weeks left wanted to go home to die. No one at the hospital used the phrases “end-of-life care” or “palliative care” or even talked about hospices. They thought he was not close enough to death to get to that stage. Instead, there were discussions about setting up the right domiciliary care, or possibly a care home through the council. This amendment would ensure that when the diagnosis of end of life is made, that conversation will happen for all patients. That is very welcome. It is too late for my friend, who died while he was still in hospital.
Amendment 297 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay a Bill before Parliament to permit terminally ill and mentally competent patients to end their own lives with medical assistance. I offer my deepest sympathies to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the death of his father. I look forward to hearing his speech on this amendment, and I apologise that, due to the remote contribution rules, I have to comment on it before he speaks.
Both the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and before it the Private Member’s Bill brought by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, had exceptionally sensitive and thoughtful debates in your Lordships’ House, but neither has progressed any further. We know that public views have changed—like those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—in light of sad family experiences of death where pain and trauma were not controlled and where, for too many people, access to palliative care and end-of-life care was just a lottery.
I have spoken in the debates on both those Private Members’ Bills in favour of assisted dying and remain firmly committed to campaigning for it, but that is not what tonight’s debate is about. If accepted, Amendment 297 would not immediately change the law on assisted dying. It would merely require Ministers to bring forward draft legislation, not even to campaign in its favour.
Government is well placed to draft the legislation, encourage a wider public debate through consultation and bring together voices and views from right across our society in a way that perhaps the polarised debate between individual MPs and Peers on such a complex issue always makes difficult. Government can and should maintain their neutrality on assisted dying, but they can guarantee sufficient time for the consideration of the legislation.
It is worth noting that in those jurisdictions where assisted dying has been made legal, there have not been the disastrous consequences predicted by opponents. Instead, those laws continue to receive huge popular support many years after legalisation. In no jurisdiction has any law been passed on assisted dying and subsequently repealed, demonstrating perhaps that the fears of opponents to assisted dying have not come to pass.
The Crown Prosecution Service has recently opened a consultation on the introduction of a prosecution policy for homicides that can be categorised as mercy killings or suicide pacts. The prosecution guidelines, if approved, would add clarity to the law in the same way as the prosecution policy on assisted suicide adopted over a decade ago. While this is helpful, it does not change the law, and it cannot protect dying people with a legal choice of how to end their life, nor can it protect their families, as decisions would be made by the CPS only after the death of the person. I have seen a family friend have to go through the trauma of a police investigation after her husband took his own life. He deliberately chose a day when she was 100 miles away to protect her. It still took months for the police to make their decision and, frankly, it was cruel.
What we need above all is a commitment to a public consultation and parliamentary time for a wider debate on assisted dying. Amendment 297 provides that. It does not change the law on assisted dying. Tonight is not the right time for that, but I think the country is ready for that debate. Both these amendments are vital in their own way, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is also taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to oppose the two amendments in this group. Amendment 203 extends the scope of regulations on patient choice under the National Health Service Act to require particular services to be provided at the end of life. It is, I am afraid, clear from the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Amendments 47 and 52 in Committee that this is to include the right to assisted dying. It is directly linked to Amendment 297 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
I am afraid I do believe that these two amendments are an attempt to hijack the Bill to promote a change in the law on assisted dying. I do not feel tonight is the time to discuss the merits or otherwise of assisted dying. By no stretch of the imagination is assisted dying within the scope of this Bill. There is a separate Private Member’s Bill already before this House, awaiting detailed scrutiny. That is the right vehicle to debate this issue and that is where it should be debated—not here, not tonight and certainly not at this late hour.
Moreover, Amendment 297 seeks to force the Government’s hand into requiring it to prepare a draft Bill on a subject that has not yet been agreed by Parliament. To date, the Government have, studiously and quite properly, taken a neutral stance. This amendment could be seen as a deliberate manipulation of the parliamentary process to provoke a viewpoint that is known to be contentious, and to force the pace of further scrutiny before Parliament, and before parliamentary time has been made for it.
Given the existing pressures on the Bill before us, these tactics are, I believe, truly not worthy of your Lordships’ House, so I hope that the Minister agrees with me that the amendments should be rejected and withdrawn. This is not the place to have this debate.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
We have just listened to very powerful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Brinton.
I would like to begin with an apology to all Members whose email inboxes have exploded over the last 48 hours. If it is any consolation, so did mine. I got the same emails, all of which were identical and came from the same email address, info@righttolife.org.uk. They began:
“Dear Lord Forsyth, I am making contact on an urgent matter. As you probably know, Lord Forsyth has tabled an assisted dying amendment to the Health and Care Bill, and this amendment will be debated next week. I am asking that you please oppose this dangerous amendment”.
The first point I would like to make is that it is very late at night, so I am going to keep my remarks brief. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, said, this has got nothing to do with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The reason that they are grouped together is because I asked for them to be grouped together; otherwise, it would have come up on a Friday when I could not be here. There is no common link in the terms of these being about assisted dying, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has explained why her amendment is not about that.
My amendment is not actually about the merits of assisted dying. It is true that I have changed my mind on this matter as a result of not just my own experience with my father but also because all the time that I opposed it I have felt a bit of a hypocrite, because if ever I was, for example, to contract motor neurone disease, I would want the right to assisted dying. I felt it was rather hypocritical to vote against something that I would want for myself. But I persuaded myself that I was doing so because there were certain protections that were needed. That is all I am going to say about that—and I was not going to say anything at all—because the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised it. It is an unusual position to be proposing an amendment when it has already been opposed, before you have even spoken to it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Green group is operating on the lark and owl system —appropriately enough, you might say. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb attached her name to Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I am going to be brief, as I am aware of the pressures. I find it very hard to see why anyone would resist Amendment 203. It is about providing appropriate structures and law to ensure that people’s views are heard and respected.
When I looked at this, I thought of the very old feminist slogan, “the personal is political”. What could be more personal or political than a person having control over the nature of their own death, being able to express their wishes and ensuring that they are heard and recorded.
It is worth saying that I was not able to take part in an earlier debate about the funding for palliative care. We should see much better investment in palliative care in the UK; we should not see volunteers rattling fundraising buckets for hospices to meet their basic needs. But that goes along with the right of individuals to be in control, knowing that they will be heard and listened to, and their wishes acted on. That would allow them to be in a situation of much less fear.
I also want, very briefly, to offer the Green group’s support for Amendment 297. Support for assisted dying is Green Party policy. I want to reflect back to October last year, when the Private Member’s Bill was being debated. There was a very respectful, silent crowd outside, holding up signs saying “Choice, Compassion, Dignity”. I ask people considering this to make sure that those people can be heard in this House and this can be debated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is not about a change in the law; it is about a guarantee of parliamentary consideration, as the courts have requested. It might surprise the noble Lord to know that I preceded him on this. I am trying to remember the details—I was not aware that any fuss had been made about this procedure, but it was either in the Agriculture Bill or the Environment Bill that I put down an amendment in this form. I would not consider myself a procedural innovator, so this is something that has been done many times before.
I want to make one final point. It is perhaps not of legal significance, but, in a way, it is a legal issue. Assisted dying is already available to people in our society—to people who have the funds, the knowledge and the remaining health to get to Dignitas, in Switzerland. This is very much an equalities issue around a right that some people have and some people do not. There is also the fact that, to be guaranteed to be fit to travel, some people are now dying before they need to because we have that inequality.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 297 from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He has made the case, so there is not much more to say. At the core of that amendment, in proposed new subsection (2)(b), all we are asking is
“to enable Parliament to consider the issue.”
That is really all we ask.
We know, as has been said, that the public want change. I believe that the House, at its full strength, wants change. The courts have said that it is not for them, judges, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Law Commission or anyone else to decide. It is the role of Parliament to take a decision of this importance.
By failing to allow a full debate and a decision in Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has just said, the Government are effectively siding with those who want no change. That is not a neutral position: it is allowing no change by forbidding those who want to put the issue to Parliament from being able to do that. That is done partly through the number of wrecking amendments that we have seen. I know that the Chief Whip has lots of other demands on his time, but my judgment is that, even if he did not, he would not give time for this—for what would be necessary, given the number of wrecking amendments.
All the Government are doing is accepting, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just said, that people with money can go to Switzerland. More importantly, there are no safeguards. Those who oppose assisted dying say that it exposes people to pressure from their families. The whole point of having safeguards is that you will have to go and get permission before it happens, and someone has to test that. At the moment, you can go to Switzerland and there is no check—there is not even a check for whether you are dying. There is no check on whether you are of fit mind; there is no check on whether you are under pressure from a family member. You can just go, if you have the money, but there are no checks. The Government are allowing that to continue: our citizens are able, if they have the money, without any safeguards, to go quite legally to that country and end their lives when they are facing the end of life anyway. That really is not how this country ought to be.
What is important is that we allow Parliament to decide. I can only think that those who have turned up wanting to oppose this are actually afraid that Parliament will decide that it wants change. I often do not like things that Parliament does—unsurprisingly, sitting where I do, on this side of the House—but we are a democratic country and we should let Parliament take the decision on this.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is an unusual position for me; I do not remember in 22 years ever having supported an amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I am beginning my third decade in this House supporting change in the law. Who knows? I may have reached my fourth decade before we have got there.
During this time, I have watched many parts of the English-speaking world use their Parliaments to debate these issues and change their laws. This has now happened in Canada, New Zealand, five Australian states and 10 states in America and the District of Columbia. These changes have not been rushed through; they have been measured, considered and debated, and the populations have been consulted in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It cannot be said to be right, if we live in a democracy, if the only way forward on an issue that is of great personal concern to many people is having to rely on Private Members’ Bills, which can be treated to wrecking amendments which make it almost impossible to progress a discussion and debate this issue. In the statesman-like way that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has set this out, we should be impressed by the need to facilitate this debate within Parliament, as other countries have managed to do both in the English-speaking world and across Europe. Even countries such as Spain, with strong religious traditions, have allowed this debate to take place and changed their law as a consequence.
At the end of the day, this issue comes down to being a matter of personal choice. It is right that Parliament should be able to debate that issue of personal choice and facilitate the exercising of it by many people who are terminally ill if they wish to do so. They are not forcing anybody else down that path—it is a personal choice; it is a personal decision. Changing the law does not mandate anybody to do this; it is left to the individual, within the safeguards provided for in the legislation, to exercise that personal choice.
I have also added my name to Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She makes it clear in that amendment that end-of-life issues are a matter of personal choice. We make many speeches in this House about patient choice, so why is it wrong to have more patient choice at the end of life when we have a lot of patient choice during it? We need to focus much more on patient choice. I support Amendment 203 as well as Amendment 297.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am about to score a historic double whammy. I thought that I had stayed tonight to let some momentous words cross my lips that I never thought would do so—that is, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth has said—but, and I never thought I would say this, I also agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said. How is that for a double whammy?
I do not want to delay the Committee, because it is late, but let me touch briefly on Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I sat on the Commission on Assisted Dying, and we heard endlessly and quite heartrendingly from medical professionals, patients and relatives of those who had already passed away about the inadequacies of the discussion about choices at the end of life. At the moment, the legislation makes it almost impossible for healthcare professionals to open up that sort of conversation—we are not talking necessarily about assisted dying; we are talking about any sort of choices at the end of life. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness is therefore much needed.
However, for heaven’s sake, on Amendment 297, the whole process of Private Members’ Bills is doomed to failure for something as important as this, which has been tackled by legislatures across the world. Yet we are frozen in this grand old Duke of York scenario, where we march up to the top of the hill at Second Reading on a Private Member’s Bill, then absolutely sod all happens after that and we all march back down again. We cannot continue to do that on a five-yearly basis for ever. This is not asking the Government to nail their colours to any particular side of the debate but simply to open up parliamentary time. I very much commend the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—good grief— on his foresight in seeing this opportunity.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will know that I have known my noble friend Lord Forsyth as a noble friend and as a friend for many years. I know also that he is extremely good at putting forward a case—whether the case is well founded or not does not seem to matter too much.
We have a procedure in this House, which was established a long time ago, which says that government time is to be used for Bills presented by members of the Government. That is the rule generally. However, there is also a procedure for dealing with Private Members’ Bills. It has been used many times, and it has been used in connection with assisted dying during the present Session. We had a full day of discussion of the merits of that matter—exactly the merits of this matter; the arguments for and against are not for tonight. We are not here to argue for that amount of time; it took a whole day with quite brief statements being made to express different views about this matter.
The Government are a member of those procedures; they are a party to the procedures that deal with Private Members’ Bills. The Government are there so that they can be asked in the course of the proceedings to help. From time to time, they decide that what is in issue is so important generally that it should be given government time. That is the procedure that has been laid down, and as far as I know in this case so far, the Government have not been asked to give time. They said at the end of the debate just two or three weeks ago that they were neutral and waiting for a decision from Parliament. It is Parliament that takes a decision; a Private Member’s Bill is a proceeding in Parliament. It is not just Parliament dealing with government Bills—Parliament deals with Private Members’ Bills also, as well as other kinds of Bills, such as hybrid Bills.
However, this Bill was in Parliament in the Private Member’s Bill system, which is the system that exists just now. If my noble friend, with his skill, wants to suggest a different sort of procedure for Members’ Bills, he can go about it, but to try to break out of the present system a new system for this sort of Private Member’s Bill will produce a complete wreck of the present procedure when no new procedure is being introduced. The Government have from time to time given time for a Bill to be taken forward, which has reached the statute book. That is the procedure which is available now, and it is the proper procedure to ask for.
This procedure is about trying to put an amendment into a health Bill, which has no mention of this, to amend the law on assisted suicide. That is the essence of this—the heading in the amendment is “Assisted dying”—which would mean an unnecessary amendment to the law relating to assisted suicide in his country. There is no question about that. There is nothing about that in the Long Title of the Bill. This Bill is not the proper machinery for raising this matter. It is not my responsibility or an option to deal with the merits of the case. I made a speech in the debate two or three weeks ago towards the end. I think my noble friend was not able to be present, if I remember rightly.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I was able to be there, but as we got only three minutes to debate it, I did not think it was possible to deal with the very complex issues in that time. My noble and learned friend is making the case against the amendment that it requires the Government to produce a Bill. It does not. It requires them to produce a draft Bill. If my amendment had said that the Government should bring forward their own Bill, then my noble and learned friend would be quite right, but I would not have been able to table such an amendment because it would have been out of order for the reasons he has given.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Exactly. A draft Bill is preliminary to a Bill; it is not there for the purpose of not being considered. A draft Bill is for making a proposal the subject of an ordinary parliamentary Bill, which has the same authority as a government Bill. All Bills are produced in draft; some are considered in draft in pre-legislative scrutiny. A Bill has to be in draft at some stage, but the object of producing this Bill is not that it should remain in draft but that it should be considered. The amendment does not say how long it should be allowed, but that is another matter. The point is that there is already a procedure by which government help can be obtained if it is asked for in the proper situation of Private Members’ Bills.
I think it is wrong in principle to consider the merits of this matter tonight. Some remarks have been made about that, and I refrain from making any remarks about it because I do not think that that is what is needed here. I submit that it is a view well founded on the rules that Private Members’ Bills are drafted by the private Member, are submitted and then are subject to procedure in the Private Members’ Bills system, including if the Government think it is right that they give additional time.
It is also questionable whether this Motion is in order, since the matter has already been discussed in this Session. There is a question about whether having have a separate procedure raising the issue in much the same form as it was considered some weeks ago is in proper order.
But my main point is about the procedure for dealing with Private Members’ Bills in our Parliament—we are not in the Scottish Parliament at the moment, and there may be some question as to whether my noble friend would like to be—and we have to apply the rules in this Parliament. In my submission, applying the rules of this Parliament, if we want help from the Government, it is to be asked for in the Private Members’ Bill procedures and the Government may, for all I know, be prepared to do something along the lines that my noble friend has suggested.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I wish primarily to speak to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but, before I do so, may I just reply, without any hint of rancour, to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter? She repeatedly described the amendments tabled to the Assisted Dying Bill as “wrecking amendments”. Certainly, my amendments are not intended to be wrecking amendments; the Bill raises very important consequences for the National Health Service, and my amendments are primarily about the effect on the relationship between doctors and patients. These are important considerations, and to call them wrecking amendments is a little unfair. I say that without any rancour at all.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I support both these amendments. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. In answer to his points on Amendment 203, it is highly relevant that organisations such as Marie Curie want this legislation in the Bill. Marie Curie’s nurses work tirelessly to make the end of life as gentle and congenial as possible for so many patients, but if they believe that this would help them, I would certainly support the amendment.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that in this country people are too frightened to talk about dying, and that is what we are talking about tonight—and for some it will be painful. Nevertheless, dying is a subject that nurses and those in hospitals should be empowered to feel comfortable discussing with their patients, and Amendment 203 should help with that.
It is with some trepidation that I venture to support Amendment 297, having heard the noble and learned Lord—
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
Yes, Lord Mackay. Your Lordships can see how nervous it makes me feel! I think that, in this particular situation, private Members’ Bills have failed, and the Government show absolutely no intention of moving on something that is so crucial to so many people. Although you have to be wary of opinion polls, it seems perfectly clear that opinion in this country has moved and that a majority of people would like not to have assisted dying made mandatory but to have the choice at the end of life of how they say farewell.
Like others, my inbox has been inundated, and I have tried to reply to one or two of those who have been opposed to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. One doctor, Dr Whitehouse, a palliative care doctor, wrote to tell me that nobody had come to him whom he could not help, and it was very important that everybody should treasure their short remaining time, and palliative care would do that and assisted dying should be resisted. I wrote back to him a week ago through email—he gave me his email address—and said that I wanted to know more. I am a firm believer in palliative care; it works wonders, and it has improved hugely over the years, but I do not believe that it works in every case. I asked him whether it worked, for instance, with motor neurone disease, or whether it could cope with the incontinence which makes the end of life such a discomfort and an indignity for so many people—or did the help that could be provided mean only understanding and care, which does not necessarily deal with the indignity at all? Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I have not heard back from Dr Whitehouse, and neither do I expect to.
This matter polarises people, but the amendment is asking merely that Parliament should have the chance to debate a matter that is crucial to parliamentary Members and, more importantly, the constituents who vote for them. I support both amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare all my interests in palliative care and as a director of Living Well Dying Well and vice-president of Marie Curie and of Hospice UK. I have two amendments in this group. I do not intend to lay out all the arguments against the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Indeed, the noble Lord was right that we had only three-minute speeches when we debated the Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. However, I remind the Committee that the Bill put forward in the other place by Rob Marris MP actually failed—it was voted out—and it was one that came high in the ballot, so if it had been voted in it would have progressed quite well.
Personally, I do not think this is the place for us to debate assisted dying, which would need a change in the criminal law. The procedural issues have been clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, spoke about the right to die. I remind him that everybody is going to die—it is an inalienable right. What he is talking about is licensing some people to provide lethal drugs to others, against a set of criteria. I remind him that three-quarters of people in my branch of the profession—specialist palliative medicine—who look after these patients all the time, not only do not want the law to change but do not want anything to do with it in the event it changes.
The claim has been made that palliative care is not a panacea. Assisted dying is not a universal panacea either. There is a 6.9% complication rate in Oregon, which is experimenting with the fourth drug cocktail in seven years. I remind the Committee, because I have made a plea for specialist palliative care, that it is estimated that 118,000 patients each year in the UK cannot access specialist palliative care. That is why I have an amendment tabled to the Bill, which I hope the Government will look favourably on. Areas where assisted dying has happened rank low on end-of-life care compared to the UK. Areas with assisted dying have dropped in the rankings for palliative care since 2015 compared to areas which did not change the law.
Amendment 203 is well intentioned and builds on all the moves for advanced care planning that are spearheaded by specialist palliative care. I know it was drafted originally with Marie Curie’s help, because it initially discussed with me whether I would table it, but I did not and did not sign it for two reasons. First, it is imperative that such conversations begin early, are part of ongoing care and do not become a tick-box exercise which says, “Conversation offered—tick”. That risks all the dangers of what happened with the Liverpool care pathway. Sadly, I have seen all too often a patient being told, “But that’s what you said you wanted”, when their needs have changed. Much research on advanced care planning has been done by my colleagues in my team in Wales. This has now informed some of the moves that are happening. Having open conversations is something that patients want, and the clinicians trained in communication skills want to provide those openings and do.
The second reason that I was concerned about this is that excellent draft guidance on advanced care planning has been developed by NHS England and NHS Improvement, and is near to being published; I had the privilege of being consulted on the final draft. It sets out core principles that such planning must always be a voluntary process and that every effort must be made to help someone express their views and preferences. The person is central to developing and agreeing their advanced care plan with agreed outcomes that are shared in partnership with relevant professionals. They have a record of the shareable plan and are encouraged to review and revise it so that they can change their mind at any time. In addition, anyone involved can speak up if they feel that the principles are not being followed.
The very sensitive approach set out in the guidance recognises that people have different levels of preparedness for such conversations; that their perception of their illness evolves over time; and that, in the crisis of being given a diagnosis or told of disease recurrence, the views that a person expresses may subsequently change as they reframe their experience. The first step is to start with an exploration of how much the person wants to be involved, what matters to them, and the pace and language that matches the person, as well as that they are listened to and understood.
The amendment asks for a “relevant authority” to
“have regard to the needs and preferences recorded … in making decisions about the procurement of services.”
I hope that the Government can see that, by providing specialist palliative care as a core service, the type of bureaucratic delays that would be involved in procuring services would be completely replaced by a rapidly responsive specialist service that can address the person’s needs in all domains. The amendment also uses the term “relevant person”. If it were used as in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act, that person could turn out to be the care home manager, who may actually have competing interests and therefore is inappropriate.
A comprehensive survey of over 2,000 people by Cardiff University’s Marie Curie research department reported that people listed their top priorities towards the end of life as timely access to care at 84%, and being surrounded by loved ones at 62%. Being home was a priority for only 24%.
This is a well-intentioned amendment but it has now been replaced by the extensive consideration of the consultation and production of comprehensive guidance.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but was asked at short notice by my noble friend Lord Suri to present his contribution. He makes the point that we humans look after animals and other living creatures with the highest levels of care—
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
The normal convention in this House is that if a Member is not present at the beginning and end of a debate, they should not speak. It is not right to read out someone else’s speech.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I recognise and respect the integrity and passion that underlie Amendment 297. However, I rise to agree wholeheartedly and briefly with those noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have already expressed their significant reservations about it.
There are two problems in particular with that amendment. The first has to do with the many contentious arguments for and against any legislation permitting assisted dying, some of which have already been mentioned. Tempting though it is to rehearse some more of those, I am conscious not only of the time but of the fact that they have already been presented recently and at length, as we have been reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill here in your Lordships’ House. The ongoing process of that Bill, however slow it may be, should not be undermined. We have also been assured that this is not primarily what Amendment 297 is all about. I might add that the terminology of that amendment is unhelpfully vague. “Vague” is a word that has already been used more than once in the debate today. For instance, we might ask exactly what is meant by “terminally ill” or “medical assistance”.
The second problem, which has already been persuasively argued, concerns the attempted use of this Health and Care Bill potentially, if not directly, to change the law on assisted dying. The proper place for any amendment of this kind should be Committee on the Assisted Dying Bill, not Committee on this Bill, which would be subverted were this amendment to be accepted.
With regard to Amendment 203 in this group, whether or not it is deliberately linked, it is evidently concerned to address the holistic needs of those approaching the end of their lives, and that includes, of course, talking about death. That is something that we would all wish to encourage. However, there is again an issue of vagueness in the amendment, as in Amendment 297. For example,
“wishes and preferences for the end of their life”
could include almost anything, from repeated albeit futile chemotherapy, through bucket list wishes, to assisted suicide. Who decides, and how, that someone lacks capacity for engaging in a conversation about their holistic needs? Who is a “relevant person”, as we have just been reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay? Then, in proposed new paragraph (c), what does
“having regard to the needs and preferences recorded in such conversations”
actually entail?
Most of what is proposed in the amendment is already covered in End of Life Care for Adults: Service Delivery, NICE guideline NG142, which was published on 16 October 2019. Perhaps it would be simpler just to require healthcare professionals to meet the requirements of that guideline, which would address the heart of the amendment’s stated, and laudable, objective.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and, given the similarity between his see and my name, I hope I may be able to slipstream some of his authority.
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this is not a debate in which we should be having Second Reading discussions about the principle of assisted dying, and I shall absolutely not do so.
I start by saying a few words about Amendment 203. I was greatly relieved when my noble friend Lady Meacher immediately revealed it to be only a probing amendment, because I had taken the trouble of reading proposed new paragraph (b). This is not the occasion for me to indulge or deploy my inner Rumpole or Henry Cecil by telling your Lordships stories of frauds committed on families by greedy relatives and the like—although there are many to be found in the annals of the criminal courts, even from the time when I practised in north Wales. However, the words “another relevant person” are an absolute recipe for undue influence and ostensible but completely fraudulent carers. I am very surprised that my noble friend, for whom I have enormous respect, thought it right to present such a vague piece of drafting to the House on this occasion.
I am very concerned in relation to both Amendment 203 and Amendment 297 about parliamentary procedure and statutory integrity. I have huge regard for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is one of our very greatest debaters in this House, and so I listened to him with great care. It has been an unusual occasion to hear him relying on a Liberal Democrat Peer in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. I am not sure that I have heard him deploy that juxtaposition before—and I am pleased to see that he sees the funny side of that himself. However, I beg him, before Report, to consider whether he has got his concept right or wrong, for I would say that, conceptually, what he proposes is wrong.
I do not want to repeat what was said so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—it does not need to be repeated, and I would diminish it if I tried to—but there are a couple of points to add. One was alluded to very graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. If, as a rule, one could table an amendment simply saying that the Government—or anyone else, for that matter, as the noble Lord suggested—should present a draft Bill to Parliament, it would be impossible to control. Reference was made to the 200 amendments tabled to the absolutely extant Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—it is a living Bill and it can still be debated. It is extremely unfair to suggest, as one noble Baroness did, that those were wrecking amendments. Some of them may be, but the great majority of them are substantive amendments seeking to safeguard vulnerable people. That is one of the things that the private Members’ procedure is for. When a private Member presents a Bill to Parliament—and many have passed; it is not a futile gesture—it has to withstand the same parliamentary scrutiny that we give to the Government when they present Bills before Parliament, such as the police Bill, debates on which a number of us here have been taking part in recently.
Furthermore, let us suppose that the clause from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was passed and that within the 12 months that followed the Government decided not to present a draft Bill to Parliament. I do not believe—though I may be disabused of this by greater judicial minds than mine—that the court would have the power, other than possibly to advise, to order the Government to present such a Bill to Parliament, because that would be a breach of the separation of powers. I do not believe that any judge, other than in a nightmare, would see themselves doing that.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I will give way at the end of this sentence. It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is proposing is simply not going to be effective, so what on earth is the point of presenting it?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I rise with some trepidation to take on the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but could he just reference the point that I made that my amendment does not seek for the Government to produce a Bill? It is a draft Bill. There is no compulsion on the Government to give it time or anything else, and therefore no notion that one would go to the courts. What I am trying to do here is break the logjam. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that we have a Bill before us; we all know that that Bill is going absolutely nowhere, like all its predecessors.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Lord is trespassing on the old Social Democratic Party by using words like disingenuous. I will give him an example: some years ago, I chaired a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament dealing with the draft Mental Health Bill. That particular Bill was never enacted after our year of meetings and the report that we produced, but there was not a single person or NGO—including some that have been mentioned today—that did not believe that it was a parliamentary Bill. A Bill is a Bill is a Bill. In this Parliament we have draft Bills but not half Bills. That is my answer to the noble Lord.
I do not want to take up more time. I finish by saying that I think this is a completely misconceived proposal, both procedurally and, were we to come to it, on the merits.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to both amendments but I shall speak first to Amendment 203, which, on the face of it, I am minded to support.
My reason for that—I hope this is not seen as a Second Reading speech—is that two years ago, just before Christmas, my mother contacted me and said she thought she had terminal cancer. She was taken to hospital two weeks before Christmas and died on Boxing Day, not of terminal cancer but of end-of-life COPD. I had no idea that she had end-of-life COPD, although I knew she had COPD. On Christmas morning, I was summoned to the hospital, and a junior doctor asked me what I wanted to do: “Your mother’s been a bit unconscious. What do you want us to do? Do you want us to wake her up? Do you want us to do anything?” That is not really the best conversation to have. The next morning, Boxing Day, I had almost exactly the same telephone call: “Please come to the hospital, your mother is very ill.” I said that I had had the same conversation yesterday. However, on this occasion I was summoned in and met a doctor who spoke to me with compassion. My father and I agreed that my mother should not be resuscitated. I had never had that conversation with her, but, when I went through her things, I discovered that she had completed a form that said: “End-of-life COPD. When in doubt, do not resuscitate.”
So, in many ways the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is very attractive because it is surely right that, towards the end of their lives, people talk about what is appropriate.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
It might help the Committee if I make clear that, as I understand it, all our Fridays are taken up, because people are talking so long on all these Bills that we are having to use Fridays for government business, and also there are lots of Private Members’ Bills with Second Readings to come. So my understanding is that we have done what we can do with my Bill.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister, in replying, can tell the Committee whether he will talk to the usual channels, especially since I note that the Chief Whip and the Deputy Leader are both in their places, about whether time could be made available for further discussion of the Bill that is extant. Because whatever the merits or demerits of assisted dying, this is not the Bill for such an amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has been trying to get in for a while.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I want to react very briefly to one comment that has been made in debate tonight, which is the issue flagged by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft. It is something that is continually raised in the wider debate on assisted dying and it is the issue of incontinence being seen as so inherently tragic that people should use it as a reason to want to end their lives. It is considered an important subject; we have an all-party group on it.
Personally, I find it really difficult because I am incontinent and I have never once felt undignified by it. I cannot believe that I am the only person in the House, or, indeed, in the Chamber tonight, who is incontinent and I will happily discuss the many solutions for sorting out this problem. What I see is that people are scared to talk about it, because they think it is something that we should never discuss. I have many solutions for this. I intermittently catheterise; I use indwelling catheters; I have lots of options available to me if those do not work—medication and lots of options on surgery. There is nothing undignified about being incontinent if we support it properly.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, both these amendments reflect a desire to give people a greater say over the final weeks of their lives. As a strong believer in patient choice, which is, after all, a very central part of this Bill, I am greatly attracted by and supportive of my noble friend’s Amendment 203.
As several noble Lords have said, we are not very good at thinking about, planning for and managing death, despite Benjamin Franklin’s observation that it is one of only two certainties in this world, along with taxes. This amendment would give people diagnosed with a terminal illness the possibility of some degree of agency in their final days. That seems to me a wonderful idea, but it does of course raise questions about who such discussions would be with, and what qualifications might be needed by the people offering them. So, while I support the amendment, I would want to know more about the practicalities of delivering it, hopefully without having to create a whole new regulated profession of mortality consultants. I hope therefore that the Minister will respond positively to my noble friend’s suggestion of discussions on how the amendment might work; I will be interested to hear his response.
On Amendment 297, which I also support, I make only two brief points. First, I very much agree with what everybody has said that tonight is not the time to be discussing the merits of assisted dying; that is not what this amendment is about. Many Members on both sides of the argument have made it clear that Parliament needs to decide this issue, and the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seeks to find a way of making that possible. I feel the same sort of alarm as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft in finding myself on the opposite side to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, but, with the greatest respect, I think he himself said we were waiting for a decision from Parliament before the Government could act on this. In that case, there has to be some way or process for making such a decision happen. That is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is trying to produce with this amendment. No doubt there are ways of improving how that is done, maybe by giving more time to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Bill. This responsibility is Parliament’s to resolve, and I cannot believe that, in this great Parliament, we cannot find a way of doing it.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise partly because my noble friend Lord Forsyth referred to me earlier and partly because I wanted to clarify what is happening in the Scottish Parliament. There is not actually a Bill in front of the Scottish Parliament. The Orkney MSP, Liam McArthur, carried out a consultation which was very wide-ranging and closed only at the very end of December. Liam McArthur has reported that the submissions to his consultation were wide-ranging and unprecedented, and I look forward with great interest to reading some of them. You can look some of them up. I commend the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care’s website; its submission is published there. The Neurological Alliance of Scotland also published a submission—I declare an interest because I am a trustee of the latter.
Both those submissions illustrate that this is a very complicated issue, as noble Lords have acknowledged, and there are many things that need evening out before we even get to potentially having draft legislation—a Bill or whatever it is; I am still learning parliamentary procedure. I find it interesting that my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentions that there might be a majority for assisted dying in the Scottish Parliament. I remind him that there is currently a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament, but that does not mean that the people of Scotland want independence.
In my short time in this House, I have seen many amendments that may have been worthy in their own right but were in the wrong place in the wrong Bill. I think Amendment 297 in the name of my noble friend—I feel very nervous suggesting this to such an esteemed colleague—may possibly be the wrong amendment in the wrong Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak on my own behalf; I am not representing anybody. The substantive issue is a conscience issue. I do, however, support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I think it is a discussion whose time has come. I am very impressed and pleased that noble Lords have resisted the temptation to discuss the substantive issue this evening, because all of us here understand—unfortunately, many outside do not—that this amendment is not about the substantive issue.
However, I am somewhat disappointed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, wishes to knock it out on a procedural point. I think it is much more important than that. The noble and learned Lord is a wily old politician, and he knows very well that if you want to defeat something, it is often a very good idea to try to get rid of it on a procedural point. He suggested that we should use the Private Member’s Bill procedure. He has been in this House long enough to know that very few Private Members’ Bills are taken up by the Government and given time, and if they are not given time, they are going nowhere. But it is clear that this country wishes to discuss the matter and have Parliament decide on it.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested that we cannot put anything in the Bill that the Government do not want to do. I remind him that every time we defeat the Government on an amendment, we are asking them to do something they do not want to do—and we did it 14 times last week on the policing Bill.
I have one other point. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle talked about vagueness. I think the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has been deliberately vague, because it is for the draft Bill to be specific. That is important because we need something very specific to discuss, with specific powers and safeguards that Parliament has put in. Without that, we would have all the fear that we have around the country, much of which has been expressed in our inboxes in these last few weeks. People are afraid of what might be in the Bill and what Parliament might pass, and only if we have a specific set of proposals in front of us can we amend it to put in the proper safeguards. Parliament can then decide, and people can take their view about it. I think that will take away a lot of the fears of people who believe that there will be no safeguards, because I am convinced that this Parliament would put in proper safeguards. If it did not, a lot of noble Lords would suggest some that jolly well should be there, and rightly so. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will consider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
On the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, again, I am so glad that she said it is a probing amendment, because other noble Lords have suggested that the drafting would need to be changed to avoid some unintended consequences. I am quite sure that the noble Baroness would do that if it was more than a probing amendment. She is asking for something that patients need: choice at the end of life. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about what is already in place. She is an expert on this. It could well be that a conversation needs to be had about whether there needs to be anything further in legislation to strengthen the availability of what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about, which sounds absolutely excellent. So I am not expressing a definite opinion on that amendment.
I hope the Minister will consider the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because we, as practical politicians, know that in the real world—in this Parliament—the Bill brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is not going anywhere, but we need to have the discussion.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I believe it is really important to understand what Amendment 297 does and does not do. It is my understanding that this amendment instructs the Secretary of State—not Parliament—to lay before Parliament a draft Bill that would permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives with medical assistance. I listened carefully to my noble friend’s speech on the matter just before Christmas, and I hugely empathise with his own personal journey. But it is important for us to understand what this amendment actually does and does not do.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak in support of Amendment 297 from my noble friend Lord Forsyth and specifically address the issue of timing that the amendment refers to:
“The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill,”
and so on. I feel competent to address this point because I was asked myself, when I was Minister, whether the Government should support a debate with a Government-supported Bill on this issue. There were five conclusions that I reached during my thoughts on the matter.
The first was that a Private Member’s Bill, however worthy, was just not going to get across the Table. It was like a soggy piece of spaghetti—very difficult to push across. This issue is very complex, and a large amount of consultation is needed, quite rightly on such a delicate issue, that only a Government can engage in. PMBs may be all right for cosmetic fillers, but not for assisted dying.
Secondly, on soundings with the professions, there was clearly a massive change in the sentiments of the medical professions, and the appetite and desire for reform was profound, among both the membership and the leadership. That was something we had to take account of.
Thirdly, reform in like-minded countries such as Canada, New Zealand and even Ireland had changed the international context for this issue. We cannot duck the fact that Britain is actually behind the curve on this matter.
Fourthly, public opinion has moved a long way on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to this.
Lastly, there was a large amount of interest, privately, among parliamentary colleagues in engaging on this subject, particularly among those who were not necessarily highly focused on the issue.
My conclusion was that the time was right to have this debate. My message to the Minister is that it is right that the inconsistencies and delicacies of this issue are tackled by the Government and soon. In the phrase of TS Eliot in “The Waste Land”:
“HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIME”.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to make just a short contribution. I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for whom I have great personal respect. I watched him in another place and saw his great ability in debate, and I have no doubt whatever that he has much to contribute to the debates here in this House and will do so in the future. However, I have to say that I profoundly disagree with him in this case.
The noble Lord said that he had changed his mind on assisted suicide. He mentioned personal circumstances within the family and then he said that he thought about his own personal circumstances if he were in that position. I do not believe that that is the best way to bring legislation forward, based on your own personal circumstances; you are therefore bringing legislation in for the whole country to meet your own personal circumstances. I have empathy with him and understand the personal circumstances he has had to face.
I say to the noble Lord that I come from a different perspective. I have personal experience of the awful pain of the suicide of a loved one. I know what it is for a family member to come to their wits’ end because of their personal circumstances, where cancer had ravaged the whole family circle, even taking a little child of four, and they could not face life any more. Were they terminally ill? I tell your Lordships, they had died within because of their circumstances. Were they mentally competent to make a decision? They made a decision, and I am sad to say that the rest of the family circle has had to live with that awful pain within their hearts.
This is not an easy situation. I understand that we say that we are not talking about the particulars of a Bill, but this amendment says:
“The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill to permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives with medical assistance.”
That is certainly assisted suicide. I heard other noble Lords saying that this was simply asking for parliamentary time to have a debate. We had a long debate in this House on the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which is in fact progressing.
I notice that the noble Lord is shaking his head. I have to ask this question. Numerous Private Members’ Bills are going through this House and are progressing, perhaps at a slow speed. Why is this one different from the others? Do we ask the Government simply to pick this one out and forget about all the rest, or are we saying that they should do it in a timely fashion? Let the Government give this special time to those that are already in that process, and when it comes to the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, time can be given for that to progress and to provide a Bill.
Over these past two years this whole nation has been fighting to save life, not take it. We have spent billions of pounds in trying to do that and I pay tribute to the health service for all its efforts. An assisted suicide law, however well intended, would alter society’s attitude towards the elderly, the seriously ill and the disabled, sending a message that assisted suicide is an option that they ought to consider. Society should not allow a double standard in allowing some people an assisted suicide while we do all we can to prevent young people and other vulnerable groups committing suicide—
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but is he aware that in all the countries I cited in my speech, parliaments played a facilitating role in changing the law and consulting their citizens on these kinds of changes? Is it not a bit strange that so many English-speaking and non-English-speaking democracies that we all respect managed to go down that path with the help and facilitation of their own parliaments?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, there is a process that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, outlined tonight for how this issue could proceed. I believe we should bow to his legal and learned knowledge concerning this matter.
I think society should give everything financially and provide palliative care to those who are in need at the end of life. I trust and pray that this House will send a clear message that we will do everything to ensure people live with decency and honour rather than telling them that we will help them to die.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has probably exposed more that is not resolved rather than what is resolved. Having listened very closely to the passionate, informed and often personal contributions from noble Lords this evening, I feel there was some inevitability that that is where this debate would lie.
I want to touch on the two amendments before us. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for clarifying that Amendment 203 is a probing amendment. I am reminded of when we debated these issues in the previous group where your Lordships’ House had great regard for ensuring that a patient’s final wishes should be respected as a kindness. This allows respect and dignity but is also practical in respect of reducing unplanned hospital admissions and other interventions.
There may well be merit in further consideration of the sentiments in the noble Baroness’s amendment that patients should have the opportunity for meaningful conversation about what matters most to them at the end of their life. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is also right about ensuring protection for those who are more vulnerable, and I am sure that, in the course of further discussions, those considerations will be made.
With regard to Amendment 297 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, obviously your Lordships’ House has heard, as I have, the depth and range of concerns and opinions across this issue. Such an important legislative change as proposed in this amendment would need to be its own topic, in its own Bill. I do not feel that any steps towards such a monumental change should be added via an amendment to a Bill that concerns itself entirely with other matters, as does this Bill.
In conclusion, whatever the views of noble Lords on assisted dying and however strongly held those views are, I believe that your Lordships’ House should do justice to it but that this Bill does not provide that opportunity.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion and debate. I recall watching the debate on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a few weeks ago; I remember thinking that that was Parliament at its best. The arguments on both sides are fascinating—thank goodness I was not the Minister responding.
I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for assuring me today that we were not going to re-open the whole issue but talk only about the merits of the noble Lord’s amendment. Before I turn to his amendment, I will start with Amendment 203 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
It is incredibly important that everyone at the end of their life, whether or not they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, has the opportunity to discuss their needs, wishes and preferences for future care, so that these can be taken fully into account. There is ongoing work across the health and care system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, alluded to, to support this aim, including a commitment within the NHS Long Term Plan to provide more personalised care at end of life, and a recently updated quality statement from NICE on advanced care planning. In addition, we have established the ministerial oversight group on Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, following the CQC’s review of this during the Covid-19 pandemic. This group is developing a set of universal principles for advance care planning to further support health and care professionals in having appropriate and timely discussions with individuals at the end of life. We believe that patient choice is a powerful tool for improving patients’ experience of care, and we intend to ensure that effective provisions to promote patient choice remain. However, I do not feel it is appropriate to specify the level of detail included in Amendment 203 in the Bill, and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Let us now turn to the amendment that has been much discussed. As many noble Lords have rightly said, it is a long-standing position that any change to the law on assisted dying is a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for government policy. Assisted dying remains a matter of individual conscience, on which there are deeply held and very sincere views on all sides. Sometimes these are informed by one’s own experience of family members; other times, these are informed by one’s faith. You can rationalise it, or argue, but people have very strong feelings on both sides.
Noble Lords are aware of the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this subject, and we look forward to further debate in Committee when parliamentary time allows. I will commit to discussing this with the Chief Whip, given the request that was made. But as this matter is so important and is a matter of conscience, we cannot take a partisan position. If the will of Parliament is that the law on assisted suicide should change, the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law could be enforced in the way that Parliament intended.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend. Could he just clarify what he said? Did he say that there was a possibility that time would be made available for the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot give that guarantee. I will commit to speak to the Chief Whip about whether time could be made available.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I was not expecting that reaction.
On Amendment 297, it would not be appropriate to include a commitment to bring forward new primary legislation in the Bill. Future Bills and the use of parliamentary time are decisions that are rightly made via other avenues. As I said, I will commit to speak to the Chief Whip—he is not very far from me at the moment.
A number of noble Lords spoke about definitions. It seems that tonight we have challenged the definition of “neutral”. I was told that if I did not support this amendment, it would not be a neutral position. Given that those who spoke in favour of the amendment tend on the whole to be in favour of assisted dying, would it be a neutral position if I supported it? Therefore, have we now got a subjective understanding of neutrality or, as I said in my PhD viva, a subjective view of objectivity?
For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord to consider not moving his amendment, but I fully expect him to come back to it in future.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for tabling his amendment. I was asked by other noble Lords to make it absolutely clear, and I have no problem with this, that I fully and strongly support his amendment. I did not speak to it because of time.
I thank a lot of noble Lords for being very good this evening about not addressing the great issue of assisted dying, because that would have been entirely inappropriate. Many noble Lords have been careful not to do that, so I am grateful to them. I am also grateful to the many noble Lords who have made clear their support in particular for Amendment 297. I was very clear about my own amendment; it is a probing amendment. I thank the Minister for his response and the Chief Whip for placing this at the very end of the day so that we did not spend 12 hours on it—I think we can all be grateful for that. I thank all noble Lords here tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is late. Tempted as I am to respond to all the arguments that have been put—I have some extensive notes here—I want to make just two points.
First, on the procedural arguments that have been put, if the amendment was not in order, it would not have been allowed to be put on the Marshalled List. Had the clerks advised me that there was any constitutional or procedural problem with the amendment, of course I would not have tabled it—a tradition which I hope will be maintained in this House. All these arguments about procedure—people can think it is not the right thing to do, but ultimately it is for the House to decide. I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister; I suspect the Chief Whip will not be as accommodating as he might have hoped when he has his conversation with him.
The Minister made the point that many of the people who supported my amendment had a particular view on this issue, but it is important to point out that all those who sought procedural reasons for why it would be inappropriate also have a particular point of view. That is why we need a proper debate.
On the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the most disingenuous argument has been that which says, “Well, we’ve got a Bill before us”, when there is not time even for a Committee stage and there are some 200 amendments. It is well-trodden path.
I shall not say any more other than that if I wanted to summarise succinctly, I would probably have said everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said. Not only is this the first occasion that I have praised the Scottish Parliament to the skies but it is the first occasion that I have relied on a Liberal to put into words what I feel about an issue. The Committee should also take notice of what my noble friend Lord Bethell, who was the Minister, had to say. He said that he would like to have done this as a Minister. I do not know whether my noble friend wants to change places with him again so that he can come back and make it happen. It is wonderful how when one is no longer in government one is able to say all kinds of things one was not able to say in government.
On the basis that I believe that this matter needs to be decided by the House, I shall consider the points that have been made and come back to it on Report, but I think that I will want at that stage to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have got up twice today to ask people to be succinct. Front Benches and Back Benches have been very good at that, so I want to say thank you very much. I am very grateful.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 31st January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2022)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to Amendment 213A. I inform the House that the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Harris of Richmond, will be taking part remotely.
Amendment 213A
Lord Blencathra
“Health service procurement and supply chains: genocide convention obligations
(1) Regulations whether made under section 70 or otherwise may, in particular, make provision for the purposes of ensuring that procurement of all goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England is consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), procurement is not consistent if a Minister of the Crown has assessed that there is a serious risk of genocide in the sourcing region.(3) A Minister of the Crown must make an assessment as to whether there is serious risk if the chair of a relevant select committee of either House of Parliament requests one, and must complete such assessment within two months.”
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my enthusiasm to get stuck into this vital amendment. I will speak to Amendment 213A in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, whom I also consider to be a noble friend.
Allow me to begin by stating the obvious: UK taxpayers do not want to be complicit in genocide. It feels strange that this still needs to be said in 2022, 73 years after the genocide convention was agreed and nearly 80 years after the world became aware of the abominations of Auschwitz. Yet here we are in the age of ESG and corporate social responsibility, when the UK boasts of leading the world in the fight against modern slavery, and what do we find? We find hundreds of millions in public money poured into the pockets of companies profiting from Uighur forced labour; hundreds of millions of pounds poured into a region that our closest ally, the United States, has identified as the site of an ongoing genocide—an area so tainted with forced labour that President Biden has just signed into law the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, banning all imports from Xinjiang province unless it can be proven that they are slavery-free.
Those wondering why this Bill and why now have the answer. Credible reports have demonstrated that our existing procurement policy has been insufficient to prevent the Government spending hundreds of millions on slave-made PPE. With noble Lords’ permission, I will address a concern with the amendment head on. I would normally favour this sort of regulatory reform to apply across all government departments and would therefore look askance at focusing on just one department solely, as I am today. However, health is a special case, especially during the current pandemic. According to its modern slavery statement from 2021, the first year that the department has produced any such statement, the DHSC procured 280 regular non-Covid-19 contracts, but how many contracts did it produce for Covid? The answer is 708—708 contracts to address the pandemic, with a heavy preponderance of contracts being awarded to China.
I hope that noble Lords will permit me a brief digression to note that the Government revealed in reply to a recent Parliamentary Question that a billion lateral flow tests were procured from China despite some local production capacity. Why we would eschew British business in favour of companies in China, with all the attendant human rights risks, is beyond me.
Back to the point of his amendment: how many of those 708 Covid contracts went to Xinjiang-based companies? We simply do not know. What did the DHSC have to say about PPE widely reported to have been made by Uighur slaves? It said:
“This statement does not cover the Vaccines Taskforce (co-owned by BEIS), personal protective equipment (PPE) or UKHSA (formerly Public Health England (PHE) and Test and Trace) contracts.”
Those 708 contracts excluded a huge variety of other contracts by different organisations of our Department of Health and associated bodies.
Frankly, that is not good enough. If our laws do not prevent investment in modern slave-traders then, simply, our laws need to be changed. Noble Lords will recall debates surrounding genocide during the passage of the Trade Bill. Your Lordships voted by huge majorities in favour of allowing the High Court to make determinations of genocide, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others that it was insufficient to outsource our genocide convention obligations to international courts, especially where those courts lack the power to hold back certain states, such as China. These efforts were resisted by the Government and the amendment before your Lordships today does not attempt to resurrect that campaign.
This brings me to the function of the amendment. Its first and core purpose is to apply a human rights threshold to government health procurement. If this new clause stood part of the Bill, it would be illegal for the Government to procure health service equipment from any regions in the world where they believe there to be
“a serious risk of genocide”.
That is a very high bar. It will be present only where the most serious human rights abuses are widespread. We would expect to see crimes against humanity, torture and mass enslavement in such areas.
The spirit of the Modern Slavery Act goes much further than this, discouraging business with companies which facilitate modern slavery offences. Modern slavery is much more widespread and common than genocide, affecting an estimated 40 million people worldwide. But the spirit of the law and the letter of the law are very different things. It is widely acknowledged that Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, which seeks to regulate supply chains, lacks teeth.
This amendment seeks to give it some more teeth in a limited and proportionate way. It applies only to government health procurement, allowing us to get our house in order first before pointing the finger at business. It applies only to the most serious human rights abuses of all, those which indicate a serious risk of genocide. Best of all, it leaves the assessment of “serious risk of genocide” to the Government and allows broad scope for the Government to define a process surrounding these risk assessments through regulations. In short, it is a very reasonable amendment. Candidly, while Uighurs in Xinjiang province are being forcibly sterilised, forced to work and detained in their millions, we ought to be doing a lot more. But this is a modest little amendment.
That brings me to the second purpose of the amendment, which is to move forward UK policy on genocide. We have heard ad nauseum from the Government that they have no view on genocide and will only use the word when “a competent court” has ruled on it. This policy has many problems, chief among them being that it makes genocide prevention impossible. The Committee may or may not be aware that our responsibilities under the genocide convention arise “at the instant” we become aware of a “serious risk” of genocide. Those quotes are direct from the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia v Serbia judgment in 2007. Let me repeat; it should happen at the very instant we become aware of a serious risk of genocide. That is when our convention obligations should apply. They do not arise when a court formally determines genocide, which usually happens many years after the genocide in question has ended. They arise at the instant we learn of a serious risk of genocide.
That simply means that the United Kingdom should be making regular assessments of serious risks of genocide and acting where appropriate. But we do not do this. This amendment before your Lordships’ Committee today puts that right and gives Parliament a limited role in ensuring that such assessments are performed in a timely manner, commensurate with the severity of the issue. It does not require the UK to make a formal determination of genocide, nor for the Government to behave like a court. It merely requires the Government to do a risk assessment—something we ought to be doing already.
I shall address the criticism that this is an “anti-China amendment”. This is false. The amendment makes no mention of China and would apply to every country. But I make no apology whatever for my motivation in bringing this amendment forward, which is to address President Xi Jinping’s heinous persecution of the Uighurs.
Finally, I was contacted the other day by the British Medical Association, which says:
“The BMA is deeply concerned about labour rights abuses in supply chains. Evidence shows that medical equipment, including PPE, has been procured from regions in which labour abuses are common, as this BMA report shows. The BMA notes the Uyghur Tribunal judgment, which found the PRC guilty of genocide, and the extensive procurement of NHS supplies from this region of China. This is deeply troubling; acquiring PPE from this region continues the systematic oppression of the Uyghurs and other minorities. The BMA believes all NHS supplies must be ethically sourced and this amendment would significantly reduce the risk of health service goods used in the UK being produced by individuals who are having their human rights abused.”
I hope I have demonstrated the need for this amendment. Having led the world in confronting modern slavery, the UK is falling behind—and we do not need to fall behind. The Covid pandemic has been a sorry period for many reasons, and making the UK taxpayer complicit in the persecution of Uighurs through PPE procurement is one of the sorriest. Let us take the opportunity to put that right: life-saving must not be dependent on life-taking. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has outlined why there is an urgent need to address the NHS procurement rules in the light of possible genocide and other clear human rights abuses. We have a duty as a nation and as a society to ensure that goods used in our publicly owned NHS are not tainted with modern slavery or linked with behaviours that may lead to genocide.
This is not hypothetical. In November 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Alton—who I look forward to hearing speak shortly—asked the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the then Health Minister, about Medwell Medical Products, which has a factory in Fenglin town, in Jiangxi province, noting that Uighur Muslims made up 25% of the workforce, despite being forced to live in separate accommodation from other workers. This was reported at the time by the excellent investigative paper, Byline Times. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, said that the Government had not entered into an agreement directly with Medwell but that the central distribution warehouse in Daventry did have a record of receiving PPE masks produced by Medwell Medical Products. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said to Byline Times:
“We expect all suppliers to the NHS to follow the highest legal and ethical standards and proper due diligence is carried out for all Government contracts.”
This is an extraordinary response. Any contractor to the Government, even in an emergency such as a pandemic, must follow the commitments that the Government have given internationally to ensure that goods used by the publicly owned NHS are not tainted with human rights abuses. If companies such as Marks & Spencer can do it for their clothes supply chain, we can too.
In July 2020, the New York Times reported that Uighur Muslims—a minority subject to widespread persecution in China, including being put into detention camps where they are forced to undergo communist indoctrination—were being employed in the factories of medical suppliers under a specific Chinese Government labour programme. The Speaker of the US House of Representatives said at the time:
“We must shine a light on the inhumane practice of forced labor, hold the perpetrators accountable and stop this exploitation. And we must send a clear message to Beijing: these abuses must end now.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, just over a year afterwards, in December 2021, the Americans passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act into federal law.
UK Health Ministers’ responses in 2020 were, perhaps typically of this Government, aimed at prevarication and deflecting responsibility. This amendment does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, and what any self-respecting Government should do. It makes it absolutely plain that procurement must be
“consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”,
and that
“procurement is not consistent if a Minister of the Crown has assessed that there is a serious risk of genocide in the sourcing region.”
The amendment also sets out conditions under which the risk should be investigated if the chair of a relevant Select Committee of either House of Parliament requests an assessment.
The amendment is very straightforward and clear. Perhaps the Minister can explain which parts of it he has problems with. It actually helps the Government, especially after the discoveries of the PPE provided by Medwell Medical Products and the supply chain—we suspect there are many other such companies as well. If the Minister is not minded to accept the amendment, can he explain to the House how NHS procurement can be protected from these human rights breaches, including possible genocide, in the future, and what guarantees there are that the department sees the supply chain details? I hope he will also agree to a meeting with the speakers in the debate on this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has explained that Amendment 213A is an important statement of intent, if put in the Bill, by Parliament and the Government that, on behalf of the people of this country, we will take all the steps that we can to prevent procurement of goods made in places where there is evidence of likely genocide and where human rights abuses and modern slavery are thereby inevitable.
My noble friend Lady Brinton has just explained the problem of the sourcing of PPE from China and from companies that may be using Uighurs’ enforced labour. This is extremely worrying. Given that the Government have previously ignored an amendment passed in your Lordships’ House in the Trade Act 2021, despite rising international concerns about genocide against the Uighurs, it is vital that we remember the duty placed on nation states to use a deterrent effect.
In its judgment of 26 February 2007, in Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Court of Justice found at paragraph 431 that the duty to prevent arises
“at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”,
as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, stated. The judgment continues:
“From that moment onwards, if the State has available to it means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide, or reasonably suspected of harbouring specific intent … it is under a duty to make such use of these means as the circumstances permit.”
This amendment echoes that judgment by saying that all endeavours must be made to prevent and deter the procurement of goods from an area where genocide is suspected.
I am also concerned about legislation on slavery, also a scourge of our times, and hope that the Government will not rely on it as a possible alternative. As we have heard, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 merely requires companies with a turnover of £36 million or more to produce a modern slavery statement. The legislation does not prevent companies, or the Government themselves, procuring slave-made goods. The Foreign Prison-Made Goods Act 1897 makes some procurement illegal in certain narrow circumstances, but it is very old legislation and now considered largely defunct. I am grateful to a number of NGOs for their excellent briefings on this subject.
The former Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, said that torture “on an industrial scale” was being carried out in Xinjiang, even though his Government decided not to take action by creating import controls for Xinjiang. This Health and Care Bill offers the opportunity to return to the issue and to improve DHSC procurement policy.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I, too, have my name to this amendment and support it, as I have previous amendments to other Bills relating to genocide. Health procurement is a very problematic area that warrants the special attention of Parliament. Not to put too fine a point on it, we will probably all have been wearing slave-made masks, even here. But it is a particular concern if great institutions such as our National Health Service are purchasing them in contravention of the standards we would like to set.
According to the Institute for Government, the UK has spent at least £15 billion on PPE since the onset of the pandemic. To put this into context, the normal annual spend on PPE is around £150 million. Perhaps we should have been putting aside more money for it. Anyway, many PPE contracts use products sourced from China. We do not know how much came from the Uyghur region but one news report alone alleged that we had purchased millions of pounds-worth of PPE from a company strongly suspected of using forced Uighur labour. That is just one report and I suspect we will see more investigations and more coming to light.
Even where the PPE is not manufactured in the Uyghur region, it may contain cotton, plastics and some other constituent parts that were. It has always surprised me that we do not have the import control regime that the United States has had for some time. The USA requires importers to document the source of products, not just the town and city but the particular factory, and to make tracking possible. Indeed, DNA tests can locate the source of the cotton, for example—the very region where it has come from.
What do we mean when we talk about serious risk of genocide? These are not just words. They represent the trigger for state responsibility under the genocide convention, as other speakers have mentioned. The International Court of Justice in 2007, in a judgment of a case involving Bosnia and Serbia, was crystal clear that state responsibility to prevent genocide arises
“at the instant that the State learns of, or should … have learned of … a serious risk”
of genocide. We have taken the words from that judgment. By incorporating those words into regulations, we are providing the Government and Parliament with a mechanism to take action to prevent genocide. This is something they lack in their current policy, which makes all actions dependent on a judgment from an international court—which, as we know, bears the Catch-22 that the very countries getting close to genocide or in the process of committing it do not usually want to play by the international rules of law.
Why should a serious risk of genocide be our procurement threshold? There will always be widespread human rights abuses with attendant supply chain risks for businesses where already there is talk of a possible genocide being in play. This should not represent an obstacle to the United Kingdom because since the Modern Slavey Act—which we passed here proudly as leading the world back in 2015—our aspirations have been to ensure that no business can sell slave-made goods into our market. A serious risk of genocide represents a higher threshold than any modern slavery offence, so the bar is set high here. The ban on procurement that a positive finding of serious risk would attract is proportionate. We need take these steps urgently. It is not, as others have said, just about China, but the amendment would, we hope, have an immediate effect in the Uyghur region.
As many noble Lords will know, last autumn the Uyghur Tribunal sat not very far from here, in Church House, led by a sort of jury of persons and the distinguished international lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. The tribunal concluded that China was, in fact, committing genocide in the Uyghur region and there was a violation of pre-emptory norms in international law that ought to require government action, by us. We are under a duty to act. If a genocide is in train or in progress, we have a duty to try to prevent it. That is what the convention says.
Although the amendment, rightly, does not identify any single country, I would expect it to have some immediate effect in China. The situation is urgent, and we are having this debate because 800,000 Uighurs are working to produce goods against their will. By some estimates, as many as 300,000 children are separated from their parents, which is really part of a process to take them away from the culture, religion and traditions of their people and to deracinate them. At any one time, up to 1 million are in re-education camps. There has also been shocking evidence of forcible sterilisation of Uighur women and many other heinous crimes. There really is an international legal obligation upon us. This House has expressed its views in previous votes and I hope we will eventually be joined by many noble Lords when this comes at some point to a vote.
We are looking at our supply chains and they are being seriously tainted by human rights abuses. We have taken proud steps, leading the world, in seeking to do something about these supply chains, and here is an opportunity to take it even further.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who so ably moved this amendment; to concur with the speeches just made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Lady Harris and Lady Brinton; and to associate myself with friends from across the House in respect of the work they have put in over many months to push to the top of the agenda the issue of honouring our duties under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. I have two things I would like to add. The first concerns our international treaty obligations, referred to a moment ago, what we are required to do from the moment we know that a genocide is under way, and how we must never utilise to our benefit slave labour in a state credibly accused of genocide. The second concerns the way in which the lack of transparency in our procurement policies has led to the improper use of public money.
The amendment is a logical extension of the debates on the genocide amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said earlier, was passed by three-figure majorities in this House in an attempt to provide a mechanism in the Trade Act 2021 to evaluate when a genocide is or is not taking place. Many promises were made by the Government during that amendment’s many iterations, including the provision of an effective mechanism to determine what constitutes a genocide and to honour our obligations under the 1948 convention. Demonstrably, those promises have not been kept. Worse still, we have established the illusion of a procedure to examine and deal with this most odious and reprehensible of crimes. The fact that we cannot, under that procedure, even look at what is happening in Xinjiang with the Uighurs shows how inadequate it really is.
Can anyone doubt the seriousness of this issue, not least in the light of the pronouncement by the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, that a genocide is under way in Xinjiang; or the resolution passed by the House of Commons; or the December judgment just referred to of the Uyghur Tribunal; or the declaration of genocide by United States President Biden; and much more besides? Do we have any excuse, therefore, for not taking action?
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to a report by the British Medical Association, which seems particularly pertinent in the context of this Health and Care Bill. It sent a letter on 26 January, which noted
“the shocking reports of human rights abuses, including torture, forced labour, political indoctrination, and reported forced sterilisation. Since then, the situation has developed in the most abhorrent manner and we”—
the BMA—
“issued a joint statement with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and other Royal Colleges in December”—
I repeat, December—
“urging the UK Government and international actors to exert pressure on the Chinese Government without delay.”
It goes on to refer to the independent tribunal, saying:
“It found beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China … is guilty of genocide. The Tribunal determined that biological genocide is occurring through restriction of births by forced sterilisation and abortion, segregation of sexes within the detention centres, and forced matrimony and procreation between Uyghur women and Han men. Furthermore, mutilation and biological experiments take place in the detention centres.”
If anybody is in any doubt about the enormity of what is taking place, they should read some of the personal testimonies which were given to the Uighur tribunal. I sat through many of its hearings and found the whole process incredibly harrowing. Let us be clear that there will be amendment after amendment to every possible piece of legislation until the promise to hold to account those responsible for these most heinous crimes against humanity are actually honoured. So my first point is that continuing to source goods for the NHS from Xingang is clearly not consistent with the duties laid upon us in the convention on the crime of genocide.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Noble Lords have already heard the well-versed and evidenced arguments put forward and, while the amendment does not specifically refer to China, there can be no doubt that the well-documented example of the horrific treatment of the Uighur people in Xinjiang province would fall under its scope.
We have all heard today about the hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of healthcare goods that have flooded into this country since the start of the pandemic, much of it sourced from China. We would expect our Government to make every effort to disentangle our supply chains from implication in these atrocities, so was any due diligence carried out throughout our procurement process? This amendment would correct that oversight if it was not.
I do not want to repeat everything that has already been said by others, but I want to highlight the importance of the risk-assessment aspect in proposed new subsection (3). I anticipate that the Minister will highlight the work already being done by government departments to weed out companies with slave labour in their supply chains. Perhaps sometimes they are being asked to perform an impossible task, because I understand that supply chains in the Uighur region of China are almost entirely opaque. It is suggested that the area is rife with systematic forced labour, that audits there are worthless and that workers live in fear and terror of telling the truth. Indeed, as we have already heard, the US Government have just passed legislation presuming that all imports from the region are tainted unless proven otherwise.
Surely, it is our responsibility, as a signatory to the genocide convention, to do all that we can to prevent genocide when there is a serious risk of it taking place. This amendment builds on the work that we have already done in this regard. We cannot continue business as usual with China or any other state that condones or supports genocide. I ask the Government to act urgently to ensure that our supply chains are not tainted by goods made with Uyghur forced labour. I ask Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House to join us and reassert our commitment to global human rights and to provide the protection against genocide, wherever it is needed, by supporting this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As we are really talking about procurement in the NHS, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association.
It is entirely reasonable to use NHS procurement rules in this way. The noble Earl knows that Clause 70 is intended to give wide discretion to Ministers to bring in a new procurement regime. I see no reason why this cannot be part of that regime.
I sometimes think the NHS operates in isolation from what is happening in the world, but it cannot operate in isolation from the terrible things that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords have spoken about. I hope the noble Earl will be sympathetic.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment and, in doing so, I apologise that I was not here at the Second Reading, although I have followed the progress of the Bill carefully.
Last Thursday at Oral Questions, in response I think to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the Minister spoke of the importance of examining the provenance of health equipment that comes to the UK. He said his department was working
“to ensure that it is not from regions where there is slave labour, or where the Muslim Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese Government.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 439.]
We must of course ensure that the products and equipment in our supply chain are ethically sourced. Last week, my noble friend acknowledged that we need to do more here, and this amendment gives us the opportunity to do just that. Noble Lords speaking before me clearly and comprehensively laid out why we should avoid procurement from such areas.
All UK government departments need to do more to look carefully at their supply chains, but we must start somewhere. The DHSC, with its scale of procurement, and the reports we have seen of the prevalence of Uighur forced labour in PPE and healthcare supply chains during the Covid-19 pandemic, seems to be the right place to start.
The issue of genocide has been subject to lengthy debate in your Lordships’ House, not least during the Trade Bill last year. While a form of compromise was reached, it is limited to countries with which we will be entering free trade agreements. That is not a solution for procurement for many of the countries with which the DHSC does business. Importantly, this amendment would create a process, a mechanism, through which the UK Government could be required to assess regions for “serious risk of genocide”, and indeed publish their assessment. That process is, so far, sadly lacking in this country.
The UK has a responsibility to do all it can to protect against human rights violations and genocide. We also have a responsibility to our NHS workers and those who use the health service to make sure that we give them ethically sourced products. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, UK taxpayers do not want to be part of genocide.
We need to see deeds, not words. This amendment will significantly reduce the likelihood that the Government will procure goods or services from regions where there is a serious risk of genocide. It will bring the UK a step closer to developing a comprehensive framework in responding to allegations of genocide, and will meaningfully engage its obligations to prohibit, prevent and punish perpetrators of genocide. It does so in a limited, proportionate, reasonable and modest way.
I hope the Government will properly consider this amendment, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I know that he will have heard support for it from all sides of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the Government should embrace this amendment. I want to concentrate on the traceability argument of goods, and in particular cotton imports. Without good traceability, the genocide convention obligations cannot be met.
To date, I have had two very poor replies on cotton traceability from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, at Question Time on 21 October, and a Written Answer on 24 January. Of course, as has already been said, we are miles away from the policies of the United States Government, who have taken a proactive approach to imports from regions of China where we know human rights abuses take place. As has been said, on 23 December, President Biden signed the legislation into law.
It simply cannot be left to commercial companies to satisfy themselves. It is crucial to understand the geographic origins of products and conditions of production. The two things are intertwined and they both need to be dealt with. There has to be a robust methodology that is reliable even when working with partners that may be untrustworthy or unco-operative. The use of middlemen such as commodity traders and the practice of blending fibre from multiple sources create additional difficulty.
Traceability—both what is termed as upstream, starting at the farm, or downstream, to map products back to their origins—is currently used. However, full visibility of the supply chain using these methods is impossible, and especially so in restricted areas such as Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is just impossible to do in the normal way you would look at traceability. If the Minister is in doubt about this, his department should read the report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies of November last year entitled:
“New Approaches to Supply Chain Traceability (implications for Xinjiang and Beyond)”.
My conclusion from that is that paper-based traceability and supplier information is a non-starter for effective due diligence.
In addition, there is abundant evidence that the Chinese Communist Party, which owns China, actually launders Xinjiang cotton, either semi-finished or blended, into international supply chains. This is set out in considerable detail in the November 2021 paper by Laura T. Murphy of Sheffield Hallam University entitled:
“Laundering Cotton: How Xinjiang Cotton is Obscured in International Supply Chains”.
In 2019, it was established that 85% of Chinese cotton was from Xinjiang. That means that cotton from the Uyghur region of China accounts for 22%—a fifth—of cotton worldwide. What was once grown or reared retains details of its origins—in a way, this is the test. However, it takes more than a paper trail to identify as such. It requires forensic work; chemical, isotope and genetic tracing and other methods that I will not list here are all crucial.
I will give a good example. From 1,000 garment samples collected across the world in high-street fashion shops involving nearly 50 brands, Oritain Global Ltd detected that in Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh, the cotton in the garments had a mixture from Xinjiang of between 6.5% and 25%. Chinese cotton was 41% consistent with Xinjiang. Some 10% of samples of products tested in the UK were consistent with Xinjiang cotton. The UK has a high rate of imports from Bangladesh, where 25% of the cotton was from Xinjiang. It is worth pointing out that India has zero consistency with Xinjiang; India has cleared out Chinese cotton fabrication.
As to the practicalities for the health service, in 2019, the UK imported furniture, bedding and mattresses from China to the tune of £2.3 billion and imported apparel and clothing accessories to the tune of £3.7 billion. Has the NHS used beds and mattresses containing cotton from China or from suppliers using connections with China or other countries known to have a mixture of Xinjiang cotton? Where did all the Nightingale equipment appear from so quickly? As I asked last week, without any warning, how much China cotton is involved in NHS uniforms and accessories? Others have mentioned face masks, but as I pointed out last Thursday, more nurses means more uniforms.
Has the NHS supply chain used Oritain’s element analysis to check, or is it just relying on suppliers’ paperwork to check what would be only part of the supply chain? Companies and Governments need a degree of independence in assessing traceability and to not rely on companies doing it themselves. Some of the supply chains are five or six levels removed, so they cannot possibly have faith in each level and know the details from manufacturers, middlemen, traders, and agents. With the best will in the world and good corporate responsibility, checking the paper trail of five, six or seven levels will not work.
As I said earlier, the way to do it is to work on the basis that a product that was once grown or reared holds signs of its origins, and today’s advanced technology can do it. The technology of element analysis used by Oritain claims that it can tell the difference between two tea estates with a dirt road between them—it is so good and effective. For those who want more, I suggest the long read in the Guardian of 16 September 2021, which is where I came across the use of the technology. I have since met with senior reps of Oritain Global Ltd to better brief myself. Modern forensic technologies must be used, as is now required in the USA. The United States is using these technologies. Why are they not being used in the UK? The NHS, as the largest employer in Europe, should have a leading role.
It is not normal for the origin of cotton to be stated on labels. Of those 1,000 products which I mentioned were checked by Oritain last year, only 3% had the information on the label and, as a warning, the higher quality a product which attracts higher prices is more likely to be consistent with Xinjiang than cheaper items, so you must be really careful what you are looking at. Non-disclosure is almost the norm and of those who do disclose there is a high percentage of non-compliance, so labels and paperwork are not the answer.
Technology is the answer, and the ball is in the Government’s court. The old-fashioned gentlemen’s agreements and systems we are used to will not work. Modern technology is thought to be 95% accurate in identifying where an item was grown or reared. Only with that degree of information can the NHS satisfy the convention obligations. Otherwise, it will not work. The Government ought to embrace the amendment and then the new technology.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for tabling this important amendment. My noble friend Lady Sugg referred to last Thursday. That was 27 January, when the world came together for Holocaust Memorial Day in memory of the millions murdered under Nazi persecution. Members in the other place stood up and pledged “Never forget, never again”, while we in your Lordships’ Chamber sadly did not find a way to mark the day. Today, I repeat that promise.
Since the start of the pandemic, it seems that millions of pounds-worth of healthcare equipment have been procured from Xinjiang, despite the reports of the appalling treatment of the Uighurs. Will the Minister tell us whether our pandemic response benefited from procured equipment exported from Xinjiang?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, the supporters of his amendment and everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am sure that the Minister will reflect before he replies on the significance of an amendment to a major piece of government legislation that has garnered such disparate support from across the House.
I am conscious that the NHS is something that everyone in the United Kingdom is very proud of. It is a source of genuine patriotism—and a patriotism that is neither militaristic nor xenophobic. We have sometimes fierce arguments about how it should be organised but fewer arguments about it being a wonderful thing. It is perhaps the greatest experiment in solidarity and collaboration in human history. It even has “national” in its title, which is good for patriotism yet it is more than national because, in truth, its proud history is one of a service built on the contributions of people who came to this country from all over the world. It is a model of healthcare admired by people from all over the world.
As I heard noble Lords from across the Chamber speaking in recent minutes, I was reminded of the contrast between the London Olympics and the Beijing Olympics. The latter was a great display of military strength, while the other was something a little more novel. I was proud to take part in the opening ceremony, and remember the nurses bouncing on NHS beds. It drew huge amusement from parts of the press but was a reminder of the example that Britain can offer the world.
The poor old noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, often has to address this human rights-interested Chamber on difficult issues of international relations when they rub up against the instinct to protect human rights. It is a difficult equation for successive Governments of either stripe. However, here there is an opportunity, because the NHS is such a big customer. This Bill is about being an ethical provider of health services to our people. In parts, it is about being an ethical employer. Now we might aspire to be an ethical customer on the world stage as well.
Noble Lords have done better than I can to explain the morality behind this concern about the Uighurs, but my noble friend Lord Rooker offered the practical element to go alongside the moral arguments.
In closing, I say to the Minister before he answers that, if there are some technical concerns from those who advise him about the precise drafting of the amendment, these can no doubt be resolved. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his supporters—and those who support them—would no doubt work with the Minister to ensure that something that does the trick comes forward on Report. What a golden opportunity this is to set an example on how one can walk this tightrope between realism and human rights protection, and what a great thing it would be for this Committee to be able to achieve.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, a very compelling and, indeed, conclusive case has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other speakers in favour of this amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. I particularly commend the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the answer is there for us in science. I have only one question, because I have no intention of repeating all the excellent comments that have been made. This morning, I went into the Bishops’ Bar and picked up a box of lateral flow tests. On the box was written, “Made in China”. Can the Minister explain what efforts have been made to ensure that noble Lords, in their attempt to protect others and themselves, are not unwittingly supporting forced labour and slavery?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment, and I apologise for not attending Second Reading.
This amendment requires the Government to perform a risk assessment on whether there is a “serious risk of genocide” in a region from which it is sourcing—not to make a genocide determination. It is the UK’s obligation under international law, as a signatory to the genocide convention, to perform such a risk assessment. We have heard many harrowing stories, which we find so difficult even to believe. Uighur identity is being erased: future generations are lost through forced birth-prevention measures, and millions have been detained, tortured and violated in concentration camps.
The incorporation of this amendment would send a clear signal to both the Chinese authorities and the international community that the UK is committed to ridding its supply chains of forced labour, fulfilling its obligations under international law and protecting Uighur people from genocide. The amendment is an opportunity to offer the Uighur community accountability for genocide and crimes against humanity, and I support it.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, I apologise to the House for not participating on Second Reading. This is one of those rare opportunities for me to be at one with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. These opportunities do not arise very often, but today is one of them. Of course we were at one in the debate on the then Trade Bill, and I very much welcome the continued focus on this issue, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. On the Trade Bill, we—I with my amendment—attempted to ensure that we were not simply trapped by this very strict legal definition of genocide and that we focused on broader human rights issues, particularly when it comes to trade. We find the reason for that when we ask—I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Polak—“When does genocide start?” How does it start? It often starts by the use and harassment of words; it starts with words.
In quite a few debates I have given books a plug. I am currently reading “Chips” Channon’s diaries, which I would recommend. Reading his discussions during the 1938 crisis, I was struck by how anti-Semitism was just common talk, and how people were portraying Hitler as not that bad, as well as some of the incidents: Kristallnacht was “unfortunate”. It is those sorts of things that we really do need to focus on, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do that.
This debate is about probing government action; it is not simply saying, “This is our amendment: take it.” This is Committee stage, and I hope we can use it properly to probe the Government because, sadly, I often think—today of all days—that we do not have joined-up government and there is too often a gap between what the Government say and what they do. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, only 12 months ago the Foreign Secretary, now Deputy Prime Minister—who knows what he will be tomorrow—announced business measures regarding human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
I have read the BMA’s briefing, which focused on ethically sourced procurement. That is what this debate is about. It is not just about the definition of genocide. The National Health Service, is, I think, the biggest single procurer of medical products in the world. It has huge opportunities to influence trade and price. We have debates about price and my noble friend Lord Hunt focuses on that a lot. With that leverage, the NHS has the opportunity to influence change. This debate is not about punishing China or the Chinese people but about influencing change and hoping that the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government will think twice about some of the actions they are taking. I hope today we will have an opportunity to probe what the Government are doing, look at what they have said and see what they have done.
Following his announcement in January 2021, Domonic Raab went to the Human Rights Council. There he said:
“The UK will live up to our responsibilities.”
He referred to
“measures aimed at ensuring that no company profiting from forced labour in Xinjiang can do business in the UK, and that no UK businesses are involved in their supply chains.”
That is absolutely right. The promised measures he outlined included
“a Minister led campaign of business engagement to reinforce the need for UK businesses to take action to address the risk.”
Have we seen that? Where is the evidence? I am not sure that I have seen it, even though I have asked numerous questions on the Modern Slavery Act about that.
Dominic Raab then referred to
“a review of export controls as they apply to Xinjiang to ensure the Government is doing all it can to prevent the exports of goods that may contribute to human rights abuses in the region.”
Here, I pick up the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hunt: this equipment could be used to do the very things he highlighted regarding organ transplants. I want to hear from the Minister: what are we doing on that commitment made 12 months ago? What are we doing at the WHO on investigating this abhorrent practice?
Dominic Raab also referred to
“the introduction of financial penalties for organisations who fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish annual modern slavery statements, under the Modern Slavery Act.”
I have repeatedly asked Ministers when and how that is happening, but, 12 months later, I have seen no evidence. As we heard in this debate, it is not as if that obligation is particularly hard to meet. It is not as if it says, “You won’t do this” and “You will do that”. It simply records what they are doing.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for enabling us to debate the serious and important issue of ensuring that health service procurement and supply chains are consistent with the United Kingdom’s international obligations. I have listened very carefully to the contributions from all noble Lords who have spoken.
I begin by making clear what the regulation-making power under Clause 70 is designed to do, and not do. The Clause 70 power is limited in scope to healthcare services and, with the exception of some mixed procurements, will not extend to the procurement of goods. The vast majority of healthcare services procured by the NHS are provided by domestic suppliers or, indeed, by the NHS itself.
However, there is a wider point to address in response to the contributions of noble Lords. As a party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the UK is fully committed to the prevention and punishment of genocide as appropriate under the convention. Indeed, the UK is active in fulfilling its duties under the genocide convention. Given that the majority of mass atrocities occur in and around conflict, the Government believe that a focus on conflict prevention is the best means to prevent most mass atrocities. To that end, this Government adopt a consolidated, whole-of-government effort using our diplomatic, development, defence and law-enforcement capabilities to help find pathways to global peace and stability.
As my noble friend is well aware, it is the long-standing policy of the Government that any judgment as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. It should be decided after consideration of all the evidence available in the context of a credible judicial process.
Having said that, our policy on genocide determination does not prevent us taking robust action to address serious violations of human rights. The Government are clear that they expect all UK businesses to respect human rights throughout their operations, in line with the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. In response to the guidelines, the UK is proud to be the first state to produce a national action plan, and we continue to develop our approach in line with the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Section 54 places a requirement on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more to publish an annual modern slavery statement setting out the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains.
Following a public consultation, the Government committed to a package of measures to strengthen our transparency in supply chain requirements. This includes extending the reporting requirements to public bodies with a budget of £36 million or more to create public and private sector parity. The Government have led the way in this endeavour and, in 2020, the UK became the first country in the world to publish a government modern slavery statement, setting out the steps we have taken to identify and prevent modern slavery in our own supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated that he had not seen evidence of action in this area. In November 2021, we published a progress report on how we have met the ambitious goals set out in that statement and, at the same time, each UK ministerial government department voluntarily published their first annual modern slavery statement. As the noble Lord mentioned, the FCDO and the Cabinet Office are also working together to introduce new guidance to UK government bodies to exclude suppliers where there is sufficient evidence of human rights violations in any of their supply chains. Further detailed guidance is being developed that will be mandatory for government contracting authorities.
The UK’s G7 presidency demonstrated how we are revitalising G7 co-operation to tackle the most pressing global challenges. At the meeting in Carbis Bay, in June 2021, G7 leaders reaffirmed their commitment to uphold human rights and committed to prevent, identify and eliminate forced labour in global supply chains. This was followed up by the G7 Trade Ministers’ meeting in October, building on those commitments to eradicate forced labour, protect victims and improve global supply chain transparency, including by upholding international labour standards in their own business operations and procurement policies. This is one of a number of recent, clear demonstrations of our continued leadership and commitment to ending human rights abuses in global supply chains.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, indicated that she did not think that the Department of Health and Social Care in particular was doing enough in this area, but if we look at the health service specifically, we see that the Department for Health and Social Care published a statement in October 2021 explaining the steps it has taken to identify, prevent and mitigate modern slavery within its own operations and supply chains for all goods and services that it procures. This aligns with the Cabinet Office guidance advising public sector contracting authorities on how to assess suppliers in terms of mitigating the risk of modern slavery. Contracts are normally placed in line with the department’s terms and conditions, which include clauses requiring good industry practice to ensure that there is no slavery or human trafficking in supply chains.
My noble friend also asked why the 2021 modern slavery statement did not cover the Vaccine Taskforce, PPE, UKHSA—formerly Public Health England—or test and trace contracts. Some indication of preventive steps taken in relation to these areas were included in the statement, and, as was outlined later in that statement, all areas will be covered in 2022 statements.
My noble friend, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Harris and Lady Kennedy, the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Collins and Lord hunt, my noble friends Lady Hodgson and Lady Sugg, and others, raised issues about Xinjiang, in particular. The Government have taken robust measures in respect of UK supply chains. We have introduced new guidance for UK businesses on the risks of doing business in Xinjiang, supported by a programme of ministerial engagement, and we have announced enhanced export controls, as well as the introduction of financial penalties under the Modern Slavery Act. Taken together, these measures will help to ensure that no British organisations —government or private sector, deliberately or inadvertently—are profiting from or contributing to human rights violations against the Uighurs or other minorities.
I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked me a series of questions. If he will allow me, I will write to him on those that I am unable to answer today. The same applies to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to whom I listened with great care.
For the multiple reasons that I have set out, I cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment. I hope, nevertheless, that I have been informative, and that he will have derived at least some reassurance from what I have said about the seriousness with which the Government view the issues around human rights violations, and the actions that we are taking.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord and noble Baroness who has taken part in the debate, every single one of whom spoke in favour of the amendment, apart from my noble friend Lord Howe—I perfectly understand that he had to adhere to the DHSC brief. I am certain that, if every other noble Lord were to speak in the debate, each one would support the amendment as well.
I am grateful for the particularly powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on determining the provenance of goods. Just as an aside, I can tell the House that, before Christmas, I thought I would impress my wife by trying to buy a couple of Oxford pillowslips myself, without troubling her. I wanted something with a thread count of over 400—for my delicate little skin, of course—and it took me hours and hours on the web to try to find a supplier among the major retailers that could guarantee that it would not be from Xinjiang province. I ended up contacting one supplier and asking, and three weeks later it replied by email guaranteeing me that the cotton was not from Xinjiang. I bought the pillowslips, and I still do not know whether or not I have been sold a pup—but they are quite nice against the skin. The noble Lord is right: we can tackle this problem only if we can trace provenance, and using DNA or other scientific evidence may be the best way to do that.
I do not want to go down the route of criticising some of the initial contracts that the Government entered into, as some noble Lords have done. There is no doubt about it: we were ripped off by some of them, we bought some duff equipment, and there will have been some dodgy contracts. But I remember that, at the time, every medic was calling out, “Get us PPE from wherever you can!” The whole world was scrabbling to get PPE. If your house is on fire, you do not spend ages on the web trying to find the cheapest fire bucket; you buy whatever you can. So I do not want to spend time on whether those contracts were value for money; that is for another day.
Someone asked: when did genocide start? I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who was in the Chamber briefly, made a powerful speech a few months ago, saying that when genocide was happening, the whole world noticed that it was happening but did nothing about it, and then afterwards said that it must not happen again. We knew that Jews were being exterminated, and after 6 million were killed we said, “It must never happen again”. We knew what Pol Pot was doing, and afterwards we said, “It must never happen again”. We knew what Stalin was doing, and afterwards we said, “We must never let it happen again”. Then there was Srebrenica, and afterwards we said, “We must never let it happen again”. We know that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang province, yet we are just putting in place systems that may, one day, eventually, stop us trading with some of the people there who are committing genocide. That is not good enough. We must act faster than that.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I was going to oppose the question that Clause 80 stand part of the Bill, but I thought the order of speakers was going to be somewhat different. I am sorry—I am looking to my Front Bench for guidance.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My noble friend wrote to the Table Office and said that he did not want Clause 80 to stand part and that he wanted Amendment 217, which I shall be moving, to start this group, as it did originally.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It would help the House not to proceed with the debate on whether Clause 80 stand part of the Bill. Then we can move on to the amendments.
Baroness Wheeler
“Social care needs assessments
(1) A social care needs assessment must be carried out by the relevant local authority before a patient is discharged from hospital or within 2 weeks of the date of discharge.(2) Each integrated care board must agree with all relevant local authorities the process to apply for social care needs assessment in hospital or after discharge, including reporting on any failures to complete required assessments within the required time and any remedies or penalties that would apply in such cases.(3) Each integrated care board must ensure that—(a) arrangements made for the discharge of any patient without a relevant social care needs assessment are made with due regard to the care needs and welfare of the patient, and(b) the additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments after a patient has been discharged are met in full.(4) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the effectiveness of assessment of social care needs after hospital discharge, including the number of patients readmitted within 28 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would create protections for the provision of social care needs assessments. It includes requiring an assessment to be carried out either before a patient is discharged from hospital or within two weeks of discharge; and requiring ICBs to agree a process for the provision of assessments.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I am sorry about the confusion and I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for helping to clear it up.
Amendment 217 seeks to tighten up important safeguards for patients and their carers by adding a new clause after Clause 80. Clause 80 repeals current provisions under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 and regulations for hospital discharge, and paves the way for the discharge to access approach used particularly during the pandemic. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for allowing me to move this amendment and not opposing the question that this clause stand part. I know he will want to speak at some point during the debate.
We know that during the pandemic the discharge to access approach led to some very welcome and innovative practices in getting patients out of acute settings in hospital into safer environments. The approach also led to tragedy, when untested patients or patients with Covid were transferred into care homes, causing the rapid spread of infection and, sadly, hundreds of deaths that could and should have been avoided. Evidence from key stakeholders to the Commons committee dealing with the Bill reflected a very mixed experience of this new process. In some areas the perennial and disruptive issues around delayed transfer had eased and the process was working relatively well, while others sought much tougher safeguards or the end to the discharge to access process altogether.
Amendment 217 seeks to ensure the vital safeguards needed, which are particularly important since Clause 80 repeals key provisions but is not exactly clear on what replaces them. We are therefore seeking to add a new clause after Clause 80, ensuring that social care needs assessments take place by the local authority either before a patient’s discharge from hospital or within two weeks of discharge. It also requires the ICB to agree a process for the assessments with the local authority.
The amendment covers the need to have due regard to the care needs and welfare of the patient and ensures that the NHS meets in full local authority costs of caring for a patient while a social care needs assessment is taking place if the patient is discharged without one. It provides for the ICB to agree the social care needs assessment process with the local authority, including timescales and reporting on any failures, and the remedies and penalties that would apply if assessments were not carried out in the required time. We also call for monitoring and reporting to Parliament annually by the Secretary of State on the effectiveness of social care needs assessments after discharge, including information on patients who have had to be readmitted after 28 days.
Our amendment fully complements the remaining important amendments in this group, which seek to ensure effective safeguards before and during the hospital discharge process for carers as well as their loved ones under Clause 80, and for young carers under Clause 148. We fully support Amendment 219 providing an “NHS duty to carers” and ensuring that
“their health and wellbeing is taken into account”.
We support Amendment 221 on protecting carers’ rights and ensuring full consultation with them before discharge as well as consideration of their needs in terms of safety, information, services and support. We support Amendment 225 on the definition of carers, which restates the current and hard-fought-for legal rights of carers and young carers under the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014, including those relating to the parents and carers of disabled children. We also support Amendment 269 on the important right of young carers to needs assessments under the Children Act 1989 and the essential need for local authorities to consider the appropriateness of discharging a patient from hospital into the care of a young person.
Like other noble Lords, I am very grateful to the excellent briefings from Carers UK and from young carers. I look forward to the contributions of noble Lords. On hospital discharge, we know the original discharge to access guidance was twice published without any reference to carers. I suppose we must be grateful that the two paragraphs that have subsequently been added reinstate the Care Act Part 1 references and provisions for carers.
But this is not enough to maintain and protect the hard-fought-for rights of carers. Hospital discharge can be one of the most difficult points in the care system for both existing and new unpaid carers, who are often taking on caring responsibilities without the right information and support or consideration of the impact on the carer as well as the loved one. Indeed, this can be the most traumatic time for new carers other than, of course, the shock of, and coming to terms with, their loved one’s sudden illness or disability. I can certainly endorse that from my own experience and my discussions with many other carers I meet. I know that carers still have many serious concerns about the current guidance and I will leave it to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley to vent the anger and frustration that is felt over some aspects of the guidance.
Amendments 221 and 225 seek to retain carers and young carers’ current and legal rights under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges) Act 2003—which contains a direct requirement to identify and consult the carer before issuing a discharge notice—and other key legislation, including the Children Act and the Children and Families Act, relating to young carers and parent carers of disabled children. I have added my name to Amendment 225. I feel particularly strongly about the need to include a definition of “carers” in the Bill and to stop the Government in particular but also the media and others using “carers” when, in fact, they are referring to care workers and not unpaid carers. As Carers UK says, absolute clarity and getting the terms right means a great deal to carers, especially when they have so few concrete rights. The two roles are not the same; they are different. There is huge frustration on this issue among carers as it feels as if we are going backwards rather than forwards. I want to know from the Minister what the Government are going to do to address this situation.
On young carers, with recent research showing that there could be as many as 800,000 children providing regular care, Amendment 269 from the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which my noble friend Lady Merron has added her name, takes on even greater importance to ensure that arrangements for discharging patients without a care needs assessment do not unduly impact young carers. It would also ensure that assessments by councils include consideration of whether it is appropriate for a younger carer to provide care. As well as that, support services must be in place for the safe discharge of the parent. We know that caring for parents, siblings and other relatives will have a significant impact a young carer—on school attendance, exam results and on their well-being and future careers. Every classroom in the country is likely to have at least one carer, and we must ensure that they are fully supported.
This is an important group of amendments and I look forward to the debate in the hope that the Minister will recognise the need for the important issues outlined in the amendments to be included in the Bill. To remind noble Lords, at the height of the pandemic, there were an estimated 13.6 million unpaid carers in the UK, 1.4 million of whom provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week. They are more than twice as likely to be in poor health than those without a caring responsibility, and 72% of carers did not have a break from caring during the pandemic and are exhausted and worn out. Carers deserve better than this—there is much to do. These amendments would at least ensure that their existing legal rights are protected and built on. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I apologise for not forewarning noble Lords that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, wish to speak remotely on this group of amendments.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 219 in this group is in my name and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Meacher, for also signing it. Just before I speak to that amendment, can I say that I also support the other amendments in this group so helpfully introduced just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler? I find her clarification of the difference between care workers and unpaid carers particularly helpful and vital in this debate because unpaid carers are invisible.
My amendment deals with unpaid carers. I am very grateful for the briefing from Carers UK which estimates —as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler—that there are as many as 13.6 million unpaid carers in the UK and, shockingly, over 1.4 million people providing over 50 hours of unpaid care a week. My brother looked after my mother for eight years, probably for 40 to 50 hours a week for most of that time. It meant that he just could not work at all. He is not alone.
I am sure we all know someone who is an unpaid carer. Even if they want to fulfil this role for their loved ones, society and the Government need to recognise the difficulties this gives the carers. The census in 2011 showed that carers are more than twice as likely to be in poor health than those who do not have a caring role—and they need support too, especially if they are isolated at home with the person they are caring for, whether that is day services or short in-patient respite care. Some 72% of carers have not had any breaks from caring during the pandemic and, as a result, are exhausted and worn out.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too would have preferred to speak later in the debate. I am sure that there are other noble Lords who have tabled amendments from whom the Committee would have preferred to hear nearer the outset, but I understand that the Deputy Chairman of Committees does not the flexibility to allow this, and I am of course grateful for the opportunity to speak.
As we know, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial rise in mental ill-health across the general population. Not surprisingly, this effect has been particularly hard-felt among unpaid carers. Many carers, already leading confined lives, have struggled with lockdown. Young carers have suffered with the loss of schooling and, when schools returned, trying to ensure that the people they care for have been shielded from the virus. Many were unable to go back to school for fear of bringing the virus home. Many from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the digital resources to enable home schooling to be effective.
As we consider these amendments, I would like briefly to bring to the attention of noble Lords some remarkable work with carers being developed in Kingston upon Thames by Kingston Carers’ Network. KCN provides a range of crucial services to some 4,000 adult carers and 700 young carers from five to 18 years old. An important element of this support is nurturing the creativity of carers. Recognising, from the SHAPER research programme, which I mentioned in a previous debate, the positive effects of the arts on mental health and well-being, KCN is working with Rosetta Life to introduce three arts programmes for carers. Poetry and conversation provides co-created poetry workshops for adult carers, demystifying poetry and making it easier to approach. Participants have written and shared online poems about the challenges of caring. They have all said they would like more sessions.
KCN is trying to secure funding to participate with Rosetta Life in an international project called HeArt of Care. The idea is to offer master classes in dance, art making, photography, poetry and song writing for both adult and young carers. The project will create a website showing positive representations of the grace, dignity, compassion and joy of care and caregiving. The groups that would participate with KCN are a network of carers from Tyneside, Bristol Black Carers, Caregivers India and the End of Life Care Centre, Rwanda.
Another project is Room2Dream. Rosetta Life has a partnership with Dream a Dream in India, which works with 18 to 21 year-old carers who live in extreme poverty. This is one of 16 partnerships between young people in the UK and young people in refugee camps, conflict zones, hospices and adolescent psychiatric care. Young carers are offered poetry and song-writing workshops; they are given classes in film-making to enable them to create films about their poems and songs, and share them with other young carers not only in India but in, for example, Rwanda, Syria, Zimbabwe and Nepal. KCN is currently trying to secure funding for this initiative too.
These fledgling projects highlight the potential of the arts to improve the lives of unpaid carers and to enable them to have a voice that will be heard nationally and internationally. We should ensure that the system created through this legislation will underpin such ways to strengthen the resilience of carers and, beyond that, to enable them to flourish. These amendments will help. I look forward to a time when public policy, far more reliably and generously, supports unpaid carers to have better lives while they do their crucial work.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, for 25 years, I have been trying to bring the voice of carers into your Lordships’ House. I know, from the great amount of support I have received over those years, that the whole of your Lordships’ House agrees that we should recognise and value the enormous contribution of millions of people caring for families and friends, who do so much to support others, often at great personal cost. I make no apology for repeating the statistics: up to 13 million carers provide unpaid care worth £530 million a day, or £193 billion a year. They are indeed the backbone of our health and care system.
Ensuring that the health system identifies and supports carers in return is the least we can do, and that is the objective of the four amendments to which my name is added in this group. I am also very supportive of Amendment 217 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I thank her for her excellent introduction. I am strongly supportive of Amendment 219 and am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling it.
As Members will know, I have long called for the NHS to have stronger duties towards unpaid carers. The NHS depends heavily on the role and input of people who care unpaid, usually family and friends but quite often neighbours, in supporting people with long-term conditions and disabilities in the community. Research by Carers UK shows that more than half of carers say they feel invisible to the NHS; more than half of carers providing significant amounts of care were not involved in decisions about hospital discharge; and the majority of carers, over 60%, were not given enough information and advice to care safely, at the point of hospital discharge, for the person they care for.
Placing a duty on the NHS with regard to carers is needed, as there is currently neither a systemic nor systematic approach towards carers in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, a duty to carers would help greater integration between services. Currently, local authority social care sees carers as equal partners in care and very much part of the system, whereas carers can be invisible to the health system. This duty would also lead to direct benefits to the health system, including improved health and well-being, improved satisfaction with services, and reduced admissions and those all-too-frequent readmissions. More practically, it would avoid the significant omissions of carers in recent guidance on hospital discharge, to which I now turn.
Amendment 221 proposes to insert a new clause to protect carers’ rights. As it stands, Clause 80 is of great concern. Almost incredibly—I can hardly believe I am saying this—it removes from carers rights that have been hard fought for over many years and which were enshrined in the Care Act 2014 and the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. Many of your Lordships will remember those Acts and the many hours we spent on them.
This Bill repeals the legislation giving carers the fundamental right to have an assessment and ensuring that the services provided make sure that discharge from hospital is safe. There are endless horror stories about unsafe discharges and this issue has been debated extensively in another place. Hospital discharge is one of the most difficult points in the care system for unpaid carers, who often take on caring responsibilities without the right support.
Through Clause 80 in the Health and Care Bill, the Government are seeking to pass legislation that would enact the discharge to assess approach mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wheeler, which has recently been deployed by NHS England, by repealing, as I said, the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. Amendment 221, in my name and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Warner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield—to all of whom I am very grateful—would ensure that, in advance of any patient being discharged from hospital, the relevant NHS body must identify and consult any carer who is about to provide or will be providing care. This would ensure that the local authority is not the only statutory body with responsibilities towards carers and that the NHS plays its equal part. It would also ensure that the carer in question has services that protect their well-being and that assumptions are not being made that they will automatically provide care—assumptions that are made far too often.
Carers’ organisations are extremely concerned that the inclusion of carers in this guidance for discharge to assess is insufficient to protect carers’ rights. I ask the Minister, on what evidence basis is the move to discharge to assess better for unpaid carers? The evidence seems to be that discharge to assess is worse. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill recognises that it will lead to many carers having to take on even more care. It states:
“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this may result in a … reduction in work hours and associated financial costs.”
Are the Government really suggesting that carers go on to benefits—the carer’s allowance, for example, which is only £67 a week and recognised as a pathway to poverty?
I am sure the Minister is also aware that if a carer gives up work to care, they do not immediately get any benefits. That leaves them without any income at all. Or are the Government suggesting in their impact assessment that discharge to assess is better for carers by suggesting they take unpaid leave from work, in the process passing on the costs of hospital discharge to employers? Giving up work to care hurts the economy and costs businesses money in terms of recruitment and retention. So I would really like the Government to explain the thinking on this one, because I have lost count of the number of Ministers who have stood at the Dispatch Box and agreed with me that the best thing you can do for carers is enable them to stay in paid work as long as possible. So will the Minister please explain that to me—or better yet, be prepared to explain it to a group of carers that I am happy to arrange to meet him?
I turn now to Amendment 225, on the definition of a carer, which will be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. It may seem unbelievable, but when I started in the carers’ movement in the mid-1980s, the word “carer” was unknown. Yes, it was not even in the dictionary, and every time you typed “carer”, your spellcheck corrected it to “career”. Now the word is everywhere and, in a way, the unpaid carers movement is a victim of its own success, because everyone wants to be called a carer and it is increasingly used to describe paid care workers. Carers themselves actually have difficulty in identifying themselves as a carer—“I’m not a carer, I’m a mother, a husband, a daughter”, is what they say. This lack of identification is an obstacle to them accessing support, so a proper definition is vital and it must be all-encompassing, as set out in the amendment. We fought very hard to get these definitions acknowledged in statute, for example the Care Act 2014, and it is important that the word “carer” encompasses parent carers and young carers.
I point out that the purpose of this amendment is not to create anything new. It uses only existing legislative references. Its purpose is to ensure that the definition of carers in the Bill is entirely clear, so I see no possible reason for the Government to reject it.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and her powerful speech. I support the amendments in this group and will speak to my Amendment 225. First, I declare an interest as an unpaid carer myself, who has had to take on considerable additional caring responsibilities as a result of the pandemic. I enjoyed the description of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, of the use of poetry, because it is certainly a new hobby of mine, which I found very helpful during those long months of caring.
Mencap’s survey from the first wave of the pandemic in 2020 found that four in five carers of people with learning disabilities were taking on much more care of such people in their families because of the loss of paid support and daily activities for their family members. For many, it will take many months, even years, to return to pre-Covid levels of paid support to support those carers.
During the pandemic, care and carers were often spoken about as synonymous with care homes. I found it very discouraging as an unpaid carer myself to think that it was so little understood in government communications about the pandemic. I tabled this amendment to ensure clarity regarding to whom the Bill refers when it uses the term “carers”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, explained, it does this by providing existing definitions of carers that are present in related legislation. I too thank Carers UK for its helpful briefing and support.
The amendment is necessary because there is so much confusion about the term “carers”. It is used to describe paid care workers, who I prefer to describe as support workers, or perhaps carer support workers, but that is not the same as caring for a family member and caring about a family member, which is a central part of the role.
The amendment is necessary for another reason: the inclusion of parent carers and young carers more systematically, where appropriate, in the Bill’s consultation and involvement provisions. This should drive better practice and outcomes for all concerned as well as providing clarity.
The provisions in the Bill relating to carers to which this amendment refers do not mean that all groups of carers defined here must be consulted or involved for all services, but only where appropriate. It does, however, provide clarity. The Health and Social Care Act 2012, on which the legislation builds, did not define carers either, which in hindsight it probably should have. This is therefore an opportunity to refine the legislation based on this experience.
Carers UK’s view is that this amendment would improve the clarity and delivery of policy and practice. Family and friends who provide care often put their needs at the back of the queue, and yet the NHS would collapse without them. As already set out, young carers face particular health inequalities and challenges in caring. Evidence from the Children’s Society shows that one in three young carers has a mental health issue and 80% of young carers felt more isolated during the pandemic.
The amendment has the broad support of a variety of different organisations that deliver services and support to carers, and which would welcome this clarity. As well as Carers UK, this includes the Patients Association, MS Society and many local carers’ organisations. As they are the organisations which will be implementing the legislation, supporting and informing carers and providing clarity is essential.
When this issue was raised in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister said that “carer” should be defined in its everyday sense as unpaid carer. However, we already have sound legislation, which can be referred to, that defines carers. We need to ensure that the muddle of terms created during the pandemic is undone. I ask the Minister to define carers clearly in the Bill by accepting this amendment and to recognise the hugely invaluable role that carers play in our society.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my new room-mate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I agree with every word that she has just said. I also agree with the other speeches that we have heard in favour of the various amendments. I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her tireless campaign over 40 years on behalf of carers.
I have added my name to Amendment 219 but I will focus on my Amendment 269, which focuses on young carers. I am grateful to the three noble Baronesses who have added their names. Might I be allowed a word on one line in Clause 80, whose future I thought we were debating in this group but which has now been incorporated into the Bill? The line is:
“The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act 2003 is repealed”.
Noble Lords with long memories may remember that Bill. At the time, I said it was the worst I had seen in 30 years. Instead of doing what this Bill seeks to do —to bring together health and social care to facilitate closer co-operation—it established an antagonistic relationship between the NHS on the one hand and social services on the other by enabling one part of the public sector unilaterally to fine another part. It was a friendless piece of legislation, heavily criticised in your Lordships’ House, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who had the misfortune to pilot it through, will doubtless confirm.
At the end, my noble friend Lord Howe said, nearly 20 years ago:
“On a more philosophical level, we need to ask ourselves whether this system of financially driven imperatives is what we want to see pervading the fabric of our public services wherever the NHS and social services interact. I am clear that it should not”.—[Official Report, 17/2/03; col. 929.]
How appropriate that, 20 years later, my noble friend helps to put the final nail in the coffin of that Bill. However, it had one redeeming feature: the obligation to assess prior to discharging a patient from hospital. However, as drafted, as other noble Lords have said, the proposals could have the unintended consequence of weakening protections for children who look after adult relatives.
My amendment is about young carers and is shaped by my experience when in another place of working with Andover Young Carers. Children barely in their teens were combining education with caring for disabled parents. The organisation was based in a small bungalow on a local authority estate, and it did heroic work, forging closer links with schools and children’s services. Some of the children spent more than 30 hours each week looking after parents and elderly relatives—almost the equivalent of a full-time job—as well as often having caring responsibilities for younger siblings. They cooked, did the housework, shopped, collected prescriptions, leaving little or no time to enjoy their childhood. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, spoke movingly about the work of young carers in Kingston.
According to research from 2018, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, told us, there are more than 800,000 young carers in the UK. Recent figures show that 180,000 children in England who care for an ill or disabled relative are missing out on support, simply because they are not known to their local authority. Hence the need for this amendment which ensures that young carers are identified before adults are sent home from hospital to be looked after by them. If contact with adult carers is necessary, as we have heard, it is doubly necessary for young carers.
This is because we have clear evidence from Barnardo’s—I am grateful for its briefing—which shows that adults are being discharged from hospital into the care of children, without first making sure that these children are aware of their new responsibilities and that they have the support necessary to enable them to discharge them. I fear this is set to only get worse, placing more caring responsibilities on small shoulders, unless the Bill as currently drafted is amended.
The Care Act 2014 gave a young carer under the age of 18 the right to a needs assessment and placed a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to identify young carers in their area who may need support. Yet, in its report Still Hidden, Still Ignored, Barnardo’s found that young carers were still slipping through the net. Its finding is reinforced by the latest CQC survey, which found that 21% of people did not have their family or home situation taken into account when staff prepared them for discharge, a point referred to in the excellent paper which many noble Lords received today from Dr Moore at the University of Manchester.
This amendment places an obligation on the NHS to ascertain whether a patient will be cared for primarily by a young carer and, if so, to contact the local authority concerned for an assessment and the necessary support. This will not delay discharge but would ensure that hospital staff ask if a child under 18 will be the primary carer. If the answer is yes, the hospital should contact the relevant local authority which will ensure that a needs assessment is carried out.
I know the Government have made positive steps to ensure that the needs of young carers are recognised in the guidance which will accompany this Bill, and for that I am grateful. However, without a clear duty on hospitals to establish whether a patient is being discharged into the care of a child, the current situation is likely to continue. Guidance is worthy, but sadly not definitive. Therefore, the pathway for young carers to get the local authority assessment they are entitled to needs to be strengthened and here the health service is the key missing link. I speak to this amendment today because young people who care carry huge responsibilities and we must, as a society, do more to ensure they can live the flourishing lives they deserve.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Young, has been so persuasive and I endorse what he said about young carers. As someone who has been involved with carers for almost as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley—I now regard her as my general in these matters—I want to focus on Amendment 221, to which I have added my name.
It is worth remembering that this Bill is being considered in the context of adult social care funding having been starved, in my view, by three successive Governments. Even when huge sums of money are being raised for health and care through a national insurance levy, social care has to wait its turn. A bit like Oliver Twist, it is at the end of the queue—hopefully there will be some money left in the coffers after the NHS has removed a substantial part of it. That context is very important.
In that context, I find it surprising that somebody somewhere in the Department of Health and Social Care thinks it is a good idea, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, to weaken the protections for carers. It is worth bearing in mind that one in five carers now waits over six months for an assessment. In a survey from last November, only 24% of carers had received a carers’ assessment or reassessment in the past year. This is the context in which officialdom and Ministers have thought it a good idea to weaken the protections provided in the 2003 Act. There may have been some weaknesses in that Act, but this was not one of them, as it provided for the NHS to undertake these assessments before people were withdrawn. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is not in his place, but he was the person who took that Bill through and achieved support for that protection for carers.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for the confusion at the beginning of this debate. My understanding of the ways of this House is still a work in progress. I gave notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 80 stand part to provide the Government with an opportunity to explain more clearly than they have their intentions for the management of hospital discharge. I hope in so doing they can allay the concerns that surround the proposal to revoke Section 74 of the Care Act 2014. For example, there are the concerns of the National Care Forum, which points to the danger that
“the removal of an assessment prior to discharge will result in less priority to undertake the assessment once someone has left hospital—for someone needing support to remain in their own home, this is concerning.”
The process of hospital discharge is a crucial element within the integrated care system established by this proposed legislation. From the perspective of the service user, this is where it all comes together. It must be done right. The Explanatory Notes tell us that this clause introduces flexibility for local areas to adopt the discharge model that best meets local needs, including an approach known in England as discharge to assess, the argument being that people will be assessed at a point of optimum recovery, allowing a more accurate evaluation of their needs. Who could possibly object?
The first problem is that there is a widespread lack of trust in the Government’s motives and intentions on this, like on other changes in the Bill. It is possible to argue that the change means that people will be assessed where most appropriate. But it is also possible to argue that the change will facilitate premature discharge that is in the interests of the service provider, not the people receiving the service. As well as explaining and stressing the advantages of the proposed change, the Minister needs to tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that it will not lead to the disadvantages that many of those involved in the process fear.
The second issue that the Government need to address is that hospital discharge is still seen predominantly as a medical matter, with concern that insufficient attention is given to the social care aspects. A survey from December 2020 of social workers who were involved in hospital discharges made it clear that the vital contribution of social work in the multidisciplinary team was being marginalised by the medicalisation of people’s journeys out of hospital. Most importantly, social workers were found to feel that the voice of the individual, the person receiving the service, was being lost, indicating that arrangements were being made without consent or against people’s views and wishes.
It is also important to understand the context within which this change is proposed. On the one hand, there is the current crisis in social care. Even without the impact of the Covid pandemic, demand is outstripping supply, there are waiting lists for assessments of need and support, and local authorities are operating with significantly reduced budgets following a decade of austerity. On the other hand, there is the widely understood pressure on the hospital sector, with increased demand and mounting waiting lists. Both these factors are the result of the long-term underfunding of our system of health and social care. This will have to be addressed—just let it not be at the cost of the service user.
We must ensure that community health teams and social care teams have the resources they need to provide a needs assessment as soon as an individual is discharged. Too often, the issue of hospital discharge is discussed in terms of the needs of the service and not of the individual person.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this group of amendments, but I want to focus particularly on Amendment 219. There are around 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK, a number which increased to 13.6 million, or about one-fifth of the population, during the height of the pandemic. Some 1.4 million people provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care per week. Unpaid carers are often relied on to provide this care, yet receive minimal or no formal support themselves. Instead, many report feeling isolated, undervalued and pressured by the challenges of stress and responsibility. Being a carer is emotional and physical labour.
A lot has been said about the Carers UK survey, which identified that 56% of unpaid carers were not involved in decisions about patients’ discharge, with seven out of 10 respondents not being asked whether they were able to cope with having the patient back home and six out of 10 receiving insufficient support to protect their own or the patient’s health and well-being. This lack of support reflects the absence of a unified and systematic approach to identifying and supporting unpaid carers. It demands urgent remediation, especially as we know that unpaid carers are twice as likely as non-carers to have ill health, and the majority have reported worsening mental and physical health during the pandemic.
I endorse Amendment 219 because it talks about carers who work with people who come into contact not just with hospital services but with NHS services. In my work as a community mental health nurse, in many instances I saw that people were not admitted to hospital for years—which was actually a very good outcome—but their carers’ needs were just as great in supporting them with long-term problems in their own homes. This amendment would create a duty in respect of any person receiving NHS care, whether that is in the community or in hospital. The NHS must identify unpaid carers, particularly young carers, and ensure that their health and well-being are properly considered. This is a vital public health duty.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I particularly endorse Amendment 269 regarding young carers, which was spoken to so compellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I wish to speak primarily about Amendment 221, to which my name is attached. It is about protecting existing rights of carers. I know that the point has already been made, but it is worth repeating. Amendment 221 would retain existing rights being taken away by this Bill as it repeals the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. I find that a pretty extraordinary position to be in.
I want briefly to focus on the impact of caring particularly on women and employment, without in any way wishing to diminish the very important role played by male carers within the family. It is just a fact that women are more likely than men to be carers. According to some research conducted by Carers UK with the Universities of Sheffield and Birmingham, women have a good chance of becoming carers 11 years before men. Women are also more likely to reduce their working hours in order to care, and they are more likely as a result to have lower incomes and end up under-pensioned in retirement.
As we have heard, hospital discharge can be a pivotal moment for people providing care, particularly women. This amendment would ensure that assumptions are not made about carers’ ability to care, even when they may be working at the same time, that a solution is discussed and, ideally, agreed between families and services, and that carers are provided with the support they need to enable them to care safely and well. For those carers who are juggling work and care, which I can relate to personally, it is essential that their health and well-being are supported. This also has a positive benefit for employers. During the pandemic, the Carers UK research already referred to found an increase of around 2.8 million in the number of people who were juggling work and care, the majority of whom were women. Prior to the pandemic, some 600 carers a day were giving up work to care. During the pandemic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, reminded us, carers have become the backbone of the care system, protecting the NHS and social care in many cases from collapse.
The Carers UK research also found that 72% of carers providing substantial care and working were worried about continuing to juggle care and work, and 77% of carers said that they felt tired all the time at work because of their caring responsibilities. During the pandemic, 23% of working-age carers providing substantial care had given up work, lost their jobs, lowered working hours or lost income if they were self-employed.
As the NHS works to reduce the backlog of care, hospital discharges will become ever more critical, as will support for carers. The two go hand in hand, and we must not fail those who have so selflessly shouldered such a heavy load.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in this group, but I have added my name to Amendment 217 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. There are two separate but related issues in this group of amendments, and it might be helpful for a moment to focus on them. The first is the needs of patients who are facing discharge from hospital. The second is the needs of unpaid carers in situations where patients are sent home from hospital. That second issue is covered particularly by Amendments 219, 221, 225 and 269. I support all of them, and commend the work and the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the passionate speech from my noble friend Lord Young.
I wholeheartedly share the concerns about the repeal of the provisions in the Care Act 2014. The issue of patients needing to be discharged from hospital sometimes seems to be spoken of as if we are discussing objects rather than people.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 219, and I support all the amendment in this group. In view of the number of excellent speeches that have been made, I have given up on my speech and just want to ask the Minister a question. I am sure he finds it completely unacceptable that half of carers who provide significant care for a loved one say they have not even been consulted about a discharge from hospital and two-thirds of them say that they have not been listened to about whether they are able to care for their loved one when that person might be coming out of hospital. I ask the Minister to assure the Committee that he will be able to bring back an amendment on Report on this critical issue.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I support in particular Amendment 217. In so doing, I draw the attention of the Committee to my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I want to make three very clear points about this. First, this amendment refers to assessment; it does not refer to the package of care. The assessment is the first stage, before the social workers and before adaptation or anything else can happen, so the person leaving hospital gets a sense of independence and support to lead as independent a life as possible and to help them in their recovery. Evidence shows that the best way to start the assessment is on the day that the person is admitted. It is not about waiting for an optimal time. The assessment may change as the person progresses, but all the evidence shows that assessment should start on admission. The concept that there is an optimum point does not stand up to the evidence.
Secondly, having this framework within the Bill, with timescales and so on, does not stop local innovation, it just gives a framework for local innovation and integration to take place.
My third point is a question. I know of no condition—unless the Minister can inform the Committee of one—where starting the assessment two weeks after a person leaves hospital is in the best interests of that person; they may have to wait six, seven or eight weeks for the package of care to be put in place. Can the Minister tell us for which conditions the suitable and optimum point at which to start the assessment is after a person has left hospital?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, after this rich and informative debate, I will briefly make two points and offer the Green group’s support for all these amendments.
I share the shock expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and others that we are in a situation where in the House of Lords we are trying to put the situation back to what it was before because the Bill is making it so much worse.
I particularly want to address Amendment 269 about young carers. I should perhaps declare that I have never been carer—I have not been in that situation. But I want to share a little bit of what I learned from Sophie Dishman, who I met in 2015, when she was a student at the University of Sunderland. She told me that she became a carer at about the age of 12, but that it was only when she was 18 that she realised that she was a carer—a point that many others have addressed. As well as continuing to care, she created a campaign at the University of Sunderland to inform others about the situation and perhaps help others identify themselves as a carer. She produced a very clever, witty, attractive tote bag, with the line, “Being a carer at uni can be a lot to carry around”, a check list of all the things that you might have to do being both a student and a carer, and a useful leaflet, designed for staff in particular, showing signs that a carer might need help.
I want to make the point, which I do not think anyone else has made, that young carers are by nature people who have developed an enormous amount of capability, knowledge and skills. They are amazing individuals. It is not only the right thing to do but in society’s interest to make sure they are able, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said earlier, to flourish and develop those capabilities. It is in our interest to do that.
I want to point to an article that has been out for only a couple of weeks, in volume 27, issue 1 of Child & Family Social Work. The headline is
“It’s making his bad days into my bad days”,
and the article is about young carers in the Covid emergency. This is where we are now. It is about just how much more difficult the withdrawal of services has made it for carers, particularly young carers. We have a huge, as yet uncertain, but certainly large, burden from long Covid, and many people will be taking on huge caring responsibilities because of it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is the general, we are all her foot soldiers. There have been some excellent speeches. In particular, the noble Baroness outlined for us what are, I hope, the unintended consequences of what the Government are doing in their proposals about discharge to assess. It does not seem right that it is up to this House to put back the rights and abilities of carers to do their caring without too much impact on themselves. I hope the Minister heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about that. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, how much worse the situation has been for so many carers—in particular those who care for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems—during the pandemic, when, unfortunately, it was necessary to withdraw certain services that they normally rely upon. I hope that, when we have heard the Minister’s response, we can come back to Clause 80 on Report if we are not satisfied with the Government’s response, because the situation is not good, even now.
I am grateful to Carers UK and Barnardo’s, which have given us some dreadful horror stories about the situation of carers when the person they care for is being discharged from hospital. One of the worst that I read about was when the carer was only told when the person being discharged was actually in the ambulance on the way home. They had to run around trying to get a commode, which that person would certainly need when they got home. The situation is so much worse for a young carer who does not necessarily know their way around the system in the same way that an adult carer might. Although I support all the amendments in this group, that is why I added my name to Amendment 269 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. It is all about the need to identify and ensure appropriate support for young carers before a patient leaves hospital. I really take on board my noble friend Lord Scriven’s view that you should not do it at the end of the stay in hospital: you should start thinking about it when the person goes into hospital.
Caring for a sick or disabled person, no matter how strong the bonds of love, is a difficult and exhausting challenge. It is hard enough for adults, the majority of whom, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Tyler, are women; we have heard about the effects on their finances and pensions. Many adults do not feel equipped to do it adequately, and it is even harder for children. How can a child be expected to have the knowledge and skills needed to care adequately for an adult and, at the same time, benefit from education and prepare for their own future life?
We know that circumstances sometimes put children in this position, but it is essential that public services provide as much support as possible. However, we know that, although it is estimated that there might be around 800,000 young carers in the whole of the UK, sometimes even their school does not know who they are. In some cases, the young carers themselves prefer it that way, because they see it as a stigma or something that their friends might not quite understand; but it does mean, of course, that they do not get the help that they need, and neither does the person being cared for.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, that a proper assessment must be done either before the patient leaves hospital or very promptly post discharge. I hear all the problems about that; yet, carers, according to an ONS report in 2017, save the state more than £60 billion every year, which is more than is spent on formal caring—although it is not clear how much of that is saved by young carers. On the other hand, it has been assessed that a family with a young carer has an income, on average, £5,000 a year lower than other families—so these families are often poor too.
Local authorities already have considerable duties relating to identifying, assessing and supporting young carers, and we have heard of at least two very good schemes. Many of them do it very well, despite the fact that some of these young people are hard to find. However, it is essential that some duties also apply to the NHS, and they must not be lost in the move to integrated care systems. Adequate focus must be placed on these duties by the ICB having a rigorous system or framework to ensure a process for assessment. As my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, this is step one in ensuring that needs are subsequently met.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. We are looking to move towards a more integrated care system for precisely some of the reasons that noble Lords have laid out: that a patient is discharged by a hospital but it is not done in an integrated way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said, during the pandemic local authorities and the NHS developed innovative ways to support better discharge from hospital to community care, and what we want to see is discharge to assess as one model. In some cases, it might be the best model: for example, where people are over the age of 80, the longer they stay in hospital, the more you see muscular deterioration. That is one of the reasons given for why, in some cases, discharge to assess might be the most appropriate.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow. I have been listening very carefully to this. What I do not understand is what happens if there is not enough resource in the local authority. Local authorities have had pretty poor treatment over the last decade compared with the NHS. If there is not enough resource to either do an assessment or meet the needs of that assessment, does it then fall to the NHS to plug the gap if it wants to get the person out of hospital? We would like a little more clarity on that particular aspect.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The goal is to make sure that the NHS and local authorities work better together. The noble Lord talks about resources. One of the reasons for the levy—whatever one thinks of it—is to help plug that gap and to make sure that there is more money going into social care as well.
Turning to the points made about the term “carer”, we believe that the term is used to capture the whole spectrum of carers, including children and adults who care, unpaid, for a friend or family member. By not imposing a statutory definition, we avoid inadvertently excluding groups, and ensure that ICBs and NHS England promote the involvement of all types of carers and representatives.
Turning to the last amendment in this group, existing legislation already requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of need for all young carers upon request or on the appearance of need. This assessment must consider whether it is appropriate or excessive for the young carer to provide care, in the light of the young carer’s needs and wishes. Indeed, as some noble Lords have said, sometimes what happens is that the hospital may decide it is appropriate but those who are supposed to be doing the caring at home do not feel they have the ability.
We hope that under this, as part of the discharge planning, the current discharge guidance can set out any considerations that should be given to young people in the household who have caring responsibilities. We want to strengthen current processes in respect of young carers too. We are also working with the Department for Education to ensure that protections for young carers are reflected in the new guidance, including setting out where young carers should have a needs assessment arranged before a patient for whom they provide care is discharged, or as soon as possible afterwards.
Given the comments from noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner—sorry, I should say, General Pitkeathley and Major Warner—clearly there are still some concerns over how this will work. It would be worthwhile having some more conversations on this issue to better understand how we see integrated care working, where there may well be gaps in our understanding and whether we can help to close the gaps between the two sides.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, all strongly supporting this important group of amendments, which would ensure that the needs of both patients and carers were fully taken into account in the discharge process and that Clause 80 does not just wipe away carers’ rights—legal rights that have been hard-fought for. Although I am pleased that the Minister talked about further guidance being developed and co-produced, I cannot see how that will address the problem of replacing carers’ rights, which are being taken out of this Bill and need to be included in it.
I am also a bit disappointed that the Minister did not respond to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley or give her the reassurances that she was seeking over the deep concerns about the expectation in the current guidance that unpaid carers will need to take on even more unpaid work. She made her views quite clear on this: it is paid work that unpaid carers need, not to be forced on to or to stay on benefits. They can take up jobs only if they get the care and support that is needed in the home or from the services that they need.
Noble Lords have made it clear that the discharge to assess model has to be matched with proper funding and community and healthcare services. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, reminded us of the importance of this in respect of the carers of people with learning difficulties, who face particular problems in caring. It is also overwhelmingly clear that noble Lords strongly support the establishment and the carrying forward into the Bill of existing carers’ rights.
I hope the Minister will meet urgently with my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, Carers UK and others involved in these amendments, both to address the fundamentally wrong assumptions in the guidance about the role of unpaid carers and to ensure that their existing hard-won legal rights that have been taken away will be included. He also needs to provide the evidence called for by my noble friend on the overall assumption the Government are making that the discharge to assess process is better for carers than the existing rights that they have; it is not. This is a key issue that we will return to on Report, so I hope some action will be forthcoming from the government discussions between now and then.
On my own amendment, I would like to have heard a lot more reassurances about the timescales and timelines involved in the discharge process. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for his support, and for explaining why this issue is important and how, practically, it would work with local authorities. On young carers, I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, and everybody who has participated in that.
I remind the Minister of the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: in the discharge process and in the assessments of carers it is really important that the question be asked whether they are able to care and whether they want to care. I would like the Minister to take up that issue. I know that carers feel strongly about this, but quite often, even if they are asked, no notice is taken and they just have to get on with it and nothing else happens. I would particularly like to see a response to that.
On those few points, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I hope the Minister acts quickly to meet carers and their representatives.
Baroness Thornton
“Cap on private charges
(1) Section 43 of the National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) An NHS foundation trust does not fulfil its principal purpose if in any financial year the proportion of the total income of the trust derived from private charges is greater than in the previous financial year unless—(a) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have been notified of the intention that this increase will occur;(b) that intention has been published with a statement of the reasons why it is considered to benefit the NHS;(c) the appropriate integrated care boards and integrated care partnerships have used reasonable endeavours to consider any responses to the publication mentioned in paragraph (b); and(d) any integrated care board which has commissioned services from the trust, and the integrated care partnership for the board, have informed the NHS foundation trust that the proposed increase is justified.(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2B) “private charges” means charges imposed in respect of goods and services provided to patients other than patients being provided with goods and services for the purposes of the health service.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment prevents any Foundation Trust from increasing its income from private patients unless this is agreed by the relevant commissioning bodies and the appropriate integrated care partnerships.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 222 and 223, in my name, seek clarification about the private charges cap. Amendment 222 would prevent any foundation trust increasing its income from private patients unless this was agreed with the relevant commissioning bodies and the appropriate ICB. Amendment 223 would remove the power for NHS trusts and foundations to form subsidiary companies.
When foundation trusts were introduced in 2003, they were restricted in the amount of private patient work they could carry out. That was, in part, to alleviate concerns that they might unduly focus on generating income from private patients rather than tackling the then considerable waiting lists. The compromise stood for many years and proved to be little hindrance, although there is one trust on record that declined to move to foundation trust status because it did have a large private patient income—I will leave it to the Minister to work out which one it was. Overall, the regulations have been sufficient to ensure that such activity did not grow and waiting lists came down. The restriction only ever applied to foundation trusts—not to plain old NHS trusts, although we all know that they are, of course, subject to the will of the Secretary of State in all things anyway.
The notion of independence was reinforced under the new settlement of the 2012 Act. That removed the restrictions and allowed, at least notionally, for a foundation trust to move to have up to 50% of its income from private patients. Although there were some claims that this would lead to a huge acceleration of private patient work, once again that did not prove to be the case.
Now we arrive at today. The new Bill is based on the assumption that the logic of competition between acute trusts is indeed minimised and that they should be more focused on general good, and less on autonomy and their own bottom line than on co-operation between different parts of the NHS in their locality. Logic suggests that in this new world we should once again look at ensuring that private patient work has no adverse impact on the core work of the NHS. These amendments are similar to those that were used to ensure that private interests cannot be allowed to influence the work of ICBs, and that that should be recognised in the Bill.
I have another three, very detailed pages, but I will spare the Committee those. I beg to move.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed. That makes it 15 all, I think.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely, and I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too will be extremely brief on this, given the hour and the number of groups we have to go through.
I am very interested to hear the response of the Minister on this; it feels as though there has been a sort of gentle relaxation, and it would be good to understand the boundaries for foundation trusts around how much they can increase their income from private patients at exactly the time when we have a phenomenal NHS waiting list and people are becoming more seriously ill as a result of the pandemic and there are delays in getting their treatment.
I say this particularly in the light of two recent comments—as I will call them—by the Secretary of State for Health. One was about increasing the amount of contracting from the NHS to private hospitals to perform large numbers of investigations as part of the backlog, but this is becoming habit now in this exceptional time—we have bad flu winters as well, but this is an exceptional time. Perhaps slightly more worryingly, the other concerns proposals that were outlined, informally, by the Secretary of State a couple of days ago to change entirely the nature of contracts with GPs. I am concerned that some of the structures, particularly for foundation trusts, are being loosened without Parliament being aware. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton. I too will be brief. I have attached my name to the first of these amendments because it addresses such an important issue. We are seeing more and more signs of real competition between the resources being used for private work and for public purposes, for which the NHS is there. A report in the Guardian this month said that in January 2021, when there were enormous Covid pressures on hospitals in London, doctors wrote to their medical consultants begging them to reduce their private work so that their availability to those hospitals was greater. That is a measure of how Covid has accelerated and put extra pressures on the NHS.
I will quote from the websites of two hospitals, which I will not name; to do so would be unfair, as I suspect that they are very typical. One says:
“All profits from the provision of our private patient services are used to support the delivery of NHS clinical care for the benefit of all patients.”
Therefore, it is very easy to see how well-meaning people might say, “Well, if we do more private work, then we’ve got this money to put into our horribly underfunded public work”, but that is taking away terribly limited resources, particularly staff and staff resources, as we have discussed in considering so many other amendments. The other hospital’s website says of its private provision that it offers
“rapid access and flexibility for a wide range of conditions and care needs … the unit can also care for those patients admitted through”
the hospital’s
“emergency department who may wish to make use of their private insurance or indeed pay for their private care themselves.”
As noble Lords know or will recognise from my accent, I come from Australia, which has a two-tier system. Many people with resources have medical insurance, and the poorer people do not. There are clearly two utterly different levels of service, which means there is much less advocacy for, support for and fighting for public provision. If we look at the trend of travel, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is important and must be thought about in the context of foundation trusts and much more broadly.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Well done. You need Baronesses to do this: they get to the point and get it done.
I thank noble Lords for explaining these amendments. As they may recall, in 2012 we abolished the private patient cap while clarifying that the foundation trusts’ principal purpose is
“the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England”.
This means that foundation trusts must make the majority of their income from NHS activity and must always have as their primary purpose the delivery of NHS services. We also retained the requirement that additional income should be used to benefit NHS patient care, and it has been used across the system to offset such things as maintenance costs, to finance alternative transport such as park and-ride and to fund patient care.
This amendment would introduce a new cap by requiring foundation trusts to agree with their ICB and ICP their income from non-NHS sources. However, this would be a significant bureaucratic burden on foundation trusts and would require them to forgo raising additional income or seek agreement via a multi-stage process before doing so. It would also mark a significant new restriction on foundation trusts’ freedoms and autonomy.
Similarly, Amendment 233 would restrict the freedom of NHS organisations to decide locally the most appropriate structures they need to support their operations. There are multiple reasons for trusts setting up subsidiary companies, including providing services for other trusts and being able to attract staff from the local employment market. Creating a subsidiary can also be an alternative to outsourcing services to the private sector, thereby maintaining its staff within the NHS family. Importantly, in November 2018 NHS Improvement issued guidance to trusts about forming or changing a subsidiary. Under that guidance, all subsidiary proposals must be referred to NHS Improvement for review. NHS England and NHS Improvement paused their update of the guidance to trusts on subsidiary companies to allow the sector to focus on supporting the response to Covid-19 and the recovery of services. However, we remain committed to the review and the publication of this updated guidance is now set for early summer 2022.
I hope I have given the noble Baroness sufficient reassurance for her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister and am very pleased indeed to hear about the review. However, we on this side of the House believe that the NHS should be the default provider of clinical services and, if it is not the only provider, it should be the predominant one in geographical and service terms. That means that there must be investment in the NHS, not in the private sector. It is that balance, which we must ensure is in this Bill, that has protected NHS clinical services in the past.
I will read what the noble Baroness has said very carefully, and I might need further reassurance in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Access to NHS dentistry
The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, publish a statement setting out what measures the Government is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement of what measures the Government is taking to ensure universal access to NHS dentistry.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that I do not slow us down again after the provocative words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, but I am going to talk about access to dental treatment and fluoridation. Although the House is somewhat empty, I expect that as the debate goes on it might fill up a little.
We had an Oral Question this afternoon about dentistry, and I do not want to repeat everything that was said then. I have enjoyed debating dental issues with the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for many years. He will know that there is widespread concern about the lack of access to dentistry. At Oral Questions the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, referred to the £50 million that had been provided, but I am afraid that the 350,000 treatments that it will pay for are a drop in the ocean compared with the 38 million patient treatments that have been lost as a result of the pandemic.
Many people are finding accessing dentistry almost impossible at the moment. The Minister referred earlier today to people being able to use the access centres, and to the 111 service, but I am afraid that it has broken down in many parts of the country. One is led to the conclusion that dentistry issues are not a priority. Many adults and children are suffering in pain because of their lack of access. The Government must focus on this and develop a proper strategy. I pay tribute to Healthwatch for its work in this area—it has had a lot of interest from members of the public—and to the BDA for its briefings.
Treatment is one thing, prevention is another. Here, I must remind the Committee of my presidency of the British Fluoridation Society. This brings me to effective preventive measures. I welcome Clauses 147 and 148. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is not here to hear me say this, but essentially, giving this responsibility to local authorities has proved to be a failure. Not one local fluoridation scheme has gone through under the auspices of local authority leadership, and we must conclude that leaving it to local authorities is likely to mean that we will not see fluoridation developed in any part of the country.
So this is a national issue and it is right that the Secretary State should take over responsibility; it is also right to acknowledge that, in September last year, the four Chief Medical Officers stated:
“As with all things in medicine and public health there is a balance of risk and benefit.”
We have certainly learned that in the last two years. As they said:
“There is unquestionably an issue with tooth decay in the UK and an entrenched inequality which needs to be addressed. Fluoridation of water can reduce this common problem … On balance, there is strong scientific evidence that water fluoridation is an effective public health intervention for reducing the prevalence of tooth decay and improving dental health equality across the UK. It should be seen as a complementary strategy, not a substitute for other effective methods of increasing fluoride use.”
I think that is a very wise assessment of the situation. The effectiveness of fluoridation of water supplies to improve oral health has been evident for many decades. Some communities such as my own—Birmingham—have taken advantage and, as a result, we generally enjoy good overall oral health, but progress in spreading these benefits has been very slow. The transfer to local government, I am afraid, did not work.
So I strongly support the thrust of these clauses; in fact, they are the two most welcome clauses in the whole Bill. The question, however, is whether they will bite, and this is what lies behind my amendments. Amendment 260 concerns the consultation process. I do not think I have got the wording in quite the right place—frankly, trying to find my way through the Water Act and changes to it over the last 20 years or so proved beyond me—but the intent is to ask: if there is to be consultation about schemes, please can we move away from the local consultations that have to be gone through at the moment? They are an absolute nightmare. They bring out opposition from national bodies that causes mayhem in the locality.
The issue is not the practicalities of the scheme but about going back over the principle. The very fact that the Government have brought these clauses has decided the principle of the benefit of fluoridation. If there is to be a consultation, for goodness’ sake, let us have just one instead of the myriad local consultations that have obviously got in the way of progress in the past.
My Amendment 261 is part probing. Currently, the Bill gives the Secretary State power to make regulations to require a public body to meet the costs to the Secretary of State in relation to fluoridation schemes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the reasons and circumstances under which they would be used. My concern would be that asking too hard a subvention of local bodies might inhibit the progress of fluoridation schemes. Amendment 262 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that a programme for implementing water fluoridation schemes is established within 12 months of the Bill being passed. I would like to see a report every three years, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State, on the progress made in implementing new water fluoridation schemes. The basic purpose would be to ensure that the Government get on with this, establishing more schemes and spreading the benefits across the entire community as soon as possible. I beg to move, and hope that I have met the noble Baroness’s test.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 260, 261 and 262 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on water fluoridation.
The NHS rightly prides itself on being evidence-based. Nevertheless, when Ara Darzi became health Minister, he was concerned that, in a number of areas such as the treatment of diabetes, there was not a full assessment of regular outcomes, as opposed to the fantastic clinical trials on new treatments for specific diseases. Hence, he introduced his atlas of outcomes. It showed, for example, absolutely unacceptable different outcomes for diabetes if you lived in Cornwall—where you were more likely to lose a leg—compared with Essex. There were serious lessons to be drawn from that, which needed to be applied in other areas, too.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name in opposition to Clauses 147 and 148 standing part of the Bill—tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. These clauses enshrine the Government’s intentions to expand the rollout of water fluoridation throughout the UK. In case the House should decide that they remain, I will also speak to Amendments 259B and 259D in my name, which would make the implementation of the policy conditional on an environmental impact assessment and the analysis of recent US Government-funded, peer-reviewed studies.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh apologises for not being present in the Chamber today, as she has been pinged. However, she wanted me to convey her support of Amendments 259B and 259D.
It is most unfortunate that the important topic of water fluoridation has not been granted a full debate of its own in this House. That it has been slipped in by these back-door clauses does a huge disservice to the issue and detracts from the important debate over the Health and Care Bill itself. These clauses in effect ride roughshod over the current status quo on water fluoridation in terms of legal precedent; they also ignore the existence of effective alternative strategies for fighting tooth decay, as practised not only in Scotland but in most other countries in the world.
While roughly 10% of the population lives in artificially fluoridated communities, it is true that no areas have been added since the late 1980s. Successive Governments have tried to increase the coverage but have failed, including in Southampton a few years ago, because the measure meets stubborn resistance from local communities, who do not wish to be mandated to drink fluoridated water. In Scotland, Lord Jauncey in the case of McColl v Strathclyde Council 1983 concluded that fluoridation amounted to illegitimate medical treatment via the public water supply. Since then, the health service in Scotland has focused on other measures to improve children’s oral health, with a considerable degree of success.
The government policy paper used to support the insertion of these two unfortunate clauses appears to report only what the fluoridation proponents want Ministers to hear: namely, that the practice benefits teeth and poses no threat to the rest of the body. However, four high-quality US Government-funded studies published since 2017, all peer reviewed, looked at the effects on the brain. Each one reached concerning conclusions. The first of these studies, by Bashash et al, appeared in the high-impact journal Environmental Health Perspectives in 2017. This mother-child cohort study showed a four-to-five-point loss of IQ in offspring associated with maternal fluoride intake, typically experienced in a fluoridated community. Some 300 mother-baby pairs were followed for 12 years, with a mother’s fluoride exposure measured directly via urinary fluoride level, and the paired offspring’s IQ was measured at four, and at six to 12, years of age.
Since this study a further three, similarly robust US- Government funded studies—Bashash 2018, Green 2019 and Till 2020—all point in the same direction: damage to the infant brain, IQ loss, and/or increased ADHD symptoms associated with fluoride exposure at the doses experienced in artificially fluoridated communities—which, I might add, were at lower fluoridation levels than those considered for the UK, with 0.7 ppm versus 1 ppm. According to Dr Philippe Grandjean from Harvard University,
“Fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury.”
Another recent study in 2015 by Professor Stephen Peckham, an adviser to the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, chaired by Jeremy Hunt, showed that incidences of hyperthyroidism are nearly twice as likely to report high prevalence in the West Midlands, which is a fluoridated area, in comparison to non-fluoridated Greater Manchester. Professor Peckham’s study has been omitted from the policy paper’s references. So, too, has the conclusion of the important 2015 Cochrane review, which found as follows: no strong evidence that fluoridation reduced tooth decay in adults; no strong evidence that tooth decay increased when fluoridation was halted in a community; and, contrary to claims from promoters that fluoridation helps low-income children, it found:
“There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across”
socioeconomic status. All these scientific findings are extremely important, but I find it very worrying that they appear either to have been ignored or dismissed by the authors of this policy paper. Amendment 259D commits the Government to have these four US studies reviewed by expert toxicologists.
I turn to the matter of why fluoride in the UK is not considered a medicine when the WHO has recently classified it as such. Why do the Government refuse to do the same? They contend that water fluoridation has a medical benefit in terms of reduced tooth decay. Could it be that by defining fluoridation water as medicine, the Government then submit themselves to regulation and scrutiny? The MHRA is responsible for the licensing requirements for medicinal products. If fluoridated water were treated as a medicine, individuals would then have the absolute right to refuse the administration of water fluoridation by choice, and industrial-grade fluoridating chemicals would not be allowed. Of course, if it were defined as a medicine, it could not be administered without consent. When fluoride is delivered via toothpaste, the individual has a choice in the matter. When it is carried through the public water supply, there is no individual choice and the ingested fluoride goes to every tissue in the body, including those of the unborn child. This is particularly unfortunate for lower-income families, who cannot take avoidance measures such as bottled water or filters. Moreover, there is no assessment of individual health, size, dose, physical and mental state. Contrary to the direction of modern medicine, whereby treatments are increasingly tailored to the individual, water fluoridation is a crude, one-size-fits-all strategy.
The legality of the Government’s determination to avoid defining water fluoridation as medicine is questionable. The Supreme Court of Canada in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto case in 1957 held that fluoridation was using the water supply for a medicinal purpose, which was separately reaffirmed by Lord Jauncey years later. The Lord Jauncey decision explains why Scotland has no communities with artificial fluoridation. The Scottish health department, to its credit, instead has developed an exciting programme called Childsmile. This is a programme of early education on both dental hygiene and diet. It involves both schools and parents and has proved successful and cost effective. Not only has dental decay been reduced but the overall health of children in terms of fighting sugar consumption and obesity has been improved. This programme is relevant to the cut and thrust of the Bill but it has been ignored in the policy paper. Given the success of Childsmile in Scotland, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider a rollout of this programme throughout the UK?
It is conservatively estimated that only 2% of the water supplied by water companies is consumed by domestic users. This would mean that 98% of the water containing fluoride would re-enter waterways, with the potential for damaging plant and aquatic life and entering the food chain. Under the EU dangerous substances directive, fluorides are classified as deleterious to the aquatic environment. Last month, the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place published a report concluding that a chemical cocktail is polluting English rivers and putting public health and nature at risk. We must refrain from adding fluoride to the toxic mix. I add that, in addition to the toxicity of fluoride itself, contaminants such as lead and arsenic are often present in the industrial-grade fluoridation chemicals used. These frequently derive from the hazardous waste of the phosphate fertiliser industry. Given the repercussions for the environment, our waterways, animals, fish and other wildlife from this policy, it seems surprising that Defra does not appear to have been involved in the decision-making process for water fluoridation. Perhaps the Minister can explain why.
Last year, we heard the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announce that £10 million will be charged to water bill-payers for the rollout of water fluoridation. However, I suggest that it will cost taxpayers considerably more. Greater Manchester has around 22 treatment plants, which would need to be refitted for £1 million to £2 million each. Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation, to cover parts of the UK not already fluoridated will conservatively cost in excess of £300 million, excluding chemicals or running expenses. The policy paper fails to reveal how much the proposals will actually cost.
Perhaps the Minister can share with us the forecasted costings of rolling out water fluoridation throughout the UK in terms of plants, chemicals and other extraneous expenses. In addition, have Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Public Accounts Committee or any respected independent bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility or the IFS scrutinised the real costs and their effect on the public finances and health budget? Will these unknown extra costs be met by cuts to NHS dental departments or other parts of the health budget? This money would be far better spent on early intervention on dental hygiene and diet, as in the Scottish Childsmile programme.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 31st January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (27 Jan 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we resume the debate, perhaps I may point out that we went very quickly last Wednesday—many thanks for that excellent performance. The last group also went quickly. May I respectfully point out that we need to do nine and a half groups this evening? Once again, I ask noble Lords to acknowledge how much we still have to do on this Bill and adjust their contributions accordingly if at all possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, debate on this group was somewhat interrupted and I will remind everyone that we are talking about dental health. I will speak first to Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and others, to which I attached my name. It calls for a statement from the Secretary of State on access to dental care at regular intervals.
This comes back to a point I have made again and again about the Secretary of State taking responsibility and being forced to come before Parliament to take that responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced the amendment clearly and I agree pretty well with everything he said. However, I will now start to disagree with him. I note that I am addressing a number of amendments on fluoridation that were signed by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Those who were paying attention before will note that her name was on the Annunciator as being in the other Committee Room when we started this group, so I am speaking on her behalf.
There is an interesting progression here because, if I had been asked to do that a few years ago, I would have been quite uncomfortable. Had I been asked a few years ago which Green Party policy I disagreed with, the one I would have questioned was our opposition to mass fluoridation. But I have been on a political and scientific journey since then and I have come to realise that fluoridation is one of those health measures and medical practices that came to be adopted because it seemed like a good idea, well before we did proper trials, work and consideration. As the noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, there is now increasing scientific questioning.
I do not want to go over the same ground as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, but will think about where we are and apply systems thinking to this. The fact is that, according to the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the number of people now willing to drink water from the taps in the UK has dropped from 90% in 1978 to 73% in 1998. To put it another way, one in four people now mistrust the water coming out of their taps and will not drink it.
We can see the impact of that if we happen to go into a supermarket. We see a great many people lugging large, often plastic, bottles of water. They are often people who are struggling to pay for that water, yet they are buying it because of their lack of trust in the water supply that is actually far healthier than what is in the bottles. I would urge them all to drink the tap water, which is the healthy option.
We have a real problem of trust—something we have seen in other contexts. This potential mass fluoridation imposed from the centre above is something that potentially could have a real impact on reducing tap water. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, said, “Well, people can’t afford it, so it’s the poorest who’ll be forced to drink the water”. But the evidence shows that many people who cannot afford it now—from more disadvantaged and BAME backgrounds and who suffer from many disadvantages—who are reluctant to drink that water. We have also seen these issues of trust around the Covid-19 vaccine. These issues could see real risks to dental health.
We also want to apply some real systems thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to the fact that Scotland has brought in some good, targeted programmes on dental health that help children learn to brush their teeth and address diet and the consumption of sugary foods that has so many other health issues. We know what happens in politics. We have a problem with tooth decay and the Government say, “Right, we’re doing fluoridation”. Where are we going to see the money, focus and attention on those targeted programmes that would reach the children who need it most?
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall respond to the injunction from the Front Bench and speak for less than two minutes. I had not planned to intervene in this debate, but I was provoked by my noble friend Lord Reay, with whom I find myself in respectful disagreement, and further provoked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Listening to my noble friend’s speech took me back 42 years. It was like Groundhog Day, because in March 1980 I had to sit through a speech lasting more than one hour by Ivan Lawrence on fluoridation. I was lucky because in 1985 he set a new record by speaking from 5.12 am until 9.35 am. I was refreshing my memory about what I said in response to the debate 42 years ago in just two paragraphs—I should explain that I was the Minister responsible at the time, when I said:
“I think I should first explain that fluoride occurs naturally in most water supplies, sometimes at a satisfactory level for the prevention of dental decay. Fluoridation consists merely of the adjustment to the optimum level for dental protection—one part per million in temperate climes—of the fluoride content of those water supplies that are deficient in it naturally. When water containing the optimum level of fluoride is consumed during the years of tooth formation, the protection conferred in childhood continues during adult life.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/1980; col. 792.]
I wound up:
“Finally, as my right hon. Friend indicated last January”—
that was January 1980—
“it remains the Government's view—like that of their predecessors for many years—that extensive trials throughout the world have shown that fluoridation safely and effectively reduces the prevalence of dental caries—one of the commonest diseases and one which has lifetime consequences for general and dental health.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/1980; col. 799.]
Since that time, government policy has not been delivered, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, explained. Initially it was the area health authorities that did not do it, and now it is local authorities. It is now imperative that government policy is delivered, and that is why I wholeheartedly support these clauses in the Bill.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on Amendments 224 and 261 and share my views on fluoridisation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that it is a pity we did not have a proper full debate on this matter.
There is a real problem among young children, particularly those in deprived communities, who have increasing levels of bad teeth—dental decay. You would think that as a result of that situation we would be trying to do something more practical about it, yet we see dental inspections in schools decreasing. When I was first a head teacher, the dental services would come in twice a year to inspect children’s teeth and would give a little note to the parents so they could go to their dentist. The second problem we face is that, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, you cannot find an NHS dentist, particularly in a deprived area, for love nor money. That is a problem for families that cannot afford to use a private dentist, even if one was available.
When I was leader of the council in Liverpool, all political parties together—I have to tell my colleagues—decided against fluoridation, so we took the view that perhaps there was a different way of doing it. We were setting up the network of children’s centres in the early 2000s. We therefore made dental health in the nought to five age group one of the highest priorities in the city council’s strategic plan. We also issued additional guidance to our primary schools, asking them to make encouraging better dental health a higher priority. As a result, 10 years later in 2013, the British Dental Association’s 10-yearly survey showed that a reduction of 28% in caries had been achieved in Liverpool’s schools. The targeted approach achieved an outcome double that identified in the York review as the average caries reduction from fluoridation. We will also have helped many children to develop lifelong good personal dental hygiene habits, which is a crucial part of the strategy.
Whether we have fluoridation or not, we need to be absolutely sure that the journey we are going on is correct. In the meantime, we should look at other ways. We should also look at what our colleagues in Scotland have been doing with their Childsmile project, which has been shown to be safer, less wasteful and more effective, and better value for money. I hope that at some stage we will revisit this issue and have a much longer and more considered debate.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this group rightly began with an amendment about adequate provision in dentistry. As we have heard, there is currently a massive shortfall in provision of NHS dentists and indeed dentists as a whole, so much so that a charity called Dentaid, which normally works in the third world, is now working in Dewsbury and Batley—and possibly in other parts of the country that I am not aware of—because people cannot get free dentistry. The situation is made worse by the backlog of treatment caused by the pandemic, whereby dentists were at first unable to see patients and later had to reduce the number of aerosol-producing treatments they could carry out each day.
I have no doubt that the condition of the nation’s teeth has deteriorated during the past couple of years. Nearly 1,000 dentists left the NHS between 2020 and 2021, according to the BDA. However, problems with access to NHS dentistry predate the pandemic. Government spending on dental services has fallen by a third in real terms in the last decade, and the £50 million one-off injection of funding announced recently will barely make a dent in the unprecedented backlog that NHS dentistry now faces.
However, it is also well proven that fluoride, however administered, can strengthen tooth enamel and help teeth to resist decay. The 2018 report from Public Health England made that clear and did not report adverse effects. In Clauses 147 and 148, the Government intend to ensure that the whole country has access to drinking water with at least 1 milligram per litre of water, the level believed to be most effective in reducing tooth decay without the unwanted effects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and without waiting for local authorities to initiate schemes. I have to say that I believe Public Health England rather than the noble Lord.
I am always in favour of prevention and of reducing health inequalities, and it is claimed that this measure would do both, but there are some issues which I wish to probe. Currently only two areas in the country, Hartlepool and Braintree, have the optimum level of naturally occurring fluoride in their water. Other areas, covering about only 10% of the population, mainly in the north-east and Birmingham, already have schemes initiated by the local authority. I accept that a number of costly and bureaucratic barriers have been identified to more local authorities initiating such schemes, and I understand these clauses are an attempt to overcome them by making national regulations. These would remove some of the consultation costs from local authorities. However, some local authorities are reluctant to give up their local autonomy on this issue and believe their residents should be consulted before fluoridation occurs. This must be considered.
I have some questions for the Minister, which fall into two categories. The first is about costs and where they fall. We are told in the impact assessment that current schemes will not be affected, and existing and future capital costs will continue to be borne by the Department of Health and Social Care. What will be the additional burden on the funding of the Minister’s department of bearing the capital costs for every area in the country? I understand that regulations will allow for future costs to be shared by his department with water companies. What impact is that expected to have on the water bills paid by households, since the companies will undoubtedly try to pass it on to customers?
Water companies can well afford to pay these costs themselves, rather than take the money from the health budget. This is clear from the eye-wateringly high earnings of their leading directors. We know from a briefing from Yorkshire Water that the costs can be considerable. A few years ago, it did a feasibility study when only one area—Hull City Council—was looking into fluoridation. At the time, it estimated the capital cost to be £1.6 million to £2 million and the annual operation costs to be approximately £330,000 per year. These costs would have fallen on Public Health England and the local authority at the time, but under the new proposals they would be covered by the Department of Health and Social Care.
Over recent years, capital investment in water and sewerage services has been covered just by income from water bills, but investment in infrastructure has not been adequate, since we still have raw sewage being discharged into water courses and leaks wasting water at an unacceptable level. So, we can expect the companies to accept some of the cost of fluoridation themselves, without passing it on to the customer.
Can the Minister also say what is the plan for regular measurement of the fluoride content of water, and at what point in the delivery journey will it occur? What will this cost, and where will the cost fall? Will the Government allow companies to pass this cost on to the consumer too, although they can clearly afford to absorb it? The reason I ask is that water companies share water all the time and there is a possibility that, without frequent monitoring, the fluoride content delivered to customers could turn out to be either too high or too low to be effective.
The second category of question concerns what other proposals for reducing the incidence of tooth decay have been considered by the Government, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Storey. I have dealt with the availability of NHS dentistry, but it is excess sugar and acids in the diet that cause tooth decay. Sadly, poor diet is a major problem, particularly among poorer children, for whom the most common reason to be admitted to hospital is the need for complex extraction of rotten teeth. Fluoride can, of course, can be administered in other ways: either applied by the dentist or by regular use of fluoride-containing toothpaste—fortunately, most toothpastes contain fluoride. However, many children eat too much sugar, drink too many acidic fizzy drinks and do not brush their teeth regularly.
As my noble friend said, there used to be a school dentistry service to check for problems, and dental nurses used to visit nurseries and primary schools to teach good dental hygiene. I have myself sat in on such a session and it was excellent, but I do not believe it happens any longer. Have the Government costed a return to these schemes? As for diet, we will be dealing with that in a later group of amendments. So, while accepting the potential benefits of what is proposed, I ask the Minister to assure the House of the cost-effectiveness of the measures, explain the impact on family budgets and tell the House what other measures are being considered to achieve the same ends, which we all want to see: better and more equal dental health.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group, which focus on the need for universal access to dentistry and the introduction of fluoride into water. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, they are about treatment and prevention, which are equally important when it comes to considering how we tackle tooth decay and oral health. I am grateful to my noble friend, the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for their support for these amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate from noble Lords, bringing us to a set of issues which many of us have been grappling with for a number of years.
I turn first to Amendment 224, and the access issue. The point I must stress before any other is that this Government are committed to improving access to dental services across England. With that aim, we are working closely with NHS England to increase dental capacity as rapidly as possible. Since the start of the year, the threshold for dental activity in NHS practices has again increased and is set at 85% of pre-pandemic activity, allowing more patients to be seen. Building on this, NHS England recently announced an extra £50 million to urgently provide hundreds of thousands of additional appointments.
Beyond recovery from the pandemic, we recognise the need to reform the NHS dental contract to increase access. NHS England is leading on dental system reform and working closely with key stakeholders to deliver this. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, who asked about dental morale. Much of any dip in morale has to do with what is seen as a delay in introducing the new dental contract, which has been promised for a number of years. There are all sorts of very valuable reasons for that delay, which the profession is being consulted on, but I understand that dentists are keen to see a new structure of remuneration.
That is a summary of the current backdrop. Noble Lords should be in no doubt of the Government’s continuing commitment to improving the provision of NHS dentistry across the country. What we are doing demonstrates that commitment, and for that reason we do not feel that a requirement to publish a statement on this work is necessary.
This brings me to the amendments on water fluoridation. This Government want to see more of the population benefit from fluoridation, which we know reduces oral health inequalities and the burden on NHS services. I will first address Amendments 259B and 259D, tabled by my noble friend Lord Reay, which take us in a different direction. I realise that he feels strongly about the issue, but in relation to Amendment 259B, the clear advice that I have received is that there is no evidence of harms to the environment from water fluoridation schemes. There are existing safeguards in place to protect the environment and public health.
As part of their overall responsibilities, water companies are already required to comply with relevant environmental legislation. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and other legislation set out the thresholds and criteria for which an environmental impact assessment is already required. The installation of water fluoridation plants in some areas may already fall within this scope. The Environment Act 2021 will, when brought into force, place a duty on the Government to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles in our policy-making. New and revised policies will need to take into account their impact on the environment. The Environment Agency also monitors the ecological health of our rivers at a large number of sites. If there had been or were to be a failure in the safeguards, the agency could detect this through its routine monitoring programme.
Turning to Amendment 259D, I emphasise to my noble friend that the scientific evidence around fluoridation is kept under constant review. Several authoritative scientific reviews have looked at the general health effects. The common finding of such reviews is that there is no convincing scientific evidence that fluoride in drinking water at levels used in fluoridation schemes is a cause of adverse health effects. This view is shared by the UK Chief Medical Officers, who issued a joint statement last September supporting water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health intervention to improve oral health.
I listened carefully to my noble friend, but the Government are committed to keeping the evidence under review, and it would be inappropriate to carry out evidence reviews focusing on studies from a specific time period and a specific part of the world, as he suggested. Keeping the evidence under review is what we will do but the Secretary of State is also required to monitor the effects on the health of the population living in areas with water fluoridation schemes and then publish a report no less than every four years. The next report is due in March of this year.
My noble friend suggested that the water fluoridation elements of the Bill have somehow been slipped in without adequate time for debate. In fact, the White Paper setting out proposals for the Health and Care Bill, published in February 2021, highlighted the current difficulties faced by local authorities and set out our intention to use the Health and Care Bill to give the Secretary of State the power to directly introduce, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes. So the water fluoridation elements of the Bill have been there from the outset and open to debate.
Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to the Childsmile initiative in Scotland and asked why we cannot have a scheme in England. In fact, daily supervised toothbrushing programmes in England can already be entered into by local authorities or the NHS. There are already some schemes around the country; I visited one myself when I was dentistry Minister. Public Health England has published guidance in this area to help local authorities who are interested in schemes. Against that background, I hope that my noble friend will feel at least a little reassured, and sufficiently so to refrain from moving his amendments when they are reached.
On Amendments 260 and 262, the public voice on further fluoridation remains important and we are committed to ensuring that the population continues to have its say on any future water fluoridation schemes. We are bringing forward plans for an initial expansion of water fluoridation schemes over the next three years. We will consult the public on these plans later this year, subject to the successful passage of the Bill and funding being confirmed. The outcome of that consultation will inform regulations to be drafted later this year. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Underpinning any scheme expansion is the need to undertake feasibility studies and to secure funding, as well as public consultation against which we do not have certainty and cannot pre-empt the outcome. As such, we cannot at this stage set out a programme of expansion; because of that, any programme drafted in advance of the completion of these steps would be so heavily caveated and subject to change that its utility would be substantially undermined. I am of course very happy, as is my noble friend Lord Kamall, to update the House as expansion plans are developed and agreed. However, we do not believe that this needs to be specified on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 261 relates to cost-sharing for new schemes. There are no current proposals for cost-sharing. However, given the cycle of legislation and the infrequency with which these opportunities present themselves, we have taken the decision to include such measures now to provide flexibility for this in future. I can assure the House that, should we bring forward any plans to cost-share in the future, we would seek to fully engage with relevant groups at the earliest opportunity. Any plans to cost-share with public sector bodies would also be subject to regulations on which there is a requirement to consult.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that funding for both new and current health improvement initiatives is within the overall capital budget allocated to the department over the next three years. We will be undertaking a business planning exercise before this funding is made available from April 2022, and we will confirm this is due course.
The noble Baroness asked about the effect on water bills. There will be a cost associated with water fluoridation schemes that will need to be met either through taxation or other means. However, we know that in the end this is a cost-saving measure; the money spent to implement these schemes will save the nation money in the longer term and will benefit health. As I said, currently there are no plans to cost-share with water companies or indeed any other public sector bodies. However, given the opportunity presented by the Bill, we are enacting the relevant provisions.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I raised the issue of the lack of public trust in tap water and the fact that that is a public health issue and could be magnified. Could the Minister comment on that and suggest what the Government are planning to do about it?
Earl Howe (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, because she was making a significant point. I am not sure that I share her perception that those who buy bottled water in supermarkets necessarily do so as a reflection of their lack of trust in tap water; a lot of it has to do with some myths around the benefits of bottled water. However, be that as it may, I will take advice and write to the noble Baroness. I am not sufficiently sighted on the issue she raised and the evidence behind it, so it is probably appropriate if I look into it and write to her.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. On dental access, a number of noble Lords—my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, among others—commented on the great difficulty that many people have at the moment in getting access to an NHS dentist. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, focused in particular on children, which is my particular concern. More energy needs to be put into developing a dental strategy. On thoughts of contracts, anyone who has been a dental Minister will know that the problem with contracts is that dentists always overperform, and the Treasury then claws back in future years, leading to unhappiness and misery in the profession. The fact that the pilot schemes, on which I think work is being based for a future contract, have now stopped, or are going to be stopped, is a great pity, and it does not show positive intent.
On fluoridation, I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Young, intervened. A couple of debates ago I was watching on the screen, and he chided me for what I thought was a perfectly formed piece of legislation at the time, many years ago. He talked about his experience as a Minister 42 years ago. I think it was because of his work that I, 37 years ago, as secretary of the Edgware/Hendon Community Health Council, organised public meetings in part of the Borough of Barnet on fluoridation, prior, we hoped, to the then area health authority implementing a fluoridation scheme. Although the public meetings came out strongly in favour of fluoridation, of course nothing happened. I am afraid that the experience in Barnet and Edgware and Hendon was repeated up and down the country, which is why I applaud the Government for doing what they are doing now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke very eloquently about the evidence from deprived areas. Sandwell, next door to Birmingham, is high up in most indicators of poor health, except in dentistry. That is because, unlike Liverpool, Birmingham City Council took the decision in the 1960s to fluoridate the water supply and Sandwell got the benefit. The result is that, in general, oral health in the West Midlands is very good indeed.
I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Reay. He mentioned the Jauncey judgment, which unfortunately I remember. I remind him that, although Lord Jauncey ruled that Strathclyde Regional Council was exceeding its powers in seeking to fluoridate the water system, he accepted that the amount of fluoride it wanted to put into the system would have no significant adverse effect on health, that fluoridation had been shown to be harmless and that it would be effective. When we quote Lord Jauncey, we need to quote the whole judgment, rather than just whether Strathclyde was found to have the power to put fluoride in the water.
I will not repeat what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said. In only September, the Chief Medical Officers spoke in their judgment about the effectiveness and safety of fluoride. I was very glad to hear the point the noble Earl made about expansion; I am very glad that it is on the Government’s mind. I look forward to the consultation, which I take will be a national one, if there is going to be an expansion; that is very good news indeed.
On cost sharing, I register that this Bill is full of little clauses which give Ministers powers to do something in the future, when they know what they want to do. I mention procurement regulations in Clause 70 at the same time; I think that is going a bit too far. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Warner
“Regard to the reports of the Office for Health and Care Sustainability
The Secretary of State, in discharging his or her responsibilities under Part 1 of this Act, must have regard to the reports of the Office for Health and Care Sustainability established under section (Office for Health and Care Sustainability).”
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 225ZA and will also speak to Amendment 285. I thank the clerks for their help in devising Amendment 225ZA, which enables us to discuss Amendment 285, which I regard as important, today. Amendment 285 is the substantive amendment I shall address.
The amendment is important because it places in legislation recommendations from the 2017 report by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care. I am delighted to see two members of that Select Committee, the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Scriven, here this evening. Unfortunately, the Select Committee’s chairman, my noble friend Lord Patel, who did an extremely good job, is unable to be here, but I believe he will join my noble friend Lord Kakkar to discuss a less detailed amendment, Amendment 286, which tries to achieve the same objectives as Amendment 285. For the record, the two Select Committee recommendations which are germane to this amendment are recommendations 33 and 34, found on page 98 of our report. In the interests of time, I will not spell these out, because they are effectively set out in Amendment 285, but I will draw the Committee’s attention to some of the evidence which caused us to make these recommendations.
On page 84 of the report there is a section on:
“A culture of short-termism”.
This starts at paragraph 322 with the sentence:
“Our inquiry uncovered endemic short-termism in almost every area of policy making.”
We made it clear on that occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens—then plain Simon Stevens, the chief executive of NHS England—was “the most notable exception” with his Five Year Forward View.
The committee was very concerned about the approach of what was then the Department of Health, particularly the evidence given to it by its Permanent Secretary, now Sir Chris Wormald, who remains in post today. I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 324 of our report, which sets out what the Select Committee made of the Permanent Secretary’s evidence:
“Although we questioned him at length on the work taking place in his department on the long-term future of the NHS, revealingly, we were not provided with any concrete examples. Moreover, he questioned whether this was work that should even be taking place in his department”.
We concluded at the end of paragraph 324:
“We were unconvinced by the answers he provided and we are left with no choice but to conclude that the Department of Health is failing to plan for the future”.
I have been in this place for 22 years. This was a pretty damning conclusion for a cross-party committee of this House to come to. The Permanent Secretary of the government department with the biggest budget after cash benefits, and which would be spent on the biggest public or private workforce in the country, was saying that it was not the department’s job to do long-term planning. This seemed to have been left to NHS England’s chief executive, who had been given no responsibility for securing the workforce he needed or settling the pay and conditions of service for that workforce—matters determined by the government department, whose boss thought it was not his job to do any long-term planning. The Select Committee was rather stunned by this view of what the job of a government department was.
Is it any surprise that your Lordships’ Select Committee made the recommendations it did? I see no evidence that much has changed for the better since the Select Committee’s report. When the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, spoke in the debate on the amendment on the workforce tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, he seemed to confirm, if one looks back at Hansard, that this was the case, with his account of endless delays before any kind of workforce future plan saw the light of day.
The workforce amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has much to commend it, as I said when we debated it. It is certainly a big improvement on the current situation and puts statutory pressure on the Secretary of State to produce regular workforce plans. My worry is that the plan that that amendment would produce may not be long term enough or closely tied to funding streams. Moreover, any planning done under the noble Baroness’s amendment would still be subject to Whitehall negotiation and Treasury and No. 10 interference if it had data or messages that were politically uncomfortable at the time of publication. I had serious doubts about the wisdom of leaving health and care workforce planning totally in the hands of elected politicians and their civil servants. I say that having been a senior civil servant and a Minister.
Two recent stories in the Times have reinforced my view. When we discussed my Amendment 72 on 24 January, I raised the matter of the front page headline in the Times of 18 January: “Javid plans NHS revolution modelled on academy schools”. I thought this was odd, given that we have not completed the legislation on this NHS reorganisation. The noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, did not totally reassure me when she said in response:
“No further plans have been agreed.”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 37.]
I therefore assumed something odd was going on.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I shall say a few words in support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner; I put my name to his original Amendment 285 and, obviously, I very much endorse what he said. Reading the Select Committee report again, I find it as fresh as ever and its analysis of the issues faced in the NHS are exactly the pressures we see at the moment. Let us be clear: it was a hard analysis. We are all proud of the NHS, but the report rightly pointed out that it performs poorly in comparison with many countries on many indicators. In acute care, we have worse outcomes for survival for stroke and heart attacks, we lag behind comparable European countries for cancer survival, and we have fewer beds, fewer doctors and fewer nurses per head than OECD averages. As capacity is so tight, it is no wonder, given the current pressures post pandemic, that the NHS is struggling to meet the challenges it faces. We have talked about dental access, but we could talk about the horrendous waiting times for treatment or the dreadful ambulance waiting times which are frightening for people with very serious illnesses.
The Government’s approach is one initiative at a time on the whim of the Secretary of State at the time. We have already got the Messenger review which is bringing in a general to tell the NHS how to manage its services. How many times have we introduced people before? I think Secretary of State Hunt established the report by the noble Lord, Lord Rose. He clearly wanted Rose to say that NHS managers were useless. Of course, the noble Lord did not say that. He said that Ministers are useless at creating circumstances in which managers can thrive. Messenger will come out with the same response and his report will also be rejected because what these reports all say is that the way Ministers lead from the centre is non-conducive to the sensible management of the NHS at local level. Bringing some long-term planning to the NHS with the proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggests seems to be eminently sensible. I hope this is one of the issues that we will take to Report because it is fundamental to the future.
I was a bit nonplussed because I was rising to support my noble friend Lady Thornton on her Amendment 281, but she is yet to speak to it. It is always good to see the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in his place. When we debated the future of Public Health England in the 2011 Bill that led to the 2012 Act, we warned that placing PHE firmly within the department would lead to a complete misunderstanding among all of us about who was responsible for its performance. Lo and behold, we had the Covid crisis and that is what happened. Noble Lords will remember that at the beginning Ministers were briefing that PHE was hopeless and that they had lost confidence in it, and that led to the rushed announcement by the previous Secretary of State about the setting up of the UK Health Security Agency. No one knew, because Ministers kept quiet, that they were accountable for PHE and that PHE staff are officials. They are civil servants directly responsible to Ministers for their performance. The Joint Committee inquiry into Covid identified this. Yes, there were issues with Public Health England’s performance, but Ministers should take responsibility.
We risk repeating the problem with the UK security agency, because, again, it is being set up as an agency part of the department, under the control of Ministers. Once again, when trouble arises, we will see the same pattern of Ministers trying to escape their responsibilities for what is performed by this particular agency. The reason I support my noble friend is that I think she is absolutely right in seeking to place this agency on a more independent basis, so that it can be seen to account for what it does and we can avoid the ambiguity being built into the current situation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I also want to rise to support Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I was very happy to put my name to that. As the noble Lord said, I was also a member of your Lordships’ Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care.
Noble Lords who have been following this set of Committee days will realise that this amendment goes to the heart of a lot of what we have been talking about, which is the conflict between short-termism and long-term planning. The Bill is about the integration of health and social care, improving health outcomes and reducing health inequalities. They are not short-term fixes; it is a long-term journey, which will mean long-term plans.
As an independent body, this body does not stop Ministers being able to control health policy. It sets out a framework of what is required in terms of staffing; what the issues will be in terms of disease profile; what will happen in terms of demand; and for seeing how successful the Government have been, not just in being able to give a press release about certain amounts of money going to a certain area but in whether the long-term benefits of that money are achieving better health outcomes, reducing health inequalities and getting the right staffing to the right places to get a better health and social care system for the people of England. That is what this body is about. I think that, of all the amendments we have discussed—I probably would say this, because my name is to it—this is one of the most important, because it deals with the conflict between the priorities of short-termism and long-term planning.
I also want to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, did, that I was astounded, as a former health service manager, that no one in the Department for Health planned for long-term care in the healthcare system. We expected the answer that at least there was somebody in a darkened room doing it. But there was absolutely nobody doing it; it was all about the whim of the Minister. In reality, that was what came out.
I think this amendment actually helps with the central purpose of this Bill, of integrating healthcare, reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes, because it is long-term. I think it is absolutely right that this House and the public understand how the Government are doing against independent reviews at five, 10 and 15 years. We will be able to see whether the right staff, the right money and the right focus on prevention versus dealing with the acute sector are actually happening, and whether Governments, of one or two or three colours, over a period of time, are improving the healthcare system the population and leading to better health outcomes.
I also support Amendment 281, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has talked about. For me, public health has been kicked for too many years between different parts of the care and health system. In particular, when you have an executive agency whose primary responsibility is to plan and then co-ordinate public health—not just at government level, but within local government and across government—if it is not independent and is not a statutory body, yet again it just plays to the whim of Ministers. I will give an example of why it is not working in its present form, based on something that has just happened in the last few weeks.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too support the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I well remember reading the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the sustainability of our health and care services in 2017 and being rather jealous that I had not been on the committee, because it struck me as a very interesting one and it produced a very thoughtful and hard-hitting report. The office for health and care sustainability was probably the most crucial of its recommendations. Indeed, I think it would help the Government in making their decisions, because the body itself would not make the decisions but be independent, report directly to Parliament—which I thought was crucial—and look forward as far as it needed to look in a rolling programme of forecasting, assisting Ministers to make the right decisions.
Given the ageing population, resulting from improved healthcare, it had become very clear that funding was not keeping up, and indeed might never keep up unless things were done differently. That is why the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, also recommended the sort of integration that is at the heart of this Bill. It also reported on the lack of alignment between the funding of health and social care, which has resulted in the current gap in pay, particularly in the care sector, and the consequent staff shortage.
This was an excellent recommendation and, unlike other recommendations in the report, it has not been taken up—yet. The key thing about the body is that it would be authoritative, independent and unable itself to meddle in delivery. I would have thought that any Government would welcome the existence of such a body to do a lot of the work to establish what needs to be done and when. Unlike politicians of any political colour, it would be trusted by the public and would be staffed by experts able to gather and analyse the data. All Governments have their own focus—all Secretaries of State for Health have their own focus—and their own political priorities, which often depend on whatever the latest scandal has been, resulting in pressure from the public. Public health is too important for this, so I therefore support this amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an important debate here, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, both for bringing these amendments before the House and for explaining their background and the important role of the Select Committee. We have debated it several times in your Lordships’ House and everybody in the House, apart from the Government Front Bench, it seems, thinks it is a brilliant report that should be acted on. This seems to be an opportunity for the Government to take on board some of its major recommendations, and this is one of them. We would support that, and we hope that the Minister might have some good news for us on that.
I also wish to speak briefly to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Merron. The argument has already been made by other noble Lords—I am having a slight sense of déjà vu because I am sure I made a speech along the same lines in 2011—about the importance of Public Health England having a statutory basis to its work to give it transparency and accountability. The last two years must show us that that is the right thing to do. That is why I agree with my noble friend’s amendment to put the new UK Health Security Agency on to a statutory footing. As far as I can tell, in the past 20-odd years since I came to your Lordships’ House, every time that various Governments have mucked about with public health, they have got it wrong. Let us use this opportunity to get it right.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for bringing forward and explaining these amendments tonight. The specific functions that noble Lords describe in Amendments 225ZA and 285 are crucial functions that the Government are committed to ensuring are discharged in full. There are, however, several bodies in place that already fulfil these proposed functions.
The first proposed function would be a monitoring role and a duty to publish data. This important function is undertaken by the Department of Health and Social Care, which already monitors and publishes some of the data described in the proposed amendment; specifically, that relating to disease profiles, but also incorporating demographic trends, where relevant. The department also commissions independent academic modelling from the Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, or CPEC, to produce projections of the long-term demand on adult social care services. The CPEC model is updated regularly to reflect the latest available academic research and evidence, as well as important updates to key inputs such as ONS principal population projections, along with life expectancy and mortality rates, disability rates, household composition, availability of informal care and unit costs of care.
The second proposed function involves assessing the workforce and skills mix. We agree that workforce planning is a vital component behind any investment. We agree, therefore, that the assessment referred to in this function is extremely valuable. It is undertaken at present by the Department of Health and Social Care, working collaboratively with both Health Education England, or HEE, and NHS England. They work together to look at key drivers of workforce demand and supply over the long term, and will set out how these may impact on the required shape of the future workforce in its broadest sense to help identify the main strategic choices facing us, develop a shared and explicit set of planning assumptions, and identify the actions required.
There are two reasons why I have concerns with trying to involve another body in workforce planning, as this amendment suggests. First, I fear the new body proposed by noble Lords would be distant from planning decisions within the NHS and the needs of service delivery. The strength of the intention to merge Health Education England and NHS England is to tackle this very issue. Secondly, it would overlap and duplicate HEE’s existing statutory responsibilities for workforce planning and investment. To support this work, the department commissioned HEE in July 2021 to refresh its long-term strategic framework, Framework 15.
Moving on, the third proposed function focuses on the stability of health and adult social care funding. This Government are committed to funding stability and sufficiency, underlined by our decision to enshrine in law our five-year long-term plan funding settlement. Healthcare budgets are agreed at spending reviews, with the Office for Budget Responsibility scrutinising those budgets. Further independent financial assessment is therefore not necessary.
It is clear that, for each of the proposed functions, there are already well-established bodies and processes to safeguard the long-term sustainability of an integrated health and adult social care system for England, underpinned by reporting to Parliament. We do not think that the creation of a further body would add value.
I fully agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 281. The UK Health Security Agency, or UKHSA, must be fully accountable for its activities, and there should be full transparency as to how it operates. I can give reassurance, however, that the establishment of the UKHSA as an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care is the most appropriate model.
I assure your Lordships that we fully explored other organisational models. However, the executive agency model best facilitates a balance across the needs for strong operational delivery capability, scientific integrity, and the ministerial oversight and accountability necessary to command public confidence. The executive agency model allows for the delivery of executive functions of the department to be carried out separately from, but within a policy and resources framework set by, the department. As the noble Baroness will recognise, this level of flexibility is critical to ensuring a quick and effective response to Covid-type threats without needing to rely on legislation to confer functions, which this amendment would require. Any other approach would reduce the ability of the UKHSA to respond flexibly and rapidly.
In line with requirements for all executive agencies, multiple arrangements are in place to ensure accountability, transparency and effective governance for UKHSA. These include the framework document, which is soon to be published; the annual remit letter, published on 13 July; the business and strategic plans to be published each financial year; and quarterly accountability meetings. Also, UKHSA is required to publish information on contracts and expenditure under normal government transparency rules. As an executive agency, UKHSA must publish annual reports along with audited accounts after the end of each financial year.
It is for these reasons that I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, that is pretty much what I expected from the Government Front Bench, so no surprises there.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of Amendment 285. I also support Amendment 281, though I did not mention that in my opening remarks. I want the Government to reflect on the fact that, when the person who had been Secretary of State—for what was then health only—for five or six years was released from office, and what I might call the adrenaline of office had calmed down a bit, he was able to give a pretty lengthy interview in the Times in which he effectively said, “I should have accepted that recommendation”. He explained that it was an amendment which would keep Governments honest—those were his words, not mine. This was someone who had been through the mill, had seen it all, had had to deal with these issues and had had a damascene conversion when he had left office. It is a bit like when Permanent Secretaries suddenly become supporters of freedom of information legislation after they have collected their pension.
We cannot ignore the fact that a person who actually did the job saw benefit in having this kind of body. If the Government are resting their case for long-term planning on Health Education England, I am more than ever reinforced by this amendment, having listened to my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham telling us what went on in the workforce planning that he had experience of. It is a pretty unusual situation to be running a big organisation in which two-thirds of the budget is spent on staffing and workforce issues, where the guy or gal in charge of it is not actually responsible for the long-term planning of the workforce. That is an extraordinary system that Stuart Rose—the noble Lord, Lord Rose of Monewden—and others have found very difficult to understand.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the focus of the cancer outcomes objectives so that they cover matters other than treatment (e.g. early diagnosis).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I will also be moving Amendments 225B and 225C in due course. Clause 4 sets a requirement for the Secretary of State to include objectives relating to cancer outcomes in the mandate to NHS England, and for these objectives to have priority over other objectives relating specifically to cancer.
I first thank John Baron MP in the other place, who introduced this clause, and noble Lords for their support in ensuring that the Bill best delivers on our shared intention of improving outcomes for cancer patients. I also thank the cancer charities that have contacted me to express their views, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Drefelin, for her engagement. The Government have worked with Mr Baron, NHS England and stakeholders to ensure that we deliver the greatest benefits for cancer patients while minimising the risk of unintended consequences. Amendments 225A, 225B and 225C, tabled in my name, have the full support of Mr Baron, and I strongly encourage your Lordships to support them.
In recognition of the range of services offered to cancer patients, Amendment 225A will ensure that the scope of possible outcomes-driven objectives is broad enough to capture all cancer interventions, such as screening programmes or targeted lung health checks, not just those relating specifically to treatment. Connected to this, Amendment 225C will ensure that these objectives have priority over any other objectives relating to cancer, not just those relating to cancer treatment.
Amendment 225B, meanwhile, makes it clear that the objectives over which the cancer outcomes objectives have priority are those which relate specifically to cancer. When it comes to setting priorities for NHS England, including on cancer, it is vital to consider the outcomes that they should be directing the NHS to achieve. Improving outcomes means boosting survival rates—that remains our overriding aim. But the outcomes that matter to cancer patients are not limited to survival. They also include improving the quality of life for those living with cancer and the patient experience of those being treated.
We want to make sure the objectives we set benefit the outcomes of all cancer patients, whether the objectives relate to screening, early diagnosis or treatment. This is crucial as screening and early diagnosis interventions are one of the most effective ways of improving outcomes and chances of survival. I hope your Lordships can support these amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I greatly welcome the amendments proposed by my noble friend. In fact, I put my name to the equivalent amendments earlier, proposed by my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. I rise to speak to my Amendment 294, the purpose of which is to draw attention to the dire state of the services and treatment offered to people suffering from cancer of the pancreas—although I could also say that there are other, equally forgotten and equally deadly cancers, such as bile duct cancer, that deserve a debate as well. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot and to the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Aberdare, for their support of the amendment.
Many of us have seen family members and friends fall prey to this disease. Pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer. It affects 10,000 people a year across the UK, and more than half will die within three months. Three in four will die within a year. Vague symptoms, lack of a simple early test, and low symptom awareness among both the public and primary care professionals result in three in five people with pancreatic cancer being diagnosed at a late stage, when curative treatment and life-saving surgery are no longer possible.
Research into pancreatic cancer has been underfunded for decades: it receives only 3% of the UK cancer research budget, despite being the deadliest common cancer. The result is that pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all common cancers, with five-year survival rates less than 7%. Five-year survival in the UK lags behind the rest of the world, with the UK ranking 29th out of 33 countries with comparable data. These survival statistics have barely improved in decades.
In addition, there is an unacceptable variability of services for pancreatic cancer sufferers, depending in part on geography, with those living near the few specialist centres able to access some services barely available elsewhere.
I wrote last year to my noble friend Lord Bethell with a particular suggestion being promoted by the small but excellent charity Pancreatic Cancer UK. In due course, on 1 December, I received a reply from my honourable friend Maria Caulfield, who said that NHS England and NHS Improvement had launched an audit of pancreatic cancer services with a view to reducing variations in treatment and improving outcomes. That is wholly welcome. The information we have nationally on pancreatic cancer treatment in the NHS is woefully poor. An audit is a good place to start. But she went on to say that the first data were expected in 2023—not the report, not the action plan that we need, and not the funding allocation, merely the first data.
My amendment seeks to impose certain reporting obligations on the Secretary of State, but its real purpose, and the real purpose of this debate, is to inject some urgency into the Government and the NHS. We cannot afford to wait years just to begin to understand the state of pancreatic cancer treatment and care, let alone to take action to improve outcomes. Pursuing the audit with urgency and dispatch should be a top government priority.
There is one thing the Government could do right away that would at least alleviate the suffering of pancreatic cancer patients—and this indeed is the subject I wrote to my noble friend Lord Bethell about at the urging of Pancreatic Cancer UK. The symptoms caused by pancreatic cancer have a very distressing impact. In particular, people are often unable to digest their food, ultimately starving the body of nutrients and calories, leading to rapid weight loss, malnutrition and loss of muscle mass.
The solution to these symptoms is pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy—PERT. PERT comes in tablet form; you take it with your food. It replaces the digestive enzymes that many people with pancreatic cancer can no longer produce. Taking the tablet helps food to be digested and absorbed by the body, and can vastly improve people’s quality of life. It can also, crucially, help them to gain the strength needed to undergo treatment. If people have lost weight and are too weak, they are sometimes not able to have surgery for that reason. NICE guidelines clearly recommend PERT for people with pancreatic cancer, whether the cancer is operable or inoperable, and there is widespread clinical consensus on its effectiveness. It is widely available and is cost-effective: it costs the NHS just £7 per day per patient.
However, a recent study has shown that only half the people with pancreatic cancer across the UK are prescribed PERT. The May 2021 RICOCHET study, undertaken by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, found that 50% of pancreatic cancer patients were not being prescribed the tablet they needed to digest food. The key reason people are not being prescribed PERT currently is a lack of dissemination of specialist knowledge about pancreatic cancer and the benefits of PERT to general healthcare settings. PERT is more likely to be prescribed in specialist surgical centres than in general hospitals, meaning that people whose cancer is operable are more likely to be prescribed PERT than those whose cancer is inoperable, because people whose cancer is operable are more likely to be moved to a specialist setting.
However, three in five people with pancreatic cancer are not diagnosed until their cancer is at an advanced stage and no longer operable, so they will tend to be treated with palliative care in a non-specialist setting. This means they will be far less likely to be prescribed PERT than if they had been diagnosed early.
What I would hope to hear my noble friend the Minister say this evening is that without waiting for the results of the audit, he will immediately set a national priority that PERT should be routinely prescribed as a feature of pancreatic cancer care. Without setting this focus and without corresponding leadership from national and local health bodies, knowledge and expertise will continue to spread far too slowly for the people with the quickest-killing cancer.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to rise in support of the Minister’s amendments to Clause 4, and I would like to declare my interest as chief executive of Breast Cancer Now. I am also absolutely delighted to pay tribute to the honourable member John Baron, from the other place, for his incredible leadership as chair of the All-Party Group on Cancer, his tireless campaigning for the interests of cancer patients and his relentless demands around prioritising improvement in cancer outcomes—hence the origin of this new clause.
For me and for those listening to this debate, it is extremely important that the Minister has been able to clarify that the wide range of outcomes covered by this new clause will include, for example, early diagnosis, objectives around end-of-life care, the importance of measuring quality of life as an outcome, and timeliness of care, as well as survival, because we know that all those factors lead to improved quality of life but also improved survival. We do not have the time to wait five or 10 years to see whether improvements in survival are occurring—we need to see them today, next month. We need to see, for example, that PERT is getting through to all patients with pancreatic cancer, rather than waiting for the longer-term survival results.
I am very pleased that these amendments have been tabled and that the Minister has confirmed that a wide range of metrics will be used to ensure a tight grip on keeping track of the system’s performance, identifying emerging problems and backlogs as they arise, because we do not have the time to wait to find out if the system is off-track. I am very pleased that we have some clarity around what is included in these objectives. I will read the Minister’s remarks properly—when it is not quarter to 10 at night—and reflect. I am very grateful for them.
Also, what a tremendous amendment we have on pancreatic cancer, which is, as we have heard, such a pernicious disease. The audit will be very powerful when it really gets to work on what is going on locally to unearth thoughtful ideas about how the system can be improved. So much good work goes on in these audits, not just on pancreatic cancer but other diseases too. Making sure that those improvements are put into practice as quickly as possible has got to be a really good thing that this House will care about very much.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing these amendments as he did and for giving us the assurance that John Baron, who had worked so hard on all of these issues around cancer care and cancer outcomes, has been fully consulted and is fully supportive of them. I was heartened to hear his stress on early diagnosis. All too often at the moment, patients are diagnosed in emergency departments when presenting late because their condition, for whatever reason, has been missed. We certainly need more early diagnostic tests to be available.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for speaking about a cancer which, in my experience in palliative medicine, is often within our domain. Indeed, I hope that the Minister might be able to find a way of supporting my colleague Professor Katherine Sleeman at King’s, who wants to establish a What Works centre, for a remarkably small amount of money, in order to roll out best practice in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, recommended. I do not expect the Minister to answer that now—perhaps we can discuss it later—but there certainly is a need to roll out best practice widely, not only from the cancer centres but out into the cancer units and beyond those to the general NHS.
Up until now we have had too much of an emphasis on process. This switch in emphasis to outcomes is most welcome; I expect everyone to strongly support these amendments.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too am pleased to speak in support of the amendment addressing pancreatic cancer tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord for sharing a draft of his speech with me so that I have no need to test your Lordships’ patience by repeating facts and arguments that he and, indeed, the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Finlay, have already stated so tellingly.
I shall just emphasise a couple of points. I imagine that most, if not all, of your Lordships either know or know of someone who has died of this horrific cancer. Few survive more than a few months, unless they are lucky enough to be among the small number—I think it is about two in five people—whose cancer is diagnosed early enough to be operable. I find it quite shocking that the UK still lags so far behind other countries; as we heard, it is 29th out of 33 countries for its five-year pancreatic cancer survival rates. Research spending on pancreatic cancer is scarcely a quarter of that on leukaemia, for example, and supports correspondingly few researchers and projects. Hopefully, the noble Baroness’s friend may get some more of that.
There is a sort of vicious circle: because pancreatic cancer is so deadly, few patients are fit enough for long enough to take part in clinical trials, and few researchers are attracted to specialise in a condition that is widely regarded as a death sentence. The noble Lord’s amendment would build on the welcome audit of pancreatic cancer that he mentioned, seeking to ensure that its findings are regularly published, that they contribute to better information about pancreatic cancer and lead to specific action to address the issues identified—hopefully, the action may happen first and the audit later—while at the same time seeking to increase provision of PERT through national guidance and regular reporting.
Like the noble Lord, I wanted to mention that there are similar issues with other rare and aggressive cancers in this part of the body, such as bile duct cancer, and these too are often diagnosed too late for successful treatment. Even when surgery is available, the prognosis may be poor. Ideally, there should surely be an integrated approach to expedite diagnosis and treatment for all these cancers, and better information to help GPs and other healthcare workers to recognise their symptoms.
I very much hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on how the system being created by this Bill, including the revised NHS mandate on cancer outcome targets, will help to address the challenges of pancreatic and related cancers with some urgency, so that we can at last start to narrow the gap with other countries in treating them. I also very much support the government amendments that broaden the range of factors covered by cancer outcome objectives.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Moylan, which I was very proud to sign. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about knowing people who have died of this terrible disease. By coincidence, having signed the amendment, I had lunch with a friend whose brother suffers from pancreatic cancer. Luckily, however, he had it diagnosed extremely early because he had a blood test that identified the biomarkers that told him that he could have pancreatic cancer. He is now being treated and has a good chance of survival. Then, by coincidence, I visited my GP to have a blood test to test for prostate cancer. Luckily for me, the results were good.
I have a mild obsession about why we are not better in this country at implementing diagnostic procedures. When I went to see my GP to talk about prostate cancer, I asked her what kind of tests were available to me, as an NHS patient, for pancreatic or other types of cancer. As a layman reading the newspapers, almost every day there is news emerging of new blood tests that could identify cancer early. It is one of my trite dinner-party lines—I hesitate to say this, because there are so many experts in the Chamber this evening—that, in effect, one can almost argue that one has cured cancer if one is able to diagnose it early enough. That is why I welcome this emphasis on looking at outcomes rather than process in how we treat cancer. I hope that over time, it will shift the emphasis away from the treatment of cancer to how soon we can diagnose it.
I therefore support the amendment and ask the Minister a simple question: when will the test for pancreatic cancer be potentially universally available to NHS patients? I found it odd, talking to my friend over lunch, that his advice to me was to get myself on a trial as soon as possible to see whether I could get a test to get a diagnosis. It seems to me that we are lagging behind in the opportunity to diagnose cancer as early as possible and treat it as effectively as possible which, of course, will enable us to save a great deal of money.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on cancer and a great supporter of John Baron’s campaign on outcomes. Of course, as noble Lords across the Committee have said, the key to getting better outcomes is early diagnosis, rigorous audit, and proper dissemination across the country of what we know works. I certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is trying to do.
I do not oppose the government amendments outlined by the Minister, despite the rather unusual fact that they were only agreed with the Opposition Front Benches at the last minute—that is, this morning. I thank him for clarifying that; although cancer outcomes were the principal focus of Clause 4, they are not the only objective that should relate to cancer patients. The department has consulted with cancer charities, which, of course, represent many thousands of patients, to ensure that the new legislation meets their needs. Can the Minister say when the effects of Clause 4 will be reviewed and any action, if necessary, taken? Although generally approved by the sector, Macmillan is still concerned about how a focus on survival will affect those who, sadly, have terminal cancer and do not expect to survive. What they need is palliative care and measures to make the quality of their last few months of life as good as possible. Could this issue be a key part of any future evaluation of cancer care?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we are very pleased to support the government amendments that we have heard outlined. Crucially, they focus on cancer outcomes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, underlined, that includes survival, quality of life, experience of treatment, end-of-life care as well as diagnosis—in other words, the whole experience in treating somebody as a whole person on a journey that they may have to face. I congratulate the Minister on bringing the amendments forward. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Vaizey, and others, for highlighting the fact that pancreatic cancer has such an aggressive nature, and yet the symptoms are so silent and often misunderstood that it presents a particular challenge in the context of the care that we are speaking of today.
A focus on outcomes that covers matters other than treatment will be particularly crucial following the backlogs that the pandemic has inevitably led to, with delays in people seeking check-ups and treatment. Macmillan has let us know that more than 31,000 people in England are still waiting for their first cancer treatment, and it has also said of the Bill that for those living with cancer
“not a lot will look different.”
It is therefore crucial that the Minister assures noble Lords that stakeholders are supportive of the changes outlined in this group.
On the point about survival rates lagging behind those of other countries, that is not because the National Health Service is worse than other healthcare systems at treating cancer once it is detected but because it may not be as good at catching cancers in the crucial early stages. In other words, late diagnosis lies behind our comparatively poor survival rates. A key advantage of focusing on outcome measures is that it will give healthcare professionals much greater freedom and flexibility to design their own solutions, which could include running wider screening programmes and better awareness campaigns, and establishing greater diagnostic capabilities at primary care. A further advantage of this new focus is that it will better align NHS priorities with patient needs, which, after all, are core to our discussions on the Bill today.
I have a final and gentle word for the Minister to back up the introductory comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is of course usual to consult the Opposition and others in advance to ensure that amendments are acceptable and do what is required—in other words, to strengthen the case. I know that this did not happen until very late in this case, and I am sure the Minister will not wish to repeat that practice. In summary, however, we very much welcome these amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the Opposition Front Benches for being so gracious given the fact that we notified them late and did not use the correct procedure. I apologise for that once again and I know that the Bill team also apologises for it. We are all on a steep learning curve, as I am sure all noble Lords acknowledge. I thank both noble Baronesses. I hope the lesson has been learned, and we will not have an excuse next time.
I will address Amendment 294 before I come to our amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling it. To reassure him, the pancreatic cancer audit is included in the national cancer audit collaborating centre tender, which is currently live. Some reporting timelines are included in the specification for this audit, developed in partnership with NHS England and NHS Improvement, but I am told that during a live tender the document is commercially sensitive and cannot be shared beyond the commissioning team, as this could risk jeopardising the procurement process. The future contract is anticipated to start in autumn of this year. However, it is not possible to confirm the timelines for a new national audit topic for pancreatic cancer until the procurement completes and the contractual deliverables are signed. Unfortunately, therefore, this cannot be aligned with the passing of the Act.
My noble friend will be aware that NICE clinical guideline NG85 recommends that pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, or PERT, should be offered to patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer and that consideration should be given to offering PERT before and after tumour removal. NICE acknowledges that this is a priority area for improving the quality of health and social care and has included PERT in its quality standard on pancreatic cancer.
We have taken and will continue to take steps to support Pancreatic Cancer UK’s campaign to encourage greater uptake of PERT by doctors treating pancreatic cancer patients, in line with NICE guidance. We are in the process of commissioning a PC audit and, while the scope of this is not confirmed, we will certainly include this in the scoping of the topic. As I said, NICE acknowledges this as a priority area and, while its guidelines are not mandatory for healthcare professionals, the NHS is expected to take them fully into account in ensuring that services meet the needs of patients.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, on behalf of people who are currently suffering from pancreatic cancer or who might be diagnosed with it in the next few months, is anything going to happen faster in relation to dissemination of knowledge and prescription of PERT as a result of this debate than would have been the case had we not raised this with him?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid that I am not entirely sure of the answer to that, but I hope that we have raised awareness. I am very happy to have a conversation with my noble friend to see what more can be done, if anything.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the objectives over which the cancer outcomes objectives have priority are those which relate specifically to cancer.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that cancer outcomes objectives will have priority over any other objectives relating to cancer (not just those relating to cancer treatment).
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a drafting change to reflect the fact that consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is given in relation to an Assembly Bill rather than an Assembly Act.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to two minor technical amendments, Amendments 232 and 312. These amendments, which are made to Clause 111, in relation to HSSIB, and Clause 136, in relation to international healthcare agreements, do not impact the policy of either clause. They simply amend the drafting so that references are made to an Assembly Bill rather than an Assembly Act in relation to Northern Ireland. I beg to move the first of these minor technical amendments, Amendment 232.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely and I think now would be a convenient moment for her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and other noble Lords, I was involved in the passage of the Bill that started off life as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, and which, by the time it was passed, had been renamed the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Bill—a name almost as long as the Bill itself, and after some of the worst Henry VIII powers had been removed, including the power of Ministers to sign international trade agreements that could include preferential access to NHS contracts without the formal scrutiny and decision-making powers in Parliament.
The frustration with the remote arrangements is that I am speaking before my noble friend Lord Sharkey. I know that he will speak about the delegated powers in Clause 136. I wish I could hear his contribution before I speak, but I want to say that it seems the Government have forgotten, in nearly three years, the roasting that they got from your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said:
“The sweeping nature of the powers proposed in the Bill are in many ways offensive to the proper conduct of legislation. I accept that they are needed in the current situation in relation to the EU and Switzerland, but to go wider than that is wrong, I think. We have to insist on legislation being properly prepared, properly debated, properly scrutinised and properly consulted on.”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 926.]
The then Health Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, when conceding on those Henry VIII powers later that day on Report, said:
“I want to be clear that the consequential Henry VIII powers were initially included as a future-proofing mechanism. They were never free-standing and we had envisaged using them in only a limited set of circumstances … we want to alleviate any fears that we are taking powers which are not absolutely necessary in this Bill. As such we are prepared to take the significant step of removing the entire Henry VIII consequential powers in Clauses 5(3) and (4).”—[Official Report, 12/3/19; col. 963.]
One of the reasons that your Lordships’ House is so concerned is that it looks as if the provisions in that Bill are being resurrected in Clause 136 of this Bill. I will give two brief examples: “2 Healthcare agreements and payments” on page 110 of the Bill, among other clauses, gives the Secretary of State the powers to make a healthcare agreement with another country and for Parliament to only comment on it by the negative resolution. For those of us who worked on a previous Bill, that sounds horribly familiar. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to a person about the exercise of any function, which is familiar not only from that Bill but from other parts of this one.
In “2B, regulations under Section 2A: consent requirements” on page 112, it says at (5) that the consent of the Secretary of State is required for a
“healthcare agreement”
which means
“an agreement or other commitment between the UK and either a country or territory outside the UK or an international organisation, concerning health provided anywhere in the world”.
Any type of “agreement” or “commitment” brings us full circle back to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as first drafted. This would include international treaties, as was planned back in 2019, to include that access to providing major parts of healthcare in the NHS, but without the consent or knowledge of Parliament, because the detail of the agreement would not need be seen before it was signed, including by the NHS, its stakeholders and the staff who work in the sector.
Lest we think that this is just words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have both talked extensively in America to healthcare providers in recent months. What is different about this clause is the breadth of definition of a healthcare agreement, the powers that are held only by the Secretary of State, and the total lack or paucity of consultation or scrutiny by Parliament and other stakeholders before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House.
Why has Clause 136 reinstated some of the key elements of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill that were removed because Ministers recognised that the scope was too wide, the Henry VIII powers were egregious, and Parliament, the NHS and other stakeholders were being totally disregarded?
Should my noble friend Lord Sharkey wish to propose on Report that the clause do not stand part, I will support him.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Motion that Clause 136 stand part. This clause is yet another example of the Government’s abuse of delegated legislation and the avoidance of any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. It is also a clear and obvious breach of an important constitutional convention.
Clause 136 amends the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, which started off life as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, as we just heard. It would enable the Government to implement healthcare agreements with countries outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland. The exercise of the powers in this clause is through regulations subject only to the negative procedure. The department points to the 2019 Act as for seeking these powers, despite what we just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
During the passage of the then Bill in 2018-19, the Government justified or tried to justify taking the relevant powers as the need for speed and flexibility in the extraordinary circumstances of the EU withdrawal process. Parliament did not accept the provisions in the original Bill that the powers should be geographically and temporarily unlimited. After interventions by Parliament, the powers ended up being confined to the EEA and Switzerland and being sunsetted.
The department may be correct to state that the Secretary of State currently lacks the necessary powers to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the European Economic Area and Switzerland. However, this does not mean that there is currently no way to implement such agreements. They could and should be implemented by primary legislation. This would be in keeping with a long-standing constitutional convention that, outside the exceptional case of making provision for EU law, international legal agreements that make changes to UK law are given domestic force by an Act of Parliament. This ensures proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Our committees have pointed out breaches of this convention to the Government on several recent occasions. The last occasion was the proceedings of what was originally the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, as I have just mentioned. Before that, the DPRRC commented on the breaches of this convention in the Professional Qualifications Bill in May 2021 and the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill in March 2020. The Constitution Committee commented on the same Bill in its May 2020 report and concluded that:
“It is inappropriate for a whole category of international agreements to be made purely by delegated legislation.”
This is exactly what the Government are proposing in Clause 136.
The department does not address why such international healthcare agreements could not be implemented by primary legislation. We could try to remedy this abuse of delegated powers and breach of convention, as we did with the 2019 Act, by limiting their application and by sunsetting provisions. But, without a clearer understanding—or indeed any understanding—of exactly what agreements the department intends to use these powers for, it is not really possible to limit the power as we did then. The powers could also be sunsetted, as per that Act, but it is clear this would be inappropriate, given there is no longer a pressing time constraint on their use, unlike the then imminent departure from the EU. A better solution would be for the Government to abide by the constitutional convention and bring forward the appropriate primary legislation. That is the only way in which to enable any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of these important reciprocal arrangements.
I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why it is necessary to bypass Parliament and breach the constitutional convention in the manner proposed. I understand why it may be convenient, but cannot see why it is necessary or proper. We will certainly return to this issue as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for that completely comprehensive overview of the problem with this clause. I simply have some questions relating to it. We have devolved powers in the devolved nations of the United Kingdom and, to my understanding, this clause does not oblige the Government to have undertaken a comprehensive consultation with them before entering into such an agreement. It does not seem to require legislative competence before such legislation is proposed, and that legislation certainly would not come before this Parliament anyway.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Several months ago, some of his staff came to talk to me about the international healthcare part of the Bill. I said pretty much what the House decided two and a half years ago, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, described. I said that we would be very sceptical of it, because we had to cut a Bill in half all those years ago to take out the international bit and leave in the European and Swiss bit because of the powers that it gave the then Secretary of State to make agreements with persons—without specifying who they might be. I remember it very clearly. So when I saw that the noble Lord had put down clause stand part, I regretted that I had not put my name to it at that time, because I realised that we would have to address this aspect of the legislation. I will not object at all to the two minor amendments, as I realise that they are simply drafting amendments, but unless we can resolve this in some way which deals with the powers, I fear that we will return to this on Report, and we will certainly support a move to remove this clause from the Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others for their comments and for their engagement with the Bill team on this issue. We currently have only limited healthcare agreements with countries outside Europe. They support people from the UK to access medically necessary healthcare but do not always provide comprehensive cover for those who need it. The powers included in this clause will enable the Government to implement comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries around the world, not just with the EEA and Switzerland. This will allow the reimbursement of healthcare costs and the exchange of data to facilitate a reimbursement process. By implementing such agreements, we hope that we can better support people when they are abroad. We have listened to concerns previously expressed in the House, so the Bill will also remove Section 1 of the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, which provided a freestanding payment power and enabled the Secretary of State to make unilateral payments for healthcare in the EEA and Switzerland. This is no longer needed, following EU exit.
We are replacing this power with regulation-making powers which can provide for payments to be made in two circumstances: one, to implement healthcare agreements, and two, in countries where there is a healthcare agreement in place but the healthcare falls outside the scope of that agreement and the Secretary of State determines exceptional circumstances exist to justify payment. These are not the same powers that were originally drafted in the 2019 Bill. We have listened to Parliament and limited the scope of the powers to those necessary to deliver the policy intention. We have, for example, revoked the unilateral payment powers, which would enable the Secretary of State to make wide-ranging payments for healthcare outside healthcare agreements. The UK recently successfully concluded a trade and co-operation agreement with the EU, which includes comprehensive reciprocal arrangements. Therefore we see this as an appropriate time to tailor existing powers so they allow us best to support the healthcare needs of UK nationals across the world.
We hope that these legislative measures will allow us to strengthen existing agreements with non-EU countries or form other healthcare partnerships should we wish to in future. This includes looking to improve our healthcare co-operation with key international partners, the Crown dependencies and our overseas territories. We also want to offer more healthcare cover to UK residents travelling abroad for tourism or short-term business purposes, similar to the arrangements available to them when they visit EU countries.
I take this opportunity to confirm that there are no Henry VIII powers in this clause; they were removed during the passage of the Bill in 2019 and have not been put back. In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the Bill requires consultation with the devolved Administrations over the drafting of regulations made under the powers in this clause, and we are pleased that the devolved Administrations have all agreed to recommend that legislative consent is granted for these provisions.
In addition, the negotiation of international health agreements is reserved, and the devolved Administrations have a role to play in implementing those agreements. That is why we laid amendments in the House of Commons on Report of the Health and Care Bill. These amendments give the devolved Administrations power to make regulations in the areas of devolved competence within reciprocal healthcare.
As we are all too aware, healthcare co-operation between countries is a vital aspect of the global society we are a part of. Reciprocal healthcare provides safeguards and support for our most vulnerable as well as greater opportunities to travel, for work or leisure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his suggestion that we have a meeting before Report for further conversation.
Lord Kamall
“(a) in relation to eligible needs met by a local authority, to any amount the local authority charged the adult under section 14(1)(a) or 48(5) for meeting those needs;(b) in relation to eligible needs met by a person other than a local authority, to what the cost of meeting those eligible needs would have been to the local authority that was the responsible local authority when the needs were met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment de-couples the costs that accrue towards the care cap from the costs specified in the budgets and simplifies the drafting for determining those costs that accrue.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 232A, 232B, and 234A to 234L in my name, made in relation to Clause 140. In the course of the detailed work on the operational guidance on charging reform in partnership with local authority representatives, it has become apparent that the existing legislative framework leads to unfair treatment of local authority-supported individuals in some areas and proffers incentives for self-funders in others. The intention of these amendments is to remove this. This applies even before this Bill, or whatever charging scheme we come up with, comes into effect.
Noble Lords may be aware that everyone who wants to meter towards a cap on personal care costs must have a needs assessment to ensure they have eligible needs. If there is a delay in the needs assessment through no fault of the person requiring care, they may wish or need to begin to pay for care before the local authority is able to intervene. At present, Clause 140 would enable self-funders to start metering from the point they request an independent personal budget, but the clause does not contain an equivalent provision for those whose needs are expected to be met by the local authority. These amendments will make the position the same for those whose needs are met by a local authority as for a self-funder, as well as clarifying that metering for those whose needs are being met by a local authority will be at the amount the local authority charges.
The amendments will also decouple how a local authority decides what meters towards a cap from the personal budget and independent personal budget. There are several practical benefits of this. Among the most important is ensuring that, having had an independent personal budget set by a local authority, nobody has a perverse incentive not to meet their needs. Without the amendments, somebody would meter the amount they are expected to spend set out in their independent personal budget even if they then purchased less care in order to save money.
The amendments also mean that any spending to meet agreed eligible care needs would meter towards a cap at the amount it would cost the local authority to meet those needs, where they are met by the local authority at the amount charged by it. This would happen even if it was omitted from the personal budget or independent personal budget for some reason.
Finally, there is an amendment to make a minor clarification of the circumstances in which an independent personal budget must be provided by a local authority and what the personal budget and independent personal budget must include.
I look forward to this debate and I am grateful to many noble Lords who, I am sure, wish to speak on this important matter.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell of Surbiton, will be speaking remotely. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the large swathe of government amendments, trying to provide small changes to clarify and to remove unintended consequences of the current system. I will speak to Amendments 235, 236A and to Clause 140 standing part of the Bill.
Amendment 235 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is an attempt to replicate and update the Dilnot cap. It is certainly better than the current system, and I think that many noble Lords across all parties in this House have said that it is a shame that the new system does not emulate Dilnot better. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, reduces the rate at which those on low incomes lose benefits if they have assets above the means test threshold.
However, Clause 140 as a whole is a problem. It was added to the Bill later and was not considered by the Commons Bill Committee. Under Amendment 234, “persons entering the care system at or under the age of 40 will have their care costs capped at £0. This would apply to new applicants as well as existing care users who, while over the age of 40, have been accessing care and support since before the age of 40.” It is a huge form of injustice that we have an NHS that is free at the point of use and yet young people with learning disabilities and life-limiting health conditions are being charged for their essential care. One survey of respondents with disabilities in April last year found that 81% said that they had faced cuts in care packages or increased charges during the pandemic, with over half of them specifically reporting increased charges. The survey found that
“charges had forced people to stop care they needed or make difficult choices for financial reasons, with the results showing an increased reliance on family members and high levels of deteriorating mental health, including suicidal thoughts.”
The National Audit Office reported on local government finance in the pandemic and found that 41% of councils with social care responsibility said that they needed to make “substantial” service savings to balance their budgets, including by increasing charges and further use of their reserves.
Mencap’s response to the national insurance levy was that
“we can’t see how the proposed cap on care costs will benefit people with a learning disability … People who need care are missing out, others are having their support cut and some are being asked to pay towards their care which they simply can't afford.”
Further, BBC research has found:
“Some adults with learning disabilities are paying thousands of pounds extra a year, with six councils doubling the amount of money collected in charges. In half of 83 areas that responded to a BBC request, bills across all users have risen at least 10% over two years.”
One example is Saskia Granville, who was shocked when, earlier this year, her care charges increased more than 400%, from £92 to £515 a month. She has a learning disability and lives in supported accommodation in Worthing, west Sussex, but fears the charges will curtail her independence. Some 94% of people with learning disabilities are not in work so they just cannot find that extra cash.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister how on earth he thinks that the current system is either justifiable or equitable. While there may be change trying to sort out some of the minor anomalies, what remains is a system that is deeply unjust. I hope that the Minister is able to consider both Amendments 235 and 236A. I remain to be convinced by the arrangements that he has outlined and if brought back at Report, I am likely to support Clause 140 not standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 233, 234 and 235 in the names of my noble friends Lady Bull and Lady Greengross and the notice of intention to oppose Clause 140 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler.
The amendments propose less punitive charging regimes for social care users, and the notice to oppose reverses the regressive changes to the existing provisions. I support all of them to highlight on this occasion the unfairness of the Government’s charging formula on one particular group in society: working-age disabled adults.
Government amendments to the Care Act disproportionately affect working-age people, especially those with lifelong disabilities who draw on support for their day-to-day needs. It is no secret that I have long campaigned against such charges. Amendments 233 and 234 propose a zero charge on disabled people between the ages of 18 and 40, and Amendment 235 replicates the Dilnot proposals adjusted for inflation.
Care and support for those who depend on it is no less fundamental than healthcare is to survival. Without my care assistant to help me eat, drink, move and breathe, I would die, as I would if I did not receive medical care. Without access to support, I could not contribute to my community, and I could not work or enjoy life, but to live like my non-disabled peers, I would have had to pay for my care until I reached an £86,000 cap from the age of 18. In effect, it is a financial penalty on disability.
Before charging was introduced, working-age disabled service users could save for their first home, provide for a family, fund a university education and afford all the extra costs of disability such as housing adaptions or an accessible vehicle—to thrive as equal citizens. I was very lucky. I grew up during that time, which afforded me the opportunity to aspire to the same ideals as my non-disabled peers aged between 18 and 40.
Coming from very humble beginnings, I did not have a financial cushion, but I worked hard, saved like crazy and spent wisely—all the characteristics that this Government want their citizens to emulate. And look, the policy succeeded, due largely to a then no-charging policy. Here I am today, participating in vital scrutiny, equal among my “peers”. If I had been born 25 years later, it would have been a very different story.
In his foreword to the Government’s disability strategy, the Prime Minister says that it is the Government’s
“determination to level up the country so that whoever and wherever you are, the spark of your talent and potential can be connected with the kindling of opportunity”,
yet this Bill introduces a social care means test which drives disabled people into poverty and places a cap on aspiration.
Those with assets of less than £20,000 will continue to pay out of their income towards the cost of their social care. This includes pensions, means-tested benefits and extra-costs benefits such as personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance. They are all regarded as income in the social care means test. Local authorities will undoubtedly raid these entitlements, intended to fund additional disability costs, to pay for social care. The charging reforms do nothing to address this injustice.
Consequently, those without means, unable to supplement their income through work or savings, will be forced to go without vital support. With the hike in energy bills next April, some will also go without fuel. Charging for care will prevent these young people getting on with life and building up a nest egg. Once their savings reach £20,000, they will be looted and their future security denied.
Take Sarah, aged 34. She has a learning disability and lives in supported housing with social care support for meals, budgeting and running a home. She gets housing benefit for her rent, but with no assets and being unable to work, Sarah is reliant on disability benefits for all other essentials such as food, fuel, council tax, social activities and clothes. She has been paying £81 a week towards her care package but last April the council told her that this would increase to £125. It will take Sarah 13 years to reach the cap, living on only £160 a week. If she were under 25, it would be even less—£141. Sarah will pay the same as someone with assets of £55,000. How on earth can this be described as fair? Sarah, and thousands of others like her, will not be living. They will be barely surviving.
In his Second Reading speech, the Minister said:
“The Government recognise that their amendment to the adult social care charging system was considered controversial. However, it is necessary, fair and responsible.”—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1779.]
What is fair about holding down disabled people in poverty? What is responsible about limiting their ability to survive and prosper? Rather than liberating them, this charging policy will undermine their well-being and lock them in a state of avoidable and costly dependency.
I ask the Minister to work with disabled people’s organisations, myself and my colleagues before Report stage to find a fairer way to enable these service users to thrive, and to consider essential care and support services as a long-term investment rather than a drain on the Exchequer. I urge Members across the House to support these amendments and, in doing so, offer younger working-age adults with care and support needs equal life chances.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 233 and 234 are in my name and I am grateful for the support of my co-signatories and of Mencap and nine other working-age disabled adult charities, whose concerns these amendments reflect. Clause 140 would amend Section 15 of the Care Act 2014, which places a limit on the amount adults can be required to pay towards eligible costs over their lifetime. The Government intend to set that cap at £86,000, irrespective of age and income.
My amendments would “switch on” the section of the Care Act that allows different rates to be set for specific groups, and define one specific group as people between the age of 18 and 40 who are eligible to receive care and support. The effect would be to implement Dilnot’s recommendation that people entering the care system at or under age 40 have their care costs capped at zero. This would apply both to new applicants and to existing users who have accessed care and support since before the age of 40.
The Government have argued, and expert bodies have accepted, that no one will be worse off under their proposed charging reforms. But this does not make them fair and it does not make them just. They fail to recognise that people with mental, physical and learning disabilities will need additional care and support to participate equally in opportunities that many of us take for granted. They also fail to acknowledge that this inevitably leads to higher costs of living and leaves working-age disabled adults with little or no chance of accumulating assets or savings.
The Government’s impact assessment shows that savings and assets are particularly low among younger adults: 73% of 16 to 35-year-olds have made no plans to pay for social care, and ONS figures show that wealth for households where the head is 55 and over is 25 times higher than households aged between 16 and 24. But, of course, all these figures refer to the working-age population who are able to work and therefore earn, and employment rates among disabled people are shockingly low. Just 50% are in work, and this drops to 20% for those with a learning disability. This of course means many disabled people do not have access to regular earnings or career trajectories that deliver rising salaries. So, not surprisingly, disabled people have, on average, £108,000 less in assets than their peers without disabilities. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 38% of working-age disabled adults in the UK live in poverty.
On top of these limited opportunities to earn and save, most working-age care users have a long-term condition or disability that will require costly care and support long before they reach old age and, in many cases, from birth. Scope tells us that, on average, disabled people face £583 of extra cost for every month of their lives. And, of course, very few have the resources to self-fund their care. The vast majority are either below the lower capital limit or in the means-tested system. In this case, their care needs are assessed and those needs deemed eligible are part-funded by the local authority. Needs deemed ineligible are not funded, but they are still needs, and needs have to bet. Often, this is the kind of care that enables the interactions with the workplace and social and leisure opportunities that my noble friend Lady Campbell spoke about. As funding pressures on councils lead to further squeezing of eligibility criteria, as she described, more disabled people are having to fund more care from their own pockets.
But of course, as we heard when the Government introduced new amendments on Report in the other place, this contribution will not count towards the cap. Only the amount the individual contributes to the cost of their eligible care needs will count towards the cap—not the support they receive from local authorities and not the cost of ineligible needs, even though they are genuine needs and funded entirely from individuals’ own pockets. So the consequence of this controversial change is that those people least able to afford it will be spending a greater proportion of their assets and income on social care costs. Let us be clear: that income will come from benefits. The impact assessment says its calculations
“assume users do not make contributions to their care from their income and … all contributions are from user assets.”
But in the very next line, it admits:
“In reality, whilst income from employment is excluded from the means test, income from some benefits would be included.”
So disabled people not only face higher care and support costs but are less likely to be able to earn and therefore save—and they are experiencing parallel pressures on their benefits income from rising care contributions.
The Government’s analysis does not take this into account. These oversights in the analysis cast serious doubts on whether enough has been done to understand the specific needs of younger adults requiring care and how they differ from older people. No one would argue that older people do not deserve support, but it is hard not to conclude that the Government’s reforms are primarily concerned with people who develop care needs in later life, having built up assets and savings, at the expense of working-age adults with long-standing needs.
We have already heard the Minister this evening refer to the danger of unintended consequences. I urge him to consider the consequences of these reforms for those people who most need support and to consider my amendments as a fair and just way to protect them from catastrophically high costs they cannot afford for care they cannot afford to live without. “No one will be worse off” is not, I am sure, what this Government mean when they talk about levelling up. We can and should aim higher.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am standing here to speak in the place of my noble friend Lady Wheeler, because—as irony has it—she is a carer and has had to go home to care for her husband. I find that an irony. My noble friend wanted to speak at this point because we are very keen to make our points in the debate on clause stand part. First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who tabled Amendment 233, which leads the discussion on this highly controversial clause. She spoke with clarity and precision—and, of course, I thank her for her support of the other amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we have reached the point where my noble friend on the Front Bench—who is doing his job well—should look round for support on his own Benches. I fear all he has got is me.
I can see the point he was making about the desirability of these amendments. If Clause 140 were to be proceeded with, they are improvements on the structure of Clause 140, but they rather illustrate the point that Clause 140 itself was brought forward at a late stage and was not fully thought through. I might say to my noble friend that I am a little confused as to how he can be asserting that these amendments are the result of implementation of the existing system, demonstrating a problem when—as far as I can see—Amendments 232A, 232B, 234H, 234J and 234K all relate to parts of the Care Act 2014 that were never brought into force. So they cannot, in practice, have resulted from the implementation of what he describes as the existing system.
I wanted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, because what I have to say follows directly on from what she had to say. The noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading I made it clear that I thought it was best to take Clause 140 out—I still am of that opinion. If we were to proceed with Clause 140, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Campbell of Surbiton—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, not having a chance yet to explain—have explained very well the two central points about young adults. One is that they will not have had an opportunity to accumulate assets in their lifetime. The Dilnot report itself said:
“Anyone developing an eligible need up to the age of 40 should also face a zero cap, as we do not think that people younger than 40 can, in general, realistically be expected to have planned for having a care and support need, nor will they have accumulated significant assets.”
Of course, the point that was made very well by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Bull, was that, even in so far as they have incomes derived from benefits, these may be taken into account in the means test, and so we would have a situation where, under the impact of Clause 140, they would have, potentially over many years, the erosion of whatever benefits are intended to be achieved for precisely that reason. So I very much support Amendments 233 and 234.
My point more generally is that when we get to Report I hope we will have a fuller Chamber and a fuller opportunity to explain why we should take out Clause 140. Of course, in part, in doing this—I see the noble Lord, Lord Warner, standing by ready to explain what the Dilnot commission, of which he was a member, said—I am in a sense defending the Dilnot report and its implementation. I asked Andrew Dilnot to undertake the review, and it reported to me.
I noted that, on Report in another place, Matt Hancock said:
“The reason that the Dilnot system, as previously proposed, was never put in place was that there was never a proposal to pay for it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 111.]
I have to tell him that he was a Back-Bencher in 2010-11 and there was a proposal to pay for it. It was not a Dilnot commission proposal; it was my proposal, and it would have had significant benefit in that, because it would have removed the domiciliary care exemption on the means test, it would have rebalanced domiciliary care and residential care in the social care system. It would of course have meant that, very often, those who were benefiting from the cap and had significant housing assets would have contributed towards it.
I also proposed that the winter fuel allowance should not be made available in future to older people who were higher rate taxpayers. The net effect of these two measures was about £2 billion a year, which at the time would have been enough to pay for it. The Treasury, of course, said no, because 100,000 people a year would benefit from the cap, 200,000 people a year would have to pay into the system, and therefore it was not a good idea. Politically, the Treasury was completely wrong then, and probably it is completely wrong again in bringing forward the proposal encapsulated in Clause 140.
I will just elaborate and then I will stop. On Report in the other place, the right honourable Mel Stride said of what was then new Clause 49, now Clause 140:
“The first we heard of it was not in Committee”—
there were 12 sittings of that, until 2 November—“or in September”, when the tax measures were announced, “but on Wednesday evening”. This was Monday evening, and the first they had heard of it was the previous Wednesday evening when the amendment was tabled. So it was strictly last-minute but, even in the time available, a significant number of Members of the Conservative parliamentary party in the other place had their reservations. The clause was passed with a majority of just 26, with 19 Conservative Members of Parliament voting against it. Quite a number spoke, including Kevin Hollinrake, who said that
“there is no doubt that the way that the cap works means that it is less generous for those with more modest assets.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; cols. 115-47.]
The objective—which, as I remember, was calculated on the back of the Dilnot report—should be that, broadly speaking, whatever your level of assets, there is a maximum level of loss of assets resulting from the implementation of the cap with a means test. If I remember correctly, it was about 45% loss of assets for those with the least assets; it would not exceed that. Of course, for people with lots of assets, the loss of their assets is significantly below that percentage. But now we have ended up with people with a large amount of assets having a potentially very low loss of assets and they are the principal gainers; people with very few assets, but some, may well lose them all. This cannot be right, and it cannot be fair. It is quite clear that Members of the other place, including a significant number of Conservatives, want to think about this again. When it comes to Report, if we take Clause 140 out, we will rightly give them the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 235 in my name, which seeks to implement the social care contribution cap recommended in the 2011 Dilnot report. He recommended that a cap be set at £35,000. Care cost inflation runs at 1.5% above the consumer price index, so to replicate the 2011 recommendation, adjusting for this cap would now be set at £50,000, and that is what this amendment seeks to achieve. The amendment would also adjust the cap with care cost inflation each year.
I first want to acknowledge that the Government’s proposed cap in this Bill of £86,000 is a significant improvement, as it introduces a cap and puts some limit on what people pay in care costs. There are some who still do not believe that there should be a cap and feel that this will just be a means of helping wealthy homeowners, but not all homeowners are automatically wealthy or sitting on some high-value property portfolio. For many people, as we know, their only real asset is a modest family home, which, in certain parts of the country, may have increased in value over time but even so not enough to make them wealthy.
There is an equity issue in that, if someone is diagnosed with cancer, the NHS will cover the full treatment cost, whereas if someone is diagnosed with dementia, they may require many years of care, which will cost families thousands of pounds as this is not covered. My Amendment 291, which will be debated in a later group, addresses the issue of dementia care plans and specifically talks about the different types of dementia and how each requires a different type of care and support. If someone is unlucky enough to be diagnosed with a certain type of vascular dementia, Lewy body dementia, or Parkinson’s-related dementia, these conditions often require many years of care—up to a decade or more in some cases.
I am not suggesting that there should be a different cap for people who have been diagnosed with long-lasting forms of dementia, but we must understand that people with these types of dementia will be the most impacted by this provision. The proposed cap of £50,000 in this amendment, the equivalent to that recommended in the Dilnot report nearly 11 years ago, is a much better one. According to the ONS, the average yearly earnings for people in the UK is £31,000. The cap of £50,000 is roughly just under two years’ average earnings, whereas £86,000 is nearly three years’ average earnings.
I anticipate that, when the Minister responds, the main objection to this amendment will be the cost to the Government, and I have no doubt that the Treasury will have concerns if the cap is lowered. In response to this, I refer the House to the debate in this Chamber on 16 September 2021 on the Intergenerational Fairness Forum report, Grasping the Nettle. As chair of the Intergenerational Fairness Forum, I introduced this debate, outlining that the report recommended that the Government introduce a social care levy at a rate of 1%, which could be raised to 2% for those aged 50 and over if there were a need for extra revenue. The levy would apply only to adults over the age of 40, placing the heaviest burden on those best placed to contribute to the cost of this bill. I mention the recommendation from this report to highlight that there are still other options to fund social care, and it would mean that the Government could lower the cap.
Some will feel that it is better at this time to focus on implementing the current cap and then, over time, press for a lower cap. Certainly, history shows that when other social security measures, such as the pension, were first introduced, they started at quite a small amount of money but then became more generous over time. I accept the logic of this, but still feel that the case must be made for a lower cap and that this should be considered and debated in Committee.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, this is a rather strange grouping. In the earlier debates we were dancing at times on the heads of pins, and now we have the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, with her proposals for a lower cap, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—with whom I agree—largely exempting people of working age with a disability, and it is difficult to cover the whole field. However, I will attempt to give a small synopsis leading up to my own amendment, which is about the taper.
I first declare an interest as an unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers—the people who really know a lot about this stuff. I should also apologise for not having participated in the Second Reading debate but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I was in a crucial meeting of our House’s Communications Committee, which made doing so impossible.
On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I am a strong supporter of the cap as recommended by Andrew Dilnot, for the obvious reason that it ends an unfairness to people who happen to live for a long time and therefore lose their assets. Unfortunately, in 54 minutes’ time I shall go back to the way I am on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, which is to be broadly opposed to a cap of the kind that has been proposed. That is for two reasons. First, all parties should take into account that it is wildly expensive—some £3 billion, which will rise as the number of old people rises. I would much rather that that money was spent on better care for those who need it than on paying for the rich. Do not be in any doubt: whatever gloss is put on it, half the people in care are paid for by the state now, so all the expenditure on the Dilnot cap will go on the other half. A lot of them are not rich people—some of them are quite modestly wealthy—but it is the richer half of the population that this cap supports. As a socialist, that is why I cannot go along with it—at least on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. It is not too long until next Sunday, when the good Lord will advise me on what final position to take.
Starting from that scepticism about the concept of a cap, I will say one thing about Dilnot’s proposals. Whatever you think, whether you are for it or against it, the case for the cap is much less strong than it was when Andrew Dilnot proposed it in his brilliant report, and for three reasons. First, no one now has to sell their house to pay for care. They did then but they do not now: they can borrow the money from the local authority and pay it back afterwards. Secondly, house prices have risen by 30%, so many people have more assets they could spend on their own care without leaving themselves with no assets to leave to their children. Thirdly—an important point which has been wholly missed so far in the debate—the private sector, belatedly but slowly, has started to get its act together about this. There are two relevant products: equity release, which enables somebody to get some money out of their house to pay for their care without selling the house, leaving plenty for the children; and, more importantly, annuities and deferred annuities, which are paid from the point of care in the case of an annuity, or after you have been in care for two years or so in the case of a deferred annuity. I was amazed to read through the impact assessment, which went through every possible argument on caps and alternatives to them, and not see a single reference to deferred annuities. They are part of a holistic solution.
I ask the Minister in all sincerity—I know he is very open to suggestions—that, before this Bill completes its passage and, preferably, before we have decided whether to leave Clause 140 as part of the Bill, we look at the role that the private sector can play in supplementing a cap, for example in allowing people to pay for better care for themselves, or indeed possibly replacing it with a less regressive way of paying for care. It should be looked at; it has been ignored since Dilnot, and the case that Dilnot then made against it is not quite the same today, so it really deserves to be looked at.
Finally, on my own amendment on the taper, I am very distribution-minded about this cap. What motivates me is that I hate taking scarce state money, which is needed to provide decent services for people who cannot provide decent services for themselves, and spending it on a subsidy for “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”. This seems wrong to me. I would love to see the welfare state expand. I am rather shocked to find a Conservative Government seeking to expand it in order to help the better-off at the cost of much more public spending. The better-off should be able to look after themselves.
If we are to have a cap, we should make it as good in terms of redistribution as we can, with less favouring of the rich than is the case with the present cap. That is why I brought in another thing that has not been mentioned in the debate: the taper. At the moment, the taper does not matter much; it applies in only a very narrow band of incomes. However, under this system, the taper will apply to assets of between £20,000 and £100,000. For every £250 you have in the bank, you lose £1 a week in benefits. That will hit the people who have between £20,000 and £100,000 in assets. They are not rich; they are the kind of people I want to help, but they are being struck by this taper.
Of course, addressing this will cost money, and I am reluctant about that. For every £50 you put on the £250 for the taper, it would be about £200 million a year; it is not nothing, but it is less than the £1 billion or so that would be lost if Clause 140 does not stand part of the Bill. If the Government want to show that they are interested in redistribution, as well as pleasing their richer supporters, I ask them to look at the taper as an alternative. I saw the vote in the Commons: Clause 140 is down the pan. It is not going to win. If he takes it back to the other place, he will be voted down, so it is not going to happen. Therefore, we all, particularly in your Lordships’ House, need to use our imagination to find alternatives to the proposal that the Government have put forward. That proposal will not pass this Parliament in its present form and in its entirety. Working with the Minister, we need to find a better proposal that meets the various considerations I have put forward and, in particular, uses the private sector and does not protect the assets of just the rich.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, a little belatedly, noble Lords might like to hear from one-third of the Dilnot Commission; I declare my interest as that third. I have to say that our ideas have been presented in a whole variety of ways over the last 10 years. This evening, they have been presented fairly accurately, which is refreshing.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, having attached my name to Amendment 233 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I shall rise briefly. I am not quite sure why I did not attach my name to Amendment 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I certainly meant to, so I apologise for not doing so. I did that because I was approached to show broad cross-party support. Indeed, my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the same amendment definitely demonstrates that.
As someone concerned about poverty and inequality, I could not but do that. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Greengross, have set out the cases very clearly. I am not going to run through again the levels of poverty and inequality and the sheer struggle that so many people currently face and will face in future. As we have been around the houses for quite a long while on whether Clause 140 stand part, I shall just refer to one sentence in the Age UK report because it sums up where we are very clearly. It says:
“It is clear that these changes have the potential to save the Government hundreds of millions of pounds, but at the expense of those on low incomes, with modest assets and living in parts of the country where houses values are lower.”
It is the very opposite of levelling up.
However, in the context of this debate and particularly after the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I want to set out an alternative vision—a vision that is much more radical than anything noble Lords have heard from anyone else tonight. It is the vision that was passed at the Green Party conference in October after a long and very hard-working campaign, particularly by our group of disabled members. It calls for free social care for all adults. Members of your Lordships’ House will have often heard me talking about a universal basic income, and I see the other side of that as universal basic services. I regard social care as a basic service. If you need help to eat, wash and lead a full life under your own control, that should be provided free at the point of need in the same way as the NHS is provided. This is a basic philosophical difference from others who have said that we need it all means-tested and that we need to be able to look at where a person is. I say that if someone needs this help it should be provided and then, whether or not people who have the means to contribute to that, whether they have been unfortunate enough to suffer a disability or a limiting illness, they should all be in that position.
I am aware of the time, so I will make just one final point on postcode lotteries. We often express a great deal of concern about postcode lotteries, but there is another lottery that occurs to people in this situation. Some people who suffer very serious disabilities or very serious illnesses that affect their living conditions are able, through the courts, to receive payments. Perhaps their parents are able to show that they suffered some disability at birth as a result of inadequate care, and they receive a very large payment that is set at a level to provide them with a decent level of care for life. Perhaps they are a young adult who is knocked off their bicycle and it is possible to hold a driver responsible. They get a very large court payout absolutely rightly. I am not challenging that under the current system at all, but they get that payment. Someone with exactly the same condition who cannot go to court and the people caring for them, their parents or relatives, have to struggle and fight at every level and at every moment to get the care that they need. That is just not right.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to contribute to this debate. I fully support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I was particularly struck by her dissection of this Government’s totally preposterous claim to have a plan for social care. They do not have a plan. All they have is a regressive tax and a broken promise.
I am tempted by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lipsey to enter into a broader debate on these issues. Clearly, this issue is not going to go away. This is not the end and the issues that were raised will come back again and again until we move towards something fairer and more comprehensive. I cannot resist saying that I am unconvinced that deferred annuities will have any part in any sort of mass market provision of care. As a product, they are fatally flawed, in my view.
My noble friend’s remarks also made me think of the extent to which this debate is taking place while ignoring the key factor in these issues, which is housing or, rather, property management. That is really what we are talking about, but we do not mention it in the context of these debates, which is unfortunate. I am glad my noble friend raised these issues. However, I think the substantive point this evening is the imperative of sending this clause back to the Commons where they can reassess it with greater time than they were allowed initially.
Finally, I just want to highlight the revealing and outrageous statement by the Minister in the Commons, Mr Argar. He said the Government
“have always intended for the cap to apply to what people personally contribute, rather than on the combination of their personal contribution and that of the state.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 110.]
I do not believe that means-tested benefits are any more money being given by the state than my pension that I get from the national insurance scheme. It is outrageous to cast people as, in a sense, recipients of charity. It is their rights as citizens to have this money, and it is their money; it is not the state’s money. It reveals the Poor Law mindset of this Government.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I understand the concerns about the lack of debate in the other place on this issue. The Government are putting in place a package of reforms to be implemented in 2023. The introduction of the £86,000 cap on costs is part of a package through which we hope that no one will lose out when compared to the current system. I will get the source that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me for. I think that is a reasonable question.
The Government believe that having the cap in place allows people to balance their personal responsibility of planning for later years and puts in place a system where we hope that no one faces unpredictable care costs. Without Clause 140, two people with the same level of wealth, contributing the same amount towards the cost of their care, could reach the cap at very different times, driven not by how much they are spending on their care but how much the local authority is. We wanted to address that perceived unfairness.
Instead, the Government made the decision to offer the same cap for everyone. However, the cost for people with more modest means will be reduced in two important ways: first, through means-tested support, including for those living in their home. This kicks in as soon as someone’s assets fall below £100,000, potentially right from the start of their care journey. We chose to offer the same threshold for means-tested support, no matter where somebody draws on care, because we want to support and encourage people to be able to stay in their own homes whenever they can. That was an ambition set out in our White Paper, People at the Heart of Care.
Lord Warner (CB)
The proposition in relation to the age of 40 was in the report; it has been around for 10 years. It is a bit late in the day to be coming forward with the suggestion that it was an inadequate proposition from the Dilnot commission. Ten years is a long time to discover truth.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment 235, on setting the cap based on the recommendations of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support and moving the implementation date by a year. For local authorities to make a change of this magnitude this year is undeliverable. They have told us that the original plan to implement for October 2023 is already an ambitious target.
Setting the level of the cap has been a fine balance. The Government have had to consider the longer-term cost of reform and what proportion of the future levy revenues to earmark for this purpose and other purposes. Retrospectively to impose a cap on care costs for everyone in the care system and to include their care costs during their lifetimes in the cap calculation is unfeasible.
I would like to have some further conversations with the noble Lord on Amendment 236A, if that is possible. I thank him for some of his suggestions to date. There is a real debate about how feasible a private solution is. I remember in an earlier debate the noble Lord rightly chastising me and saying that it was rather embarrassing for a Labour Peer to propose to a Conservative Peer a private sector solution. That hurt—but I completely understand. If it is possible, I personally would have been open to it, but the Government maintain that it is not feasible. We will probably need some more discussions.
This clause clearly needs a lot more discussion between now and Report. I could go into more arguments but, given that there was a lack of debate in the other place, I think that it needs more debate and more consideration overall. I am very happy to have more round tables with the Bill team, the charging team and noble Lords to explain the case, and for noble Lords to decide whether it is an acceptable case or still to disagree with it. With that in mind, I hope that noble Lords feel sufficiently reassured not to press their amendments at this stage and to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Registration of tertiary prevention activities in respect of provision of social care
In section 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, in subsection (3) at the end insert “or any form of reablement and rehabilitation provided under section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would bring reablement and rehabilitation provided under Section 2 of the Care Act 2014 to reduce the need for care and support into the purview of the Care Quality Commission.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with rehabilitation services. Very briefly, because the hour is very late, I will set out why it matters so much.
People in hospital, as the Minister said previously, lose muscle mass at an alarming rate when they are confined to bed. They risk thrombosis, lose their ability to balance, their confidence and their social contacts, and can become lonelier, isolated from friends and family, and depressed as they see themselves able to do less and less. They then become terrified of going home and often feel quite dumped when they get home because there is a sudden cliff edge from being supported in an environment to feeling like there is no one there. That same cliff edge also happens for patients when they leave intensive care units and go from the very intensive care down to a general ward—so we have huge steps in our system at the moment.
Assessment in hospital, as has often happened, does not often make any sense, because people know their own home. So assessing whether someone can make a cup of tea in a hospital kitchen may bear no relationship at all to their own kettle, their own kitchen, the floor, where they keep things, and so on. They need to be in their own home to be assessed. In their own home, there are often trip hazards, if they are not detected, and if people are not supported to navigate around their own home and furniture, they will have a fall and end up back in hospital very quickly. They need seven-day support at home, because they need to have people whom they can contact.
The problem is that, at the moment, recovery and maintenance of personal independence, although central to the Government’s long-term ambition for social care services, just do not seem to be integrated. In the document, People at the Heart of Care, there is a reference on 68 occasions to the importance of the role of adult care services in maintaining independence for people at home in the community, but there is no mention of local authority rehabilitation services at all.
Rehabilitation services in the community are not subject to regular monitoring and inspection. There are no consequences for poor or absent provision beyond individual complaints, which is why this amendment proposes that they should be brought into the purview of the Care Quality Commission. In the other place, the Minister Edward Argar stated his belief that services were already covered by the existing legislation. But that is not the everyday experience in operation. For example, if we look at vision rehabilitation services, in an audit undertaken by the RNIB, half of the lead counsellors for rehabilitation had no idea that vision rehabilitation was in their remit.
I shall move on rapidly to Amendment 241, because these amendments are all linked. I should have said at the outset that these have been proposed and supported also by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, of which I am president. In this amendment, in large part, professions involved in local authority rehabilitation are regulated bodies with recognition in health, such as OTs, physios and speech and language therapists. But there are other people in local authorities involved in providing rehabilitation who are currently completely unregulated and unregistered, so the Rehabilitation Workers Professional Network is currently seeking registration with the Professional Standards Authority in order to take this group of staff on to a list of statutorily regulated social care staff.
Amendment 306, also in this group, would bring local authority reablement and rehabilitation activities, defined by care and support statutory guidance as tertiary prevention, into regulation and enable the Secretary of State to require information on how the service is operated. Anecdotally, there is wide, unwarranted variation in both the quality and breadth of service offered across England. There is no centralised reporting of performance. Bringing these services explicitly into regulation would enable NICE to develop guidelines and quality statements that could be used to inform the quality of provision of services, which, as I have already said, could then be properly inspected. We might then get nearer to having a level playing field.
I also have my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which is about hospital accommodation, and I will speak to it briefly. At the moment, we have a severe shortage of beds. We know that patients come out of ICU to general wards, and there are patients who cannot then be discharged to home. Often, they are in that twilight where they are really not well enough to go home. They need more rehabilitation, they need more support, but the hospital is deeming them fit to discharge because of the incoming pressure on their beds.
If we had some more step-down beds, we could provide care in much more imaginative ways, such as happens in some parts of Europe, where, for example, family members are expected to come in and help with some of the basic care—feeding, personal hygiene and so on—of their own relative, as they all get used to rehabilitating together, so that that person can go home with that family member understanding how to care for them and what to do, and therefore being able to support them better in the community and pick up early warning signs.
We need to learn from the military rehabilitation units and the new NHS national rehabilitation centre that is being built near Loughborough, because there is evidence that if you can move people through the system more appropriately and get them back home, they recover better and quicker and do not risk that deterioration I referred to at the beginning. A community rehabilitation plan would improve co-ordination, integration of rehabilitation units and community rehabilitation. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, numerous reports from Select Committees of your Lordships’ House have recommended that the NHS and care system do things differently in order to use resources efficiently while providing better care and independence for patients. It is well known that most of us cost the NHS more as we get older, particularly if we have multiple morbidities. This is why the Government launched the Ageing Society Grand Challenge—to achieve five additional years of healthy life by 2035. So your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee looked into this and published a report on 15 January last year. Sadly, we had to conclude that the Government are not on track to achieve this.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 289, which would ensure that every hospital has sufficient accommodation to allow a bed for any patient who is rehabilitating and who no longer needs to be in hospital, but who cannot be discharged to their own home. Further, this amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that hospitals use any spare land owned by the NHS to build this accommodation.
For many years I have been an advocate for this type of accommodation. The NHS has struggled for a long time with a lack of available hospital beds, a situation made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. Having rehabilitation accommodation for people who need to be near a hospital in case they need to see a doctor, but who do not need the full services of an NHS hospital bed, which is considerably more expensive, would be of considerable benefit. In Scandinavia, patient accommodation of this nature has been part of the state health system since the late 1980s. Having patients stay in these facilities, which are designed to cater for people needing medical care, has delivered considerable savings to the public health system.
The cost of someone staying in one of these hotel rooms is less than a third of the cost of someone staying in a hospital bed. This is a great example of how the private sector, working in conjunction with the state, can enhance efficiency and deliver better public health outcomes. Over the last couple of years I have had the privilege of working with chartered architect Jimmy Kim, who has identified various opportunities throughout England to use NHS-owned land or vacant buildings for this sort of development. These sites could be given to the private sector to develop into non-clinical units, with a guarantee of a utilisation contract from the Government. At present, NHS trusts are spending money putting up patients in hotels, with rooms costing as much as £275 per night. One hospital has spent over £1 million on hotel rooms in the last three years. From a cost perspective, it would be better for the NHS to provide this accommodation in symbiosis with the private sector, rather than paying hundreds of pounds a night for hotel rooms or having patients stay longer in hospital beds which are not designed for the context of health rehabilitation.
We need to bear in mind the widening context of what a patient is in today’s society, which is one with dementia, adult-disabled, mental health issues and, progressively, those for whom the social services have yet to find suitable accommodation.
The need to reform both health and care is long overdue. The pressure to invest more in social care has been building up over many years, and Governments have been slow to respond. But part of this must also be looking at prevention and helping people to remain independent, which we can do through supporting rehabilitating patients and helping people to remain independent. We also know that pressure on our hospital system means that many people wait far too long to get treatments, while others stay too long due to there not being suitable accommodation when they are discharged. In too many cases, people end up in hospital for too long or in the social care system where, instead, the step-down accommodation that I am proposing in my amendment would be the most suitable option.
I would love to discuss this further with the Government as I believe that the concept has real merit, as it would reduce NHS costs and improve patient outcomes. My amendment would help the NHS save money and result in better outcomes for patients. I know that one such experiment is being developed now in London; I am really delighted to know about that and I think many patients will be too.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, delayed transfers in care is an ongoing challenge for health and social care services, made worse with the pandemic. We need to remember that hospitals are for assessment and treatment. As other noble Lords have already said, extensive stay in hospital is not good for your health.
In February 2020, there were over 155,000 delay days in hospital, costing a significant amount of money. A majority of the delays—21%—were caused by delays in packages of care in patients’ own homes, while 18% were due to delays in receiving further non-acute NHS care. With over half a million emergency admissions in the same month, intervention is urgently needed to reduce systematic pressures and maintain safe and timely discharge.
I therefore particularly support Amendment 289 to optimise existing space and develop new accommodation for hospital patients who no longer require acute treatment. There are a range of options, including community hospitals, NHS nursing homes, contracts with not-for-profit social enterprises and, as my noble friend Lady Greengross has said, independent sector companies.
However, these issues are not new. I have in my hands a paper by Sir Cyril Chantler for the King’s Fund, The Potential of Community Hospitals to Change the Delivery of Health Care. The salutary point about this excellent paper is that it was written in 2001.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, since I attached my name to Amendment 289, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. She set out the reason for the need for this service, but I just want to say explicitly—particularly given the next group of amendments—that I do not believe that independent providers, for-profit providers at least, would be the way of doing this, given the many problems that we have seen in social care, which are highlighted in the next group.
We still have, in some places at least, community hospitals and facilities in communities. These are things that ideally would be developed by the community for the community, being run for public good not private profit.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 289 in the names of my noble friends Lady Greengross, Lady Watkins, Lady Finlay and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Reading the words of the amendment reminded me of the speech that my noble friend Lady Campbell of Surbiton gave in your Lordships’ Chamber on 29 November 2012—col. 274 in Hansard. She talked movingly about a young man, a wheelchair user who had to remain in hospital four months longer than he should have because of a lack of accessible accommodation —a travesty. One can only imagine the impact on the mental health and well-being of someone in this situation. Sadly, many more now know what this feels like.
Although the situation we are in now is somewhat different, I hope that the Minister will be able to give due consideration to the needs of disabled people, in relation to accessibility—for example, regarding toilets, showers, and specialist equipment—but also to the support networks that disabled people may require, while ensuring that appropriate and knowledgeable people are able to support their rehab. This is vital so that many disabled people are not marooned.
While I have been in your Lordships’ Chamber tonight, I have been sent some data on the work carried out by Dr Elizabeth Williamson about the mortality rates of those on the learning disability register over the last 18 months; these rates are, quite frankly, shocking. I need some time to go through the data in detail and digest it. I will write to the Minister to explore this further but, at a quick glance, the data gives me cause for significant concern and means that careful implementation of the amendments in this group will be very important to protect and support disabled people.
Going back to the amendment, a disabled person’s ability to return home may or may not be more complicated than for a non-disabled person during this time but a longer stay than necessary could have a significant impact on someone’s mental health and well-being, especially if not properly supported, and could even hamper their long-term physical recovery, which, in turn, would put more pressure on the NHS.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 289. It is worth remembering that the NHS used to have convalescent beds—I went to one as a boy, recovering from peritonitis. These have disappeared over time. When in the 1980s and 1990s nursing homes were set up in increasing numbers across this country, we found that they ended up on the means-tested side of the boundary between health and adult social care. In a way, the NHS lost out because these resources were on another side of the boundary, which was defended with jesuitical force to make sure that people did not drift into the NHS who might get care that was not means tested but free. We have ended up shooting ourselves quite badly in the foot by allowing these services to drift out of the NHS and into the adult social care system.
Shortly after the 2010 election, I facilitated a proposal from a few large nursing home groups to take recovering patients from hospital to free up acute hospital beds. This was rejected by the Treasury which thought it would lead to large numbers of people who were being means-tested getting free NHS care. In fact, they were two separate groups and the NHS was punishing itself by keeping people in beds in the NHS at high cost. We know that about 25% of the people who are in acute hospital beds should not be there—they need not be there clinically—but they are holding on to those beds because there is nowhere else for them to go within the NHS system. We have ended up unnecessarily blocking beds and spending a lot more money because we cannot put in place a service that the NHS badly needs. I suggest to the Minister that we revisit this issue in the interests of the NHS and its patients.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the debate this evening and for the amendments put forward, which have focused on what I would call a complete continuum of care and support where people need it most; my thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for leading the debate. What we hear tonight is the need to drive up standards and availability in what can be accessed for reablement and rehabilitation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, reminds me, I fear that, over time, we have perhaps lost a broader range of provision, and the word “convalescence” has somewhat left our vocabulary. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, to ensure that accommodation is available to people who are in rehabilitation—people who no longer need to be in a hospital ward but cannot return to their own home—is creative and practical. I hope that the Minister will look at exploring that idea.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank noble Lords for explaining these amendments. On Amendments 236 and 306, it is right that social care services be appropriately and effectively regulated, and this includes rehabilitation and reablement. However, I do not believe these amendments are necessary to achieve that outcome.
The definition of “social care” in the existing Section 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 is already sufficiently broad to cover reablement and rehabilitation services provided under Section 2 of the Care Act 2014. Most rehabilitation and reablement services are already within the scope of the CQC’s regulated activities, so most of those services are CQC registered.
It follows that these services are also in scope of the provision in Clause 85 that enables the Secretary of State to require information from CQC-registered providers of adult social care services. If there are concerns about the scope of CQC regulatory activities in relation to these particular services, I would encourage the noble Baroness to write to my noble friend the Minister, so that it can be ascertained whether changes to secondary legislation are needed.
On Amendment 241, the scope of Section 60 currently covers healthcare professionals across the UK, and social care workers in England only. Social care is a devolved matter and falls within the competence of the devolved legislatures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Section 60 defines
“social care workers in England”
through a list of descriptions. Staff who work to provide reablement and rehabilitation services in the course of care work are covered by the existing descriptors and could therefore be brought into regulation through secondary legislation. In addition to those carrying out this role in the social care field, there are also a number of healthcare professionals who provide reablement and rehabilitation services, such as occupational therapists and physiotherapists, who also fall within the scope of section 60.
Finally, turning to Amendment 289, the Government recognise that rehabilitation is a critical element of the health and care system, supporting patients with a wide range of conditions. A number of initiatives are already under way to support future discharge routes in a way that is sustainable and cost-effective and that provides choice for patients to return to their community. These will be pursued locally by the NHS in ways that best fit their local clinical requirements.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who asked why NICE could not give guidance. NICE has already given guidance on rehabilitation after critical illness in adults. It was published in 2009 and reviewed in 2018.
NHS England and NHS Improvement lead a programme to identify optimum bed-to-home models of care for rehabilitation services, supporting discharge to assess policy implementation. The programme will estimate the right capacity for out-of-hospital rehabilitation care, supporting systems through a range of guidance, frameworks and tools. Furthermore, we have already asked NHS organisations to review their estate and identify opportunities to utilise or dispose of surplus assets to ensure that the estate remains efficient and cost-effective.
The NHS also, for transparency, publishes quarterly statistics on surplus land. Integrated care boards will be able to develop estate strategies which identify the efficient use of the estate. As part of that, these plans will be able to identify a number of NHS priorities that could be delivered through the use of surplus land. It should be for local organisations, not the Secretary of State, to decide how to utilise surplus land to meet the needs of their local populations, and therefore we do not think this amendment takes the correct approach in this regard.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and hope that I have given them enough assurance at this late hour to allow them not to press their amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for that response and I am particularly grateful to all those who contributed to this debate at this late hour. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, had it completely right when she said that this was about a continuum of care. The problem is that, if people do not get timely care at the outset and on the way through their journey, things just accumulate.
I certainly will go back and look at the NICE guidance; I had understood that it did not go far enough or cover things effectively, but I am most grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to that. Certainly we should be looking at how the regulation of those involved in rehabilitation in the community can be extended. Of course, the advantage of regulation is that you also have a lever for training and education, to address the very specific needs of different groups. My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson spoke of the disabled group, which includes those with physical disabilities, learning difficulties and different areas of handicap. They need to be looked after by people who have been trained and who understand what their specific needs are. That cannot be just a generic service.
I am also glad to hear that there will be the ability to look at the beds and the estate overall and that people are beginning to think about that again. With all those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Friday 4th February 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-VIII(a) Amendment for Committee - (3 Feb 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we commence proceedings on the Bill, I will outline the plan for today. We will shortly begin the eighth day in Committee on the Bill. There is no other business, but we will take a short break around 2 pm. We will sit until 7 pm. At the outset, I thank the staff of the House for supporting this additional lengthy Friday sitting, both those here in the Chamber and those who do the enormous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to get the House up and running.
I fear that noble Lords know what I will say next. I do not want to deny the House the fullest chance to scrutinise this Bill. As over 40 hours have been devoted to that end, not even my fiercest critics could say that time for debate has been curtailed. However, we still have a lot of amendments to get through. I know, based on the experience of last Wednesday, that good progress can be made. I know that the Front Benches will work to ensure that their contributions are concise and to the point and I hope that all noble Lords will do the same.
We should perhaps bear in mind the late, great Nicholas Parsons and make our speeches without repetition, hesitation or deviation and perhaps for just a minute. This is a self-governing House, so all I can do is ask and implore noble Lords to respect the conventions and courtesies of the House to ensure effective and efficient scrutiny of this legislation.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before calling the first amendment, I indicate that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.
Clause 141: Provision of social care services: financial assistance
Amendment 237
“(c) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) No financial assistance provided under this section may be used for the purposes of—(a) repaying debt;(b) paying interest on debt;(c) making distributions to shareholders.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that financial assistance given by the Secretary of State is not distributed to shareholders or used to repay debt obligations.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 238 and 239 in my name. Predatory and rent-seeking financial practices by investment firms and hedge funds, which are often based in tax havens and have extremely complex ownership structures, have placed unmanageable financial and human costs on the UK care sector. I first learned about this issue in 2016 from the brilliant Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, which was then based in Manchester but is sadly no longer extant. Since then, the issue has become a staple on the pages of the Financial Times. If any noble Lord does not know about this issue, I urge them to look up “UK social care” on ft.com. They will see there a long string of stories from a publication that does not generally represent my side of politics saying how much of a problem this is.
I also note that, last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, not currently in his place, initiated an Oral Question that highlighted some of the worst abuses in financialised care homes, from HC-One siphoning off 20% of its revenues to offshore affiliates through intra-group transactions to—as was highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who may raise this again later—the industry average of 16% of the money going not to care but to the financial sector. The crisis is here and was further highlighted by the recent “Panorama” report.
What is lacking, however, and I have been looking for them since 2016, is solutions. How do we change this situation? It is worth pointing out that this is not how things have always been. Back in the 1980s, the NHS was generally known as a world leader for geriatric care, as it was then known, picking up half of the care sector for older people. In 1982, there were only 44,000 private care home beds. By 1994, there were 164,000. The number of charity, non-profit, local authority beds plummeted and the private sector came in or displaced the public.
The amendments to the Health and Care Bill that I am presenting today rely on the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Limits to Growth. Its excellent report covers these issues in much more detail than I have time to do today and I urge noble Lords to look at it. The group worked on and produced these amendments.
Amendment 237 takes what I think could be a deeply dangerous element of the Government’s Bill, which has received little attention thus far. It is the provision allowing for government support of private care facilities. This is not possible now. Amendment 237 would add the provision that these funds cannot be used to make payments on debt obligations for for-profit bodies or in distributions to shareholders—huge payouts that were highlighted in last week’s debate.
However, that takes us further, and it is interesting that the government amendment—I suspect unintentionally—actually gives us a way forward to start to unwind the privatisation, as there is a potential problem. We have already seen two major private care home crashes: Southern Cross in 2011 and Four Seasons Health Care in 2019. When—I will not say if—more crash, how do we start to move towards worker co-operatives, social enterprises, local authority homes and charity-run homes? How do we ensure that people can stay in those homes safely and be cared for, and not see the money siphoned off into offshore tax havens? We can use Clause 141 with this amendment for potentially very positive, even revolutionary, purposes.
Amendment 238 picks up a point that I often make that a foundation for tackling our out-of-control financial sector and ensuring that fair taxes are paid by companies is country-by-country reporting. The amendment requires any related companies within the same corporate group that are registered offshore to be under the same financial reporting and publication requirements as those bodies registered in the UK. That means that expenditure on dividends, directors’ fees, interest payment and similar would have to be fully and transparently declared. I have to ask the Minister: what does he have against transparency in the financial sector? What could the Government possibly have against seeing exactly where the money goes—whether it is the money of older, vulnerable people in our society or the state money that is supporting them? That is all that this amendment does; it demands that transparency.
These two amendments are not a total solution—I do not have a panacea for the situation—but they are a start, and that is why they combine with the third amendment in this group, Amendment 239, which calls for a review. It is a very simple, obvious amendment of a type often seen in your Lordships’ House. I note that I am joining the former Conservative Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who also recently called for a review of the funding. We see some unusual alliances in this House; this is an unusual alliance between the two Houses.
As we all know and has just been highlighted, the many hours of this debate have focused on what a mess the care sector is. These are the most vulnerable members in our society, and a significant part of that mess is because money is being siphoned away from their care. We can use the Bill, with these three modest amendments, to start to turn around that situation. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 237, 238 and 239 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which aim to ensure that private providers are regulated, especially those using obfuscatory financial structures, instruments with inter-company loans and large amounts of debt. They should be fully transparent about those arrangements. She was right to highlight the excellent reporting of the Financial Times on this, along with the financial editors and journalists of other papers.
The typical small business social care home owner does not fall into the category I have just described. The problem in the sector is the private equity providers who decided to start buying up care home groups because they felt that the assets could be milked to provide healthy-looking returns for them. This differs from those homes borrowing in order to, perhaps, buy new homes to enlarge their group; what is happening here is purely financial instruments to benefit the directors and investors. Typically, private equity-backed providers spend around 16% of the bed fee on complex buyout debt obligations. The accounts of Care UK show that it paid £4.1 million in rent in 2019 to Silver Sea Holdings—a company registered in low-tax Luxembourg, which is also owned by Care UK’s parent company, Bridgepoint.
These kinds of buyouts are also associated with an 18% increase in risk of bankruptcy for the target company. In the case of Four Seasons Health Care, heavy debt payments contributed to the company’s collapse into administration in 2019. Two of the other largest care home providers in the UK, HC-One and Care UK, have also undergone leveraged buyouts and, as a result, their corporate group structures remain saddled with significant debts. Some of these types of company are also struggling to provide the best possible care with their overall CQC scores—so it is affecting the lives of the most vulnerable patients.
The Office for National Statistics says that 63% of care home residents are paid for by the public purse. Surely the Government must have a duty towards the public purse. It is not acceptable for the public purse to pay for these complex financial arrangements that are intended to provide not care or capital for the growth of a care business but purely a larger return for directors and shareholders. These amendments would provide for transparency and accountability and an assurance that the public purse and the private payer are not being taken for a ride.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank her for putting them forward. The care sector is both complex and very little understood. Back in 2020, there were approximately 15,000 care homes in the UK, run by approximately 8,000 providers. Some were very small; others were providing very large networks of homes—it is a mixed economy. These figures are a couple of years old but, at that time, 84% of homes were run by the private sector, including by private equity firms, both British and offshore.
Funding is a complex mix of private funders, local authorities and the NHS. I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for highlighting the work that the Financial Times has done, because I was first alerted to this issue by an investigation that the paper did back in 2019 which revealed how Britain’s four largest privately owned care home operators had racked up debts of £40,000 per bed, meaning that their annual interest charges absorbed eight weeks of average fees paid by local authorities on behalf of residents. Many have argued, and I absolutely agree, that this sort of debt-laden model, which demands an unsustainable level of return while shipping out profits of 12% to 16%, often to tax havens, is entirely inappropriate for social care.
I want to make it clear that I do not have an ideological problem with the private sector being involved in the care sector and providing care homes—provided that they are good quality—but I have a real problem with the financial models used. Most fair-minded people in this country, not least those whose loved ones are in care homes, would, frankly, be horrified if they knew how the money—either theirs, if they are self-funded residents, or indeed the money of hard-pressed local authorities—was being used and where it was being siphoned off to.
I greatly support amendments to increase transparency and reporting. Frankly, I would like to see the regulator being a lot tougher and a lot more proactive in this area, so I very much support the review in the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendments laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I fully agree with her that there is a systemic problem in the care home sector.
In 1991, the community care Act reforms meant social care was transferred from a public sector function—or NHS function when it came to nursing homes—to what was called a mixed market. But, having observed the worsening care crisis, the financial engineering, the periodic failure of large care home operators and the inadequacy of regulation or oversight of their financial backing, I cannot help but urge my noble friends on the Front Bench to look urgently at the need for much greater controls. Southern Cross and Four Seasons Health Care have been in and out of insolvency or near bankruptcy for the past few years, but there are still inadequate controls on their ownership structure.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I will take to heart the strictures of the Government Chief Whip and see whether I can speak in a minute without repetition. Way back in the 1970s, I was chair of social services in Sheffield, at a time when all residential care was under the auspices of the local authority. We then believed that what we were doing was in the interests of the people being cared for, the families that required support and the care workers. I want to make a very simple point: as well as the taxpayer being exploited, as well as those being cared for being exploited, we are also seeing the exploitation of workers on the lowest possible pay whom we are desperately trying to recruit, and we owe it to all those people to get this right.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for speaking very briefly and giving us some very wise words. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is absolutely right that the system is inadequate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments and opening up this discussion. They address the issue of ownership of the organisations that provide social care. We know that almost all social care provision, residential and domiciliary, is not in the public sector and has not been for some time. We also know that the current system is wholly dysfunctional, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Brinton, said. It does not work for the service users, for the staff or even for the providers, which go bust fairly regularly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, described. Of course, it used to be a money spinner for hedge funds and others that got involved to asset strip and leverage profits and remuneration at the expense of service users, both individual self-funders and taxpayers and ratepayers who were paying for other residents.
I have always taken the view that this sector would benefit from an enormous influx of social enterprises and co-operatives. Where social care, domiciliary care and residential care are provided through social enterprises, community enterprises and co-operatives, they are sustainable, they keep their staff and they invest their surpluses back into their social purpose, so everybody gains. To suggest that the Government will fix social care through this legislation is laughable, because the existing market solution cannot be fixed. So we have sympathy with these amendments and fully understand the intent that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, outlined for us.
I am interested to know how the Minister will respond, because it is quite clear that something must happen in this sector because it is so unsatisfactory. I suspect that if the Government are not going to move on this, we may have to return to this later in the Bill.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, introduced these three amendments and I am grateful to her for the clear explanations she gave for them. I will take them sequentially, beginning with Amendment 237.
This amendment seeks to place restrictions on the power for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to bodies engaged in the provision of social care services. It would prevent use of the power for the purposes of repaying debt, paying interest on debt and making distributions to shareholders.
To begin with a general but important point, it is incumbent on all Ministers and public servants to ensure that public money is used effectively for the greater good, and that purpose is implicit in the power contained in Clause 141. However, I fear that this amendment could make the proposed power unworkable in practice. If we look at the way the amendment is worded, any adult social care provider with a trade creditor of any kind would be caught, as would any organisation with an overdraft facility designed to support day-to-day working capital. A company’s working capital, by its nature, is money that is used to fund day-to-day operations in general, and one cannot associate a particular pound with a particular business activity. Furthermore, any private company would be prevented from paying dividends, as it would be logically impossible to disassociate the long-term effects of the assistance from the ability of the company to pay such dividends.
The pandemic has demonstrated the need for speed and flexibility in providing support to the care sector. We do not intend to use the power in the way the noble Baroness fears, but we have designed it in such a way as to provide the maximum flexibility to respond in times of crisis; each individual case will be considered on its merits. Placing additional restrictions through this amendment would impede our activity to provide emergency support to critical providers.
Any future use of this power, whether for emergency purposes such as those we have seen in the pandemic or to deliver specific policy on a national basis, would be subject to the usual scrutiny and safeguards around use of public funds, as set out in Treasury guidance on Managing Public Money and Accounting Officer Assessments. As with any use of public resources, the power would be exercised with a clearly defined purpose, with strict criteria applied in practice relating to the use of the funding to ensure that it delivers maximum value for money.
I turn now to Amendments 238 and 239. Amendment 238 seeks to undertake a review of the financial regulation of companies providing social care, with a view to ensuring that it supports the effective provision of social care. Amendment 239 aims to increase the financial transparency of offshore corporate groups providing social care.
We are committed to ensuring that we have a sustainable care market. This was made clear in People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform White Paper, published in December. It is vital to ensure that people have a wide range of high-quality care and support options to choose from, supported by a workforce that is empowered to deliver high-quality care. With that in view, we have already set out a number of planned actions to support the effective provision of social care services.
As the Committee will be aware, under the Care Act 2014 it is the responsibility of local authorities to shape their local markets to ensure that a diverse range of high-quality, sustainable care and support services is provided. We consider that they are the ones best placed to understand the needs of their local populations.
Maintaining quality and high standards is vital, and that means regulation. The Bill introduces a new duty on the CQC to assess local authorities’ delivery of their adult social care responsibilities. Alongside existing duties on the CQC to monitor, inspect and regulate health and care services, this will drive up quality so that everyone can access the care they need, wherever they live.
We are also committing £1.4 billion of funding over three years to support local authorities in moving towards paying providers a fair cost of care. This funding will strengthen the capacity of local authorities to plan for and execute greater market oversight and improved market management to ensure that markets are well positioned to deliver on our reform ambitions, to address underinvestment and poor workforce practices and to provide a stable base for reform of adult social care.
In addition, we are investing at least £500 million over the next three years to begin to transform the way we support the social care workforce. This funding will go towards continuous professional development, so that people can experience a rewarding career with opportunities to develop and progress, now and in the future.
The noble Baroness stressed the importance of transparency in the market and I understand the points she made, particularly about overseas-registered companies. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is continuing to finalise the draft registration of overseas entities Bill, which underwent pre-legislative scrutiny in 2019, to align with the broader reform of Companies House and our plans to verify the data it holds. The Joint Committee concluded that
“this draft legislation is timely, worthwhile, and, in large part, well drafted.”
In their July 2019 response, the Government accepted many of the committee’s recommendations, such as ensuring that Companies House is given adequate resources and introducing a reporting facility. The Government have been exploring how best to implement these recommendations and others, such as civil sanctions. We are also considering how verification will work with this register. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is amending the draft Bill in line with the committee’s recommendations and will introduce it when parliamentary time allows.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, adult social care is a mixed economy. The majority of adult social care providers are private companies. Like other sectors, many private businesses employ debt as an ordinary part of their capital structures or funding arrangements.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courteous and comprehensive response, which was very useful. I very much thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate, which was a powerful exploration of the issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about assets being milked. If we think about what we are actually talking about here—some of our most vulnerable citizens—and what is happening to them, that is a really crucial point. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, talked about a stunning figure: £40,000 of debt per bed. If you think of that physically, visually, that is just unsustainable—a word the Minister himself used.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann; I hope the Government will listen to their noble friend. She made a comparison with the insurance sector and stressed that this is about people’s most basic security. These care homes—people’s homes—being ladened with debt in the circumstances we are talking about is supremely insecure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for raising the plight of workers. These are people who, both through the pandemic and just in their everyday lives, have gone above and beyond the call of duty to care for people. They do really difficult jobs paid at the absolute base level.
I actually take some comfort from the Minister’s response. I take his point about how Amendment 237 is worded on debt. It is meant to address the kind of debt held in hedge funds, not debt to the local linen washing service or something, and I will think about how that might be addressed in different terms.
I pick up what the Minister said about dividends. I suggest that, should a care home chain be rescued by the Government in a state of great financial crisis, it should pay that rescue money back before it pays out any dividends. The Minister talked about the use of public funds, and I could almost feel the House restraining itself, since we are in constructive Committee form, from giving any reaction at that point. If the Government wish to avoid future scandals, the transparency offered by these amendments or something like them would be an ideal way for them to do that.
We were discussing yesterday in Grand Committee the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill—how long it has taken, how much we have been waiting for it and how crucial it is. This is picking one sector, producing a trial run to see how it works and taking it forward immediately in an emergency situation where we cannot wait many years for change.
This has been a very useful debate. I note the expressions of support from all sides of the House, and I reserve the right to take this issue forward on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 142 seeks to amend Section 50 of the Health Act 1999 in relation to making changes to the professional regulatory landscape through secondary legislation. It will simultaneously widen the scope of Section 60 and extend the Secretary of State’s powers. At the moment the Government have powers to bring new professions into regulation or make modifications through secondary legislation but can remove a profession from regulation only through primary legislation. The clause enables the removal of a profession through secondary legislation and makes it clear that a profession would be removed from regulation only when it was no longer required for the purpose of protecting the public.
I went and had a little look at the record. I am sorry the noble Earl is no longer here today, because in 2009 I was in Grand Committee, as the then Health Minister, and we were discussing the regulation of psychologists. I have to tell the Committee that that was not an uncontroversial matter. We had gone through whole series of regulatory reforms that year, as noble Lords who have been following these matters will be aware. I said at the time that
“the reforms set out in this draft order aim to enhance public confidence in the ability of the healthcare regulatory bodies to protect the public and deal with poor professional standards.”—[Official Report, 5/5/09; col. 510.]
The debate we had that day included the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who, at the time, was in my position now, as it were. He also welcomed the fact that the regulatory regime was in existence and, although he rightly had questions about the regulation of psychologists, which was indeed a controversial matter at the time, he did not question the need for public scrutiny of professional regulation.
That is why I have tabled the Motion that clause 142 not stand part. I am left wondering what exactly the yardstick will be, what criteria will be used to determine when there is no longer a need to protect the public and who will decide those criteria. Does professional regulation not also help to facilitate consistent common standards? What is lacking at the moment is any sense of the principles that will be allowed to inform decisions to bring professions into regulation or remove them. Will patients’ organisations, representative bodies or regulators be consulted on any new criteria applied? I can tell the Minister that in 2009 we went through weeks and weeks of discussion and consultation about every single independent regulatory body that this House helped to establish.
I suggest that the system works and there is absolutely no need to change it, though perhaps the Minister can tell me why there is such a need. Moving the power to abolish professions to secondary legislation is not putting scrutiny and transparency at the forefront. I have to say that doing so without putting any indication on the record of which professions are being considered does not instil confidence that this power grab has been considered properly or is in fact needed at all. The implications for the devolved nations, particularly Scotland, are also important but it was clear from discussions in another place that they had not been addressed. Perhaps they have by now, and the Minister would like to tell us what the outcome of that consultation is.
At the risk of repetition, there is a consistent theme in the Bill of seeking greater powers for the Secretary of State without parliamentary oversight, for reasons that are quite unclear. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the Professional Standards Authority. I was happy to go down memory lane with my noble friend on the Front Bench.
When thinking about professional regulation, we always have to bear in mind—I hope the Minister will be able to convince the House that this is what the Government bear in mind—the protection of the public. It is never about the glorification or protection of a profession; it is always about the protection of patients and the public.
The Professional Standards Authority developed the concept of right-touch regulation, whereby you identify the problem before the solution, quantify and qualify the risks, get as close to the problem as possible, focus on the outcome and use regulation only where necessary. I draw the House’s attention to the very successful project of accredited registers, which the Professional Standards Authority has developed in order to have, as it were, regulation at a lesser level than the very tight regulation that is necessary for some professions. You should keep it simple; the system is far too complex at present. You should check—as we always must with legislation, but it seems to me that we do it far too seldom—for unintended consequences. You should also review and respond to change, and the Government are doing just that with the proposals.
However, I must echo the caution of my noble friend on the Front Bench regarding the new powers for the Secretary of State to deregulate as well as regulate professions. We know that the risk profile for different occupations changes over time and a more agile method of responding is sometimes necessary. I hope that is what the Government have in mind. However, I emphasise, and I hope the Minister will reassure me on this, that a commitment to keeping patients safe must guide any decisions made to deregulate professions. There must be a robust and independent process to ensure that decisions are made after a clear assessment of risk—and I emphasise “independent”.
If the Secretary of State has the power to abolish regulators by secondary legislation, will there not be a threat to the independence of the regulators? If they know that the Secretary of State can abolish them at a stroke, as it were, might they become too focused on pleasing—or, rather, on not antagonising— whichever Government are in power, instead of, as I have stressed, working always and solely in the public interest? I hope the Minister will assure the House that that is the Government’s intention.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Clause 142, which comes under the heading “Professional regulation”, deals with the regulation of healthcare and associated professions. One of the objectives of the Bill is to integrate health and social care, and I very much hope that under the heading “associated professions” it will be possible to look at the registration and regulation of social care as well as those who work for healthcare.
Noble Lords may remember a brief exchange three weeks ago at Question Time when I asked the Government what plans they had to regulate and register social care. I was grateful for the reply, which outlined the welcome support being extended to the social care workforce. It also mentioned a skills passport, but the Minister was silent on the issue of a register.
I pressed the Minister and pointed out that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have a registration scheme for their social care workforce, and that if we are truly to integrate health and social care, as the Bill seeks to do, we need to have parity of esteem between health staff and social healthcare staff with improved pay, working conditions and career opportunities—much of which was mentioned in the debate we have just had. A registration scheme could facilitate the professionalisation of the social care workforce.
We then had an interesting exchange, in which the Minister mentioned a voluntary register and the need to assess the skills of the existing workforce, 56% of which has no qualifications. He said that he was consulting on whether registration should be mandatory and was concerned that mandatory registration might cause people to leave the sector. However, I do not believe that that has been the experience in other parts of the UK.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I will also speak briefly in support of the register for social care workers, and I very much echo the words of my noble friend Lord Young. During the pandemic, we faced a huge challenge in identifying who social workers were. That meant that we struggled to distribute PPE, to get testing to the right people, to allocate and reallocate responsibilities when we tried to move away from itinerant service, and to create the vaccine prioritisation list. In the longer term, the question of the education of social care workers is absolutely essential, and a register is imperative to do that. In contrast with the NHS, the lack of a register of social care workers is a real impairment to the modernisation of social care working. For that reason, I ask the Minister to say a little more about his consultation and think very carefully about a mandatory register.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, last week, when we debated the call for a separate list of properly qualified cosmetic surgeons, I received a briefing from the GMC about the forthcoming new system of professional regulation. I asked the Minister when this would be forthcoming, but I fear that he was not able to give me a clear answer. This matter has been hanging around for a very long time, but, when I scrutinised Clause 142, I saw that there was another problem: in future, the regulation of healthcare professionals can be made through secondary legislation—and whether this would be agreed by the negative or affirmative procedure is not clear.
The Explanatory Notes make clear that subsection (2)(e) —the powers to remove certain professions from regulation—
“includes the currently unenacted provisions concerning social care workers”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I want to ask the Minister about this, because many noble Lords, including me, have been asking that social care workers have the opportunity to obtain qualifications that would provide them with registration and a career path to better pay and conditions—but this sounds like the opposite to me. Perhaps the Minister can explain this and tell the House when the new regulatory system will be ready. The 2017 report of your Lordships’ House’s Select Committee on the long-term sustainability of the NHS said:
“The current regulatory landscape is not fit for purpose. In the short term, we urge the Government to bring forward legislation in this Parliament to modernise the system of regulation of health and social care professionals”—
I emphasise “social care professionals”—
“and place them under a single legal framework as envisaged by the 2014 draft Law Commission Bill.”
That was five years ago.
I have also received a briefing from the Health and Care Professions Council. It appears from this that the HCPC has a rather different view from the GMC: it wants the new professional regulation of health and care professionals to be collaborative and innovation focused. It believes that the current system is “siloed”, and it is looking for multiprofessional regulation, which, it believes, better reflects current working practices in the NHS. I am not an expert in this matter, so I express no opinion on that, but I am looking for some clarity from the Minister on which direction the new regulation system will take and the evidence that this will be better than before and contribute to better quality and safety of care for patients. I would also like to know when it will happen, because Clause 142 appears to me to open the door to a fight between different regulators, which would not be helpful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. As a number of noble Lords have acknowledged, the case for reforming professional regulation has long been acknowledged, and stakeholders have long expressed concern that having nine separate professional regulatory bodies is confusing for the public. So our response in 2019 to the public consultation on regulatory reform reflected the desire for fewer regulatory bodies to deliver benefits to the professional regulation system.
In the 2020 consultation Regulating Healthcare Professionals, Protecting the Public, we committed to a review of professions that are currently regulated in the UK to consider whether statutory regulation remains appropriate for these professions. A consultation seeking views has been published, and it will close at the end of March this year. We also commissioned KPMG to carry out an independent review of the regulatory landscape, and it submitted its report at the end of last year. Officials and others are now poring over the findings to consider how best to respond. However, as with any use of Section 60, a public consultation will be carried out on any legislation made under these powers, and this would face scrutiny through the affirmative parliamentary process.
On the core criteria and principles, the professions protected in law must be the right ones, and the level of regulatory oversight must be appropriate and proportionate to the risks to the public. This is why we have sought a number of views on the criteria for determining whether statutory regulation is appropriate. As I said, we will wait for the outcomes.
These proposals have been developed in partnership with the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to work in partnership with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in taking forward any proposals for using these powers. This will also be subject to affirmative parliamentary approval.
Clause 142 provides additional powers that would widen the scope of Section 60 of the Health Act 1999 and enable the Privy Council to make additional changes through secondary legislation, as was acknowledged. Subject to consultation, we are aiming to enable the professional regulatory landscape to become more streamlined and work more flexibly. We think that this clause will make it easier to ensure that the professions protected in law are the right ones and that the level of regulatory oversight is proportionate to the risks to the public. The Government keep the professions subject to statutory regulation under review. As I said, as part of our work to reform healthcare professional regulation, we are continuing to consult.
As I said, any secondary legislation made using the new powers would be subject to Schedule 3 of the Health Act 1999, public consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure, thus ensuring that there is clear parliamentary scrutiny and transparency in relation to any changes made by secondary legislation in this area.
I also refer back to the questions on the social care register, which I discussed at length, both before and after the recent Oral Question. When I spoke to officials about why the register cannot be compulsory, they said that this was fair, given the demographics of some of the people in the skilled sector, who quite often have some suspicions of authority and a lack of trust—we have seen that with vaccine take-up, for example—and so there were concerns about making it compulsory at this stage. It is voluntary. They want to understand the range of qualifications across the sector. There are a number of different qualifications, and, in professionalising the sector better, they want to make sure that they are consistent at all the various levels in our education system—levels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and upwards—to make sure that those qualifications are mutually accepted and recognised to make social care an attractive career and vocation.
For these reasons, I ask that Clause 142 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, but that was not a satisfactory response, I am afraid. The only word I heard that justified these extra powers being taken was “streamlining”, and, frankly, that is not good enough. It seems to me that the Secretary of State should not be taking powers to put forward the abolition of regulatory bodies on the basis of a public consultation and statutory regulation. The Minister must understand the difference between primary legislation and statutory instruments—that is the crux.
The reason for that is about the independence of the bodies we have, such as the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. Those bodies need to feel that they cannot be subject to abolition at the whim of a Secretary of State. They have to be sure that they are protected by primary legislation in Parliament, and the Minister has not given me or the Committee an explanation as to why that should change. That independence is very important and precious.
On the issue of social care, I found the Minister’s explanation a bit patronising. It seems to me that, if we are to value social care and the people who work in it, we need to strive to give them the equality of regulation and supervision that the medical professions have. I realise that there is a journey and a process but, to me, that has to be the aim because it is the only way we can give that profession and the people who work in it the equality of regard that they deserve.
Lord Kamall
“Human fertilisation and embryologyStorage of gametes and embryos
Schedule (Storage of gametes and embryos)—(a) contains amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 which make provision relating to the storage of gametes and embryos, and(b) makes transitional provision in relation to those amendments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a new Schedule relating to the storage of gametes and embryos.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also speak to the Amendments 313A, 314A and 315A standing in my name. Before I start, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her many years of advocacy on reproductive health and look forward to hearing the points she will raise today. I am grateful for the productive meeting that we had a few weeks previously and welcome the noble Baroness’s support of the government amendments tabled in my name.
As many noble Lords will be aware, fertility preservation is achieved through the freezing and storage of gametes or embryos; it is an increasingly common procedure in the UK. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act sets limits on the length of time that frozen gametes and embryos can be stored for. The current statutory storage limit is 10 years, with the possibility of an extension up to a maximum of 55 years for those who are certified as prematurely infertile. Extended storage limits were introduced to help those people who became prematurely infertile preserve their fertility, with the hope of starting a family in the future. This would include children who may have undergone treatment for childhood cancers.
However, this approach appears to discriminate between those who have a medical need to freeze their gametes and embryos, and those who do not. This message was clear in response to our 2020 public consultation, and we accept that the current approach creates unfairness. Therefore, we are introducing a new scheme for all who currently freeze or wish to freeze their gametes or embryos. The new scheme will consist of 10-year renewable storage periods up to a maximum of 55 years for everyone, regardless of medical need. It is for these reasons that I ask noble Lords from across the House to support the government Amendments 243A, 313A, 314A and 315A in my name.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 280 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I declare an interest as former chair of the HFEA.
Let me start by offering the Government what must be a rare and welcome tribute in these troubled days for bringing forward an amendment that reflects compassion and efficiency. They listened to the consultation and have picked up the result of at least two years of campaigning, in a way that I can only admire. As the Committee can see, my own miserable little drafting of Amendment 280 was really only an entry to allow the Government to do their own complicated drafting, which of course I will accede to—and there will be no need for my amendment.
I am profoundly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and, before him, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood, all of whom helped this along. It has the support of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Fertility Society, Progress Educational Trust and the specialist lawyers Natalie Gamble and Emily Jackson. Everyone is behind this amendment, and I am profoundly relieved that it has come forward just in the nick of time, because there was a possibility that later this summer women whose eggs were frozen for 10 years, and who took advantage of the two years’ extra time given them, might have run out of time.
This amendment will bring the UK’s law in line with advances in science and changes in modern society, and it will give individuals greater reproductive choices. It will also give patients more time to make important decisions about planning their family. On behalf of hundreds, maybe thousands, of women, let me express my gratitude to the Government for something that will be helpful in many years to come. I give my wholehearted support to the amendments in this group.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it has been a great privilege to work alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I can only admire the persistence with which she has stayed on this issue to get the change which so many people have wanted for so long, and for such good and compelling reasons. I am but one of several Members of your Lordships’ House who have taken part in debates on assisted reproduction over many years.
It was a privilege to discuss these matters in the presence of Baroness Warnock, who was responsible for setting the ethical framework, all those years ago, to which we still refer when dealing with these matters. She was a remarkable person and one of the most important things she did was to foresee that science, knowledge and society would change. What she did was to set down a basic ethical framework, to which we could return as knowledge and scientific understanding increased. This provision is one such part of that.
Other issues in the field of reproductive medicine are equally deserving of our attention. For example, we are starting to uncover the extent to which LGBT people face unfair discrimination when it comes to access to assisted reproductive technology. If, in a heterosexual couple, one of the partners happens to be HIV positive but it is undetectable, and therefore untransmissible, the couple will not be disbarred from receiving treatment; that is not so for lesbians and gay men.
In the last week, some of us who work on these issues have been engaging on the issue of access to telemedicine. In this field it is true, as it is right across the NHS, that it is important to make these services more widely and easily accessible to women by using telemedicine. I hope the Minister might confirm that on another important aspect of women being able to control their fertility, in access to abortion services, we may see the extension of the highly successful scheme which has been run throughout the pandemic to enable women to have consultations and receive treatment at home. In that vein, and in the hope that we may fairly soon have a more comprehensive review of advances in reproductive medicine, which is needed across the piece, it is very pleasing today to welcome this amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I too commend the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—my noble friend, really—for all her work in this area. I particularly thank my noble friends the Minister and Lord Bethell, who I know have listened carefully and responded in the most compassionate and caring way. They have done a great service for many women across the country. I thank my noble friend for these amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
When the Minister and I were discussing government amendments, on this issue I said: “If Baroness Deech is happy with this, then I am happy with this,” and indeed I am.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I can confirm that that conversation did take place. When we were dividing up the groups for today, I thought about offering this to someone else. One of my noble friends turned to me and said, “You’re going to be bashed around enough today, Syed, at least take something you’ll get a bit of credit for.” But I cannot take credit: that has to go to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the many noble Lords who have pressed this issue. The noble Baroness has also demonstrated the power of persistence and continuing the argument in a constructive way. On many of the other issues noble Lords believe in strongly—even if they feel that the Government may not be listening today, or that we are not sympathetic—I hope they will continue to be persistent.
On the general point that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made about reproductive health, I ask her to be more persistent. One of the great things about technology, not only digital but science and biology, is that often, it challenges the basis on which legislation was made. That is one thing we always have to be open to. Thanks to advances in technology, we are able to bring forward this amendment today. I will not say much more; I just hope that noble Lords agree that the time is right to change the legislation because of the progress made since the 2008 Act. I beg to move.
“(2) The Secretary of State must, no later than one year after this Act is passed, consult on including alcoholic products in the definition of less healthy products for which advertising will be restricted, and publish a report on the consultation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on including alcohol in the proposed advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink and publish a report.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this is a very broad group. As part of the Government’s obesity strategy, Clause 144 and Schedule 17 introduce advertising restrictions on less healthy food and drink, a 9 pm watershed for TV and on-demand services and the prohibition of paid-for advertising online. I declare my interest as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I will speak only to my amendment, which addresses the problem that currently, the definition of “less healthy food and drink” does not include alcohol beverages as it was drawn from the 2001 Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance.
The amendment requires the Government to consult on including alcohol in the proposed advertising restrictions, because alcohol is the leading cause of death and ill-health among 15 to 49-year-olds in England. Under the Bill, adverts for sugary soft drinks will be restricted but adverts for alcoholic drinks will not, even though they can be very obesogenic. To quote from the Government’s own obesity strategy, they recognise that
“alcohol is highly calorific … It has been estimated that for those that drink alcohol it accounts for nearly 10% of the calories they consume … each year around 3.4 million adults consume an additional day’s worth of calories each week from alcohol, that is nearly an additional 2 months of food each year.”
The calorie load of 100 millilitres of 40% spirit is 244 calories, compared to just 42 calories in 100 millilitres of coke. A pint of beer has the same calories as a Mars bar and a glass of wine equates to three Jaffa cakes.
Some sweet alcohol products contain more than 100% of the daily recommended sugar intake in a single serving. There is significant evidence that children exposed to alcohol marketing drink more and drink earlier than they otherwise would, and early-age drinking is linked to higher risk drinking and even alcohol dependence in adolescence and early adulthood.
Existing advertising codes are failing. In the past month more than 80% of 11 to 14 year-olds have seen alcohol advertising. Almost 60% of 11 to 17 year-olds had seen alcohol adverts on television and more than 40% saw alcohol adverts on social media platforms. One-fifth had interacted with alcohol marketing online in the past month, despite being underage and therefore not allowed to buy alcohol. These adverts achieve their aim. Children as young as 11 can identify, reference and describe brands and logos of various alcohol companies—which leads them to start drinking more and earlier—making these images most attractive. Ten to 15 year-olds are exposed to more TV alcohol marketing than adults.
Alcohol itself is linked to more than 200 diseases and conditions, including seven cancers, is obesogenic and should be classified as a less healthy product. It should be included in the advertising restriction codes proposed, because the current self-regulatory codes are clearly failing. Children would accept this. The Children’s Parliament investigators and the Young Scot health panel have recommended a TV watershed for alcohol advertising. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, should be taking part remotely. If the noble Lord is there, would he like to speak? We will continue with the debate and when we can get hold of him, we will bring him in.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests—there are a lot of them in terms of food, but this is for a specific reason: I am a trustee of the Food Foundation, chair of Feeding Britain, a patron of Sustain, an adviser on the national food strategy and chair of VegPower. I also work with Cancer Research and the Obesity Health Alliance.
We welcome the Health and Care Bill, which contains provisions to limit adverts of unhealthy food and drink on TV and online to protect children’s health. I also support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on alcohol, which is not covered in my amendment. She is completely right about the fact that such advertising encourages people to drink—something I know a lot about, to my cost—and put on weight.
These provisions are found in Schedule 17 of the Bill. All the different charities and NGOs I have worked with have argued for this for many years and we are incredibly pleased that the Government have made these provisions part of the Bill. They have been supported by all of us, and the Obesity Health Alliance and all cancer charities. So, I am shocked—we all are—and puzzled that during this Committee, quite a lot of amendments have been tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, that would directly weaken or delay these proposals. As far as I know, and I have worked in the food business for a long time, I have not seen their names associated with campaigns to do with children’s health—in particular, around obesity.
I want quickly to explain what these amendments would do. Amendments 245, 255, 256, 257 and 317 would delay implementation of the various restrictions—for example, blocking the 9 pm TV watershed until a full calendar year after Ofcom publishes the technical guidance. This would delay the planned implementation by at least six months. We all appreciate that the food and advertising industries will need time to review the technical guidance, but this is just too long.
Amendments 245A and 250ZA would limit the restrictions, so that they apply only at weekends, but kids do not watch TV only at weekends. Amendments 247, 250A and 253A would enshrine exemptions for brand adverts if specific products are not displayed; for example, McDonald’s could advertise lettuce. The Government have already stated that brand advertising will be exempt from some of these restrictions, so why do we have to go further?
Amendments 248 and 251 would exempt certain unhealthy products from the restrictions, including
“chocolate confectionery in portion sizes smaller than 200 kcal”.
The amendments conflict entirely with the purposes of the policy, which is to limit children’s exposure to the advertising of products that are high in fat, sugar and salt. Quite frankly, some products of under 200 calories can contain more than half of a child’s recommended daily sugar limit.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in my name and I may also comment on some of the amendments that I have signed. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Ashton mentioned Nicholas Parsons at the beginning of this debate. I will try to avoid repetition and hesitation, but the reason I am delighted is because Nicholas Parsons was an Old Pauline and I am president of the Old Pauline Club—I just want to put that on the record. I refer to my registered interests, particularly my work with the media boutique bank, LionTree.
I confess that I am still slightly smarting from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who seemed to imply that it was inappropriate for me to put down these amendments because I had not been campaigning for children’s health. The reason I put down these amendments is because I have always campaigned for and supported the importance of public service broadcasting. One unkindness should not follow another, but I wondered as I looked at the noble Baroness—who was an extremely distinguished newspaper editor—what she would have done if the Government were legislating to eradicate HFSS advertising from newspapers. I am sure that she would have stuck to her principles. The thought occurred to me that I might bring back an amendment on Report to ban it from newspapers, so that that would at least ensure that the fourth estate paid attention to this important issue and the impact that it will have on our media. I am afraid that that would probably lose me the support of my noble friend Lord Black, so I may have to think twice about that.
It will be quite clear from the direction of my remarks that I think these proposals are wrong-headed and extremely damaging for our public service broadcasters. I gather that the Government’s own impact report assesses that they would reduce calorie intake in children by 1.7 calories—that is, as noble Lords will know, either a Tic Tac or half a Smartie, depending on your predilections. However, it is estimated that they would cost broadcasters some £200 million a year.
In the debates that I take part in on the future of our media, we rend our garments thinking about how our public service broadcasters will compete against the likes of Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime. We think about the importance of public service broadcasting provided by companies such as ITV and we talk about the potential privatisation of Channel 4, which is a government flagship policy. But as the Government move Channel 4 towards the marketplace, these amendments will hobble it and its income.
What depresses me most of all, and where I think we would have common ground with those who very rightly campaign against obesity and put in place strategies, is that these clauses are a fig leaf and a complete red herring. They are an excuse for the Government to say that they are taking action on obesity when these measures will have zero impact on obesity. What is so galling is that they are based on no proof at all—they have become a sort of mantra for the Department of Health. I fought these proposals when I was a Minister at DCMS, and it depresses me that DCMS has not had the clout to see them off this time round.
There is an absence of a comprehensive policy on school food and on education about nutrition in schools. By the way, at the risk of annoying all sides in this debate, I am not a libertarian or a non-regulator. I supported the sugar tax and I would support measures that looked at, for example, the prevalence of takeaways, particularly in low-income areas; I would look at how supermarket promotions are undertaken; and I would look at the content of food and the prevalence of processed foods. But if noble Lords look at, for example, Leeds or Amsterdam, where obesity rates have fallen, they will see that it was because of interventions in primary school to the food children were eating and the education they were receiving.
Where an advertising ban has been implemented as an excuse for an anti-obesity policy, it has comprehensively failed. At the risk of being trolled in both French and Canadian on Twitter, I gather that, in Quebec, which has had a ban for 40 years, the Québécois have gotten fatter, faster, than the rest of Canada. Nowhere has an advertising ban had an impact on obesity.
Of course, further evidence of why this ban will not work is that there has been no analysis of who sees advertising on our public service broadcasters. Some 95% of TV viewing before 9 pm is by adults, and Ofcom has concluded that a 9 pm ban could be disproportionate. It also—I am surprised by the remarks of some noble Lords—shows a comprehensive misunderstanding of how advertising works. If you are going to eat a burger, you are going to eat a burger—unless you live in Leeds and have been well educated in your primary school. The purpose of the advertising is to encourage you to eat a McDonald’s burger rather than a Burger King burger; it is not simply to increase the number of burgers eaten.
When this ban comes in—I am sure it will; it has its own illogical momentum—you will see in-store promotions in supermarkets and, worst of all, price promotions. If McDonald’s cannot persuade you through an advert to eat its burger rather than a Burger King burger, it will persuade you to eat its burger because it is 99p, whereas Burger King’s burger is £1.29. It will reduce the opportunity for our food producers to advertise healthy products and it completely misses the opportunity to look how our technology has become so advanced that it can target adverts in a much more sophisticated way, working with industry and broadcasters rather than introducing this appalling and crude ban which will hit our broadcasters in the face.
I turn to the amendments in my name. The first point of them, to a certain extent, goes with the grain of the government amendments, which is to say that we need flexibility on implementation. If you are going to implement this ban, advertisers and broadcasters need time to come to terms with it. As things stand, the ban is due to come in at the end of this year, on 1 January 2023. As I said, the Government have allowed some flexibility, because they know there will have to be secondary legislation, consultation, a process of designating the regulators, and guidance, before the final version is published.
However, these government amendments give no clear timetable. Businesses need one, with time to understand the secondary legislation and the final detailed regulatory guidance. They need time for their marketing teams and agencies to absorb and fully understand the changes required. They cannot just implement them the day they are published. New rules require familiarisation, to allow for internal review processes, legal guidance and interpretation. As many noble Lords know, it can take up to a year or even more to plan, develop and execute an advertising campaign, and companies are already trying to plan for 2023 with many unknowns. It is a lengthy and costly investment, and involves issues such as how you position your business for the long term. Companies do not want to get this wrong and be forced to pull their advertisements or face the Advertising Standards Authority adjudicating against them.
Let us say that the Bill becomes law two months from now. It would then have to go through the following process before the advertisers know the final shape of the rules. Ofcom must be designated as the regulator, and it must then designate the day-to-day regulator—it is likely to be the Advertising Standards Authority, but Ofcom will have to consult on that. If it is the Advertising Standards Authority, that must then ask the Committee of Advertising Practice to put together the new rules to go in the advertising codes. Of course, the Committee of Advertising Practice will have to run a public consultation on this. All this will take until at least the end of the year, at which point the Government presumably expect industry to have got it immediately and be ready to act.
Here are just some of the gaps in knowledge the industry faces. For example, new Section 321A(2)(a) in Schedule 17 contains an exemption from the watershed and online advertising bans for small and medium-sized businesses. They can continue to advertise food products, including HFSS, but larger companies cannot. A consultation is forthcoming, but how do you determine the size of the business? Could a global business still be an SME if it has just a few employees in the UK? What about the now ubiquitous third-party delivery companies? Where does their liability sit? On the application of the Nutrient Profiling Technical Guidance, it is vital to understand what products will be defined as HFSS for advertising and promotions—but this is guidance, not law. When will the guidance be updated and published so that companies can calculate the NPM scores for their products? Will a standard online calculator be shared? Because this is guidance, there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of how this has come about.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot. Might I say, before I get into my stride, that certain noble Lords may have received an email that emanated a week or so ago from what I call the “cold dip” wing of the Conservative Party. Essentially, the message was, “Those rotters Vaizey and Moylan are out to spoil our whizzo scheme”. This is not true, in my case. Unlike other speakers, I declare that I have no interests to declare. I am not aligned with the food industry, the advertising industry, the broadcasting industry or any of the charities that wish to restrict, ban or control various foods and drinks. That seemed to cause a little upset to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who seemed to think that because I could speak in a disinterested fashion I was somehow precluded from taking part in the debate, but I hope noble Lords will not agree that is the case.
I have put my name to a number of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. The ones I have signed up to are essentially to do with giving enough time to implement the ban, if it is brought into effect, and I hope that they are accepted. I note that the Government have brought forward amendments of a similar character; they improve the Bill, but they do not go as far as they should. But it is a good sign, and it shows that what we are engaged in here is improving the Bill, not trying to destroy it.
I will add a particular word in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 247A, which seeks to make the identification of HFSS food a matter that would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In effect, what the Government are seeking through this schedule is a power to make binding law—with all the apparatus of fines and other enforcement—by way of mandatory guidance that will not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Instead, business planning and investment will always be at the whim of civil servants with no recourse to Parliament. That is not a situation that, in other circumstances, your Lordships’ House would feel comfortable with. We should apply the same standards here and insist that, with Amendment 247A, parliamentary approval is required before these punitive measures can be amended.
The other amendments in this group in my name cover a wide range of issues, but all of them are aimed at helping business plan for and implement the bans that the Government contemplate. That said, I noted last Friday that “Red Box” in the Times was reporting a change of heart by the Prime Minister on the whole policy of introducing the advertising and promotions ban. If this is true, we can happily move on and ignore Schedule 17, since all the evidence—including the Government’s own impact assessment—shows that the policy will, as my noble friend said, have a minuscule effect. The Government’s own assessment suggests that there will be a reduction of fewer than three calories a day. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm, when he wraps up, whether or not this planned change of policy is in hand.
Amendments 247, 250A and 253A in my name deal with the question of whether the ban applies to brand advertising and sponsorship—already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey. This concerns advertising when no product of an unhealthy character is included in the advertisement or sponsorship statement. Putting the brand advertising exemption into the Bill is important for business—businesses which are looking for certainty as they are already planning advertising campaigns which will run after 2023.
The exemption for brand advertising was confirmed in Committee in the other place when the Minister there said:
“Products are deemed identifiable if a person could reasonably be expected to identify the advertisements as being for that product. This means that brand advertising is not in scope of the restrictions, as the purpose of the restrictions is to prohibit identifiable products.”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 676.]
He made similar remarks on Report. This is helpful but putting the exemption into the Bill—alongside the other exemptions—would mean, should the Government wish to revisit this exemption in the future, that they would be obliged to return to Parliament to set out their reasons for doing so and seek the consent of both Houses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, commenting on this, seemed to say “Why do we need all this paraphernalia? Let’s just trust the Government and go with what they say”. I almost fell off my Bench when I heard her say that. So often in this House we are saying quite the reverse; we are saying let us not trust the Government and insist that, if we want something to happen, it should be on the face of the Bill. That is all I am saying. I believe the Government of course, and in my own small way I trust the Government—but Governments change. If we believe in this, let us see the Government put it on the face of the Bill. This has been called for by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which have signalled their dissatisfaction with this way of proceeding.
I turn to Amendments 249A, 252A and 257A in my name, which concern how the Government will assess the effectiveness of the ban. I am assuming, perhaps optimistically, that all noble Lords will agree that the restriction on freedom of expression involved in the Government’s policy should be continued only if it is seen to be effective in its purpose of reducing calorific intake. Indeed, that is the Government’s view, because the Bill contains a five-year review of the effectiveness of the restrictions, in line with better regulation principles, but it is not clear how “effectiveness” will be judged.
The purpose of my amendments is to seek some clarity on the issue now, as we adopt the new rules, so that the effectiveness criteria are not shaped retrospectively in five years’ time. This needs to be done now, in the interests of transparency and to enable the collection of data. It also needs to be done if the industry is to respond by changing its product mix—something which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said she hoped for and looked forward to, and said there was evidence of its having done so in advance. But unless it understands in advance the criteria by which the ban will be judged effective, how can it possibly begin the process of changing the product mix to meet those criteria? The lack of impact of the ban is clear, but the criteria judging how it will be assessed effectively need to be addressed right at the outset.
There is also the question of what the Government will take into account in assessing those criteria. Their impact assessment envisages that the policy will likely reduce calorie consumption by around three calories a day, which is roughly equivalent to half a gram of butter, or one-five-hundredth of a standard pack of butter. This is so small as to be insignificant in terms of health benefits, yet the policy will undoubtedly have wider economic benefits, including on competition, innovation, prices, media revenues, advertising and the wider creative industries. Are the Government going to assess this wider picture?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in this important group focused on the Government’s proposals in Schedule 17. I will speak first to Amendments 247A, 249ZA, 249ZB, and so on, tabled by my noble friend Lady Walmsley and me. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, too. These arise from the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of 16 December—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—supported by the 9th report of the Constitution Committee of 7 January and its clear recommendation about Schedule 17. Alongside the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, both committees have expressed strong views as to the increasingly skeletal nature of current government legislation and the increasing tendency not just to avoid detail in primary legislation but to avoid secondary legislation through issuing guidance which does not come before Parliament. The House debated this aspect on the first day of Committee, when noble Lords made clear their views about the skeletal nature of the Bill.
The DPRRC says in paragraph 20:
“The merits of restrictions on food and drink advertising are not within our remit; but the method of implementing the policy is.”
The committee goes on to say, in paragraph 23:
“Legislation, which of its nature affects the legal rights and liabilities of people, should not be capable of being altered by guidance.”
It concludes, in paragraph 26:
“We consider that the power to define a food or drink product that is ‘less healthy’ should be exercised solely through the making of regulations and not also through the making of guidance.”
Explicitly, under paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 amending the Communications Act 2003, new Section 321A(3)(c) provides that
“a food or drink product is ‘less healthy’ if … it falls within a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and … it is ‘less healthy’ in accordance with the relevant guidance”.
This crucial guidance is the nutrient profiling model, over which Parliament has exercised no scrutiny. It has been in place since 2011 and it can be changed by the Government without any parliamentary debate or input from affected businesses. The NPM is a tool used by Ofcom and the Committee of Advertising Practice to give food and drink products a score, which determines whether products can be advertised during children’s television currently and in non-broadcast media, including print, cinema, online and social media. At the very least, the definition of “less healthy”—giving rise as it does to such severe economic consequences for broadcasters, manufacturers and online media—should be contained in secondary legislation, which, as the DPRRC noted, should normally be introduced by the affirmative procedure. The Constitution Committee entirely endorsed the conclusions of the DPRRC.
Much has changed in the last 10 years. It would be a travesty if such important new provisions having such a major impact on broadcasters and manufacturers were based on out-of-date guidance and not subjected in any way to parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Government will accept that secondary legislation is the only legitimate way forward. I also hope that the Minister will not try to satisfy us with the consultation on the NPM that took place in 2018. That has still not seen the light of day and still would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, however onerous its new provisions were—for example, they could in future include free sugars in fruit juices and smoothies.
I have also tabled Amendments 248B and 253C. Many in the food industry are concerned that the new definition of food or drink SME introduced by paragraph 1 of Schedule 17 is based purely on employee numbers and could create a competitive disadvantage for UK businesses. As currently drafted, large multinational businesses could be exempt from the restrictions by reason of having less than 250 UK-based employees. This may inadvertently encourage companies to divert manufacturing abroad in order to qualify as an SME. To ensure a level playing field and to protect UK manufacturing, the amendment substitutes an SME definition that also includes a turnover threshold, currently of not more than £36 million, in line with the definition of medium-sized company in Section 465 the Companies Act 2006.
I have also signed and support amendments spoken to variously by the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Moylan, which propose: provisions to allow further time for implementation of the provisions of Schedule 17; the sunset clause, which provides the necessary post-legislative scrutiny; explicit exemptions for brand advertising; and ensuring a level playing field for liability for the online platforms. I also support my noble friend Lady Walmsley’s consultation amendment, Amendment 259A.
Above all, I support the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in spirit, designed to change the watershed. I sponsored the Private Member’s Bill that banned tobacco advertising 20 years ago, so I am not averse to strong action on advertising where necessary, where the evidence of harm is there. I absolutely support a national obesity strategy and believe we have a serious problem. Campaigns such as the Daily Mile and Eat Them to Defeat Them are the way forward, alongside the sugar tax, targeted interventions and nutrition education. However, I believe that Schedule 17, as it currently stands, is disproportionate in what it seeks to do.
As we have heard, the Government’s own impact assessment of March 2019 confirms the minimal impact on obesity of these measures, but they represent a demonstrable threat to broadcasters and to jobs and investment across the country. The impact assessment estimated that a pre-9 pm TV watershed ban would reduce children’s calorie intake by 1.7 calories a day—it is there in black and white. At the same time, it sets out that children’s exposure to such advertisements has declined by 70% since the rules were tightened in 2008. The latest BARB data suggests that the decline is accelerating far beyond that predicted previously.
So while exposure levels have declined significantly, childhood obesity levels have risen. It seems extraordinary to proceed with that policy as regards television, when the evidence is that it will do little to address obesity. Given that the most likely response of the industry will be to move to alternative in-store price promotions, this is not surprising. These are not subject to any government restrictions and this was what much of the food and drink sector told the strategy consultants OC&C it would do in the event of a pre-9 pm ban.
The Obesity Health Alliance states that
“evidence shows children who already have a weight classed as overweight or obese eat more in response to advertising.”
To put this in context, overweight and obese boys consume between 146 and 505 excess calories per day, while the figures are 157 to 291 for girls. Using the Government’s own numbers and methodology, overweight children would still lose just 2.63 calories per day. Such a small reduction will make no meaningful difference to health outcomes.
The impact assessment predicts a £171 million loss to broadcasters in advertising revenue, and it is here that I have my most fundamental concerns: the proposals will have a major detrimental impact on the funding of public service broadcasters and news media. That is the key problem. The Government, in their consultations, relied heavily on the idea that broadcasters would be able to mitigate most of the impact of the ban. I have explored that proposition carefully and it is not the case. Broadcasters cannot easily shift existing HFSS advertising from pre to post-9 pm slots. Non-HFSS advertisers will resist being moved out of post-9 pm airtime since this would reduce the impact of campaigns and make them relatively more expensive.
Broadcasters make the strong point that they do not have a queue of advertisers who currently have no TV space waiting patiently in the wings for slots to become available, nor brands with other products unable to get enough space. ITV has experienced four years of successive decline in TV advertising revenue, so the pre-9 pm ban will cause great damage to commercial public service broadcasting, which is already under pressure. In the circumstances, the compromise watershed suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and supported by the commercial public service broadcasters, to cover the viewing times for children seems eminently reasonable. Again, I hope the Government will reconsider.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, on the one hand, I am strongly in favour of the government proposals in Schedule 17 to bring in further curbs on the promotion and advertising of junk food by introducing a 9 pm watershed and a ban on paid-for advertising online. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Boycott and Lady Finlay of Llandaff. On the other hand, I strongly oppose a raft of amendments in this grouping that we have heard a lot about in the last half an hour or so that seek to dilute or delay the measures in various ways. I do not have time to go through each one in detail, but if the Government were to accept any of them, it would be children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would suffer the consequences.
Before I move on, I want to try to find an area of common ground with the noble Lords, Lord Vaizey, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moylan. I agree with the implication of what they have said that this is not a single-fix magic bullet. Promotion and advertising of food makes a contribution to the obesity crisis, but there are many other factors, whether education, school meals or in-store promotions, which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, just referred to. I do not think anybody would claim that this is going to solve the crisis, but the question is: would it make any difference at all? We have heard various arguments that it would not, but I want to refer back to the evidence.
I first came across this nearly 20 years ago when I was chairman of the Food Standards Agency. We commissioned an independent review by Professor Gerard Hastings of the University of Strathclyde on the impact of the promotion and advertising of food on children’s diets. It showed incontrovertibly, with the range of evidence available, which was partly observational and partly experimental, that, yes, it does affect children’s diets. It affects not just brand loyalty but preferences for categories of food—chocolate versus apples, for example. In a way, that is blindingly obvious because, if it had no effect, why on earth would the food industry spend so much money doing it? We do not really need to have research to show it, but nevertheless the research is absolutely clear cut. Other reviews since then have supported the Hastings findings.
The second point I want to make is about the various objections that come from the food and advertising industries that this will have a negative impact on revenues and broadcasting. If noble Lords want to look at the analysis on this, I suggest they read pages 39 to 42 of Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy Part One, where he thoroughly debunks the arguments we have heard. I will read a quote from the report, from John Hegarty, founder of the leading brand agency, Bartle Bogle Hegarty—I gather it created the Audi slogan “Vorsprung durch Technik” and is very well known. He said:
“Advertising junk food … is no longer a decent thing to do. Instead of fighting the new 9pm watershed rule, the advertising industry should be using its power to help fight the health crisis. We all have our part to play in encouraging food companies to invest in healthier meals, and encouraging the public to buy them.
No one is against profit – but profiting from illness and misery is not a sustainable business model.”
That is from the advertising industry itself.
I have talked about evidence and the impact on industry. My third point is really about inequality. Two days ago, we had the levelling-up White Paper, which contains a number of missions. One of the missions is to reduce health inequalities by 2030, and as we know, they are absolutely staggering. According to the King’s Fund’s latest analysis, males from the least deprived areas in the United Kingdom have a healthy life expectancy of 71 years; from the most deprived areas, they have a healthy life expectancy of 52 years. The White Paper states:
“we will act now to deal with one of the biggest contributors to ill health: poor diet and obesity.”
Whatever one thinks the average effect of these measures might be across the country, we must bear in mind that those effects will not be borne equally by different parts of society. The people who will bear the brunt if we do not implement these measures will be the poorest and most disadvantaged children in the country.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who, a week ago last Monday, organised a moving and interesting session with an organisation called Bite Back 2030. I hope he will not mind me quoting a little from that session. The facts and figures are absolutely mind-boggling. The raw statistics are that, in the UK, 15 billion junk food adverts are pumped out every year—in other words, 500 adverts per second—targeted mainly at young people. That is one of those numbers that is so outlandish that it is hard to grasp. That is why I found that the personal accounts of the young people and teenagers we heard from told a richer story. I will give your Lordships an example.
Dev Sharma, who I think is a 16 year-old boy, said:
“junk food advertising is part of my life”.
It is on bus tickets, Spotify, Instagram, YouTube, et cetera. Particularly chilling for me was the fact that Domino’s Pizza sends him an advert every day at 4 pm, just as he is leaving school and is really hungry, like any teenage boy. That is when he is at his most vulnerable, and he is being persuaded to buy calorie dense junk food then. Another witness, Becky Odoi, talked about “subliminal conditioning” of young people, and Yumna Hussen said that food companies are preying on young people when they are most vulnerable.
These are not my ideas; they are the ideas of the young people on the receiving end. I could go on at greater length, but I think I have made my point. I strongly disagree with the amendments that would dilute these measures, and I strongly support the measures. I regret that the Government’s own amendments introduce the possibility of delaying implementing the measures, and I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government do not intend such a delay. They will not be the total solution, but they will play a significant part in tackling the obesity crisis in this country, which, in the longer run, is a far bigger health crisis than Covid. We must not get distracted by the short term from looking at the long term.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and pay tribute to the work he has done in this area. I shall speak to Amendment 257C, but I shall first make just one general comment on something to which he alluded, and which follows from the earlier remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We are working in a vacuum at the moment, and it would be extremely helpful if the Government could say when they will publish their food strategy, drawing on the excellent work done by Henry Dimbleby, who is the main adviser to the Government on this.
I support and have appended my name to Amendment 257C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He is unable to be here today, which he regrets greatly. The offending part of the Bill in this regard is on page 241, in proposed new Section 368Z18 on the guidance the Government intend to draw up from time to time. Subsection (2) states:
“The appropriate regulatory authority must consult the Secretary of State before drawing up or revising the guidance.”
Subsection (3) states:
“The appropriate regulatory authority must publish the guidance and any revised guidance in such manner as they consider appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in their opinion, are likely to be affected by it.”
I draw the Committee’s attention to the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, and the following statement on Clause 144:
“This is a Henry VIII clause, enabling the Secretary of State to modify an Act of Parliament, an Act of the Scottish Parliament, a Measure or an Act of the Senedd Cymru, or Northern Ireland legislation. The Secretary of State is required to consult those he or she considers appropriate before making regulations via the affirmative resolution procedure.”
The Constitution Committee concludes:
“The House should consider amending Schedule 17 to require either the consultation of the relevant devolved administration or the consent of the relevant devolved legislature if the Secretary of State were to use this power to enact regulations modifying devolved legislation.”
I speak as a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and must say that it is a source of concern to all of us who have an interest north of the border, west of the border in Wales or in Northern Ireland that, sadly, the Government are developing a history of not consulting the devolved Administrations where appropriate.
Regarding Amendment 257C, which is, in my view, a probing amendment, I put it to the Minister that the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the legislation of devolved Administrations by regulations, as set out in the guidance to which I referred. The Committee will be aware that the Sewell convention does not apply to the exercise of delegated powers, so there is no obligation on the Government to seek consent. In its very helpful report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee suggests that, given the nature and extent of this power, consent should nevertheless be sought. There is nothing in the Bill to respect the spirit of the convention, not even a duty to consult. How do the Government square that with the respect they should give to the devolved Administrations, especially in view of my right honourable friend Minister Gove’s initiative on intergovernmental relations and the levelling-up agenda, to which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred and which I, for one, support?
I conclude by asking my noble friend what precisely the Government intend to do, or what action they would be willing to take, to address this issue when the power in the guidance is being exercised.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer. I speak in support of Amendments 253ZA, 255A, 255B and 257B, which all attempt to give some parity in HFSS advertising restrictions between broadcasters and platforms. I apologise for having not been able to speak on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already spoken about the reduction in broadcasters’ advertising revenue as the platforms take an ever-increasing share of the market. The restriction in the Bill on television advertising further tilts the playing field in their favour. What concerns me is that this part of Schedule 17 is about the media which disseminate HFSS advertising taking responsibility for it, yet once again the platforms are allowed off scot free. My concern is the complete absence of tech companies’ responsibility for the content of ads appearing on their video-sharing platforms—mainly YouTube, but also Facebook video and Snapchat’s vertical video service. This is the media to which children are migrating. Enders Analysis estimates that by 2027, children will spend more than half their viewing time looking at content on these platforms—an average of 85 minutes per day per child. Clearly, this is where advertisers and brands are going to push HFSS products.
Yet, as noble Lords know, the digital space is the Wild West. Last year, the digital task force produced its excoriating report on the near-monopoly control of digital advertising by the big platforms. The report also mentioned the opacity of the programmatic interface, which allows advertisers to target products at specific users. Of course advertisers are themselves responsible for where they place their ads. This marketplace is the basis of the platforms’ wealth, but it is where they shirk any possibility for the content of ads. I am sure that, if platforms were made legally responsible for imposing restrictions on HFSS advertising, they would soon insert filters—or, better still, humans—into the process, much in the same way as we are seeing them do in content mediation.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Schedule 17 generally and in support of Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. In doing so, I declare my wife’s interest as a board director of Tesco and Diageo.
I will focus my comments on the amendments supported by my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lord Moylan. In doing so, I seek to address all the amendments they have put forward, which seek to: extend the implementation period for the new restrictions; introduce brand advertising exemptions; and bring in effectiveness reviews and sunset clauses, and all the other clauses that seek to water down the really important measures in the Bill on junk food advertising. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has already gone through some of these amendments in detail, so I do not want to go through that again. However, I am aware that my noble friend Lord Vaizey and other noble Lords have brushed off the Government’s obesity strategy as wrong-headed and doomed; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has shared his view that the measures in the Bill are disproportionate.
I want to reflect for a moment on what we are trying to do here. As a country, we have got into a situation where, by every measure, we are seriously overweight. The worst affected are our children. We have heard, both in this debate and many times in this Chamber, that two in five children are overweight. The worst-affected children are the poorest children, who are twice as likely to be overweight. In thinking about the environment our children are being brought up in—this question of environment is absolutely critical—what are our values as a nation if we knowingly create an environment that encourages children to develop addictions to foods that we know will hurt them, adversely affect their moods, hold back their learning, reduce their self-worth and damage their health for years to come?
Through the pandemic, we have seen that now is the time to lean into this ongoing national disaster. The measures in this Bill are necessary because they are an essential condition for an overall change in the direction of travel of childhood obesity prevalence. The challenge is going from an increase in the weight of our children of around 1% per year to a decrease of 4.2% per year. That is an astonishing mission and a massive challenge. No country has ever undertaken such a thing.
However, I am not convinced that we can just hope that our primary schools will do all the heavy lifting to achieve this. Somehow, as a country, we have to change the way in which we run our lives. This will require a change in the environment in which our children learn about, engage with and buy food—and that includes the media they consume. If we fail, for every year that this is not achieved, the rate of change needed in future years will grow, and thousands more children will be exposed to the physical and mental health impacts of obesity.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked eloquently about how, 20 years ago, the Hastings report had this research nailed. There is now a sense of urgency, which is why these measures are needed. It is why we cannot seek to extend the implementation periods for new restrictions; this will just drag them out indefinitely and undermine the seriousness of the programme. It is why we cannot give brand advertising an exemption that clearly leaves the door wide open for the same old advertising in different ways. It is why we should not commit to effectiveness reviews that will become a rear-guard action to unpick these regulations, nor commit to sunset clauses that will give industry false hope that somehow the Government will just give up on these measures or the problem will go away.
To reach the 2030 target, it is absolutely crucial that the Government continue with these plans to restrict junk food advertising on TV and—as the noble Viscount rightly said—online, and do not waste any more time. It is also crucial that we introduce fiscal measures to speed up reformulation at the same time, making healthy eating more accessible to everyone. It is absolutely clear from our data that any delay in action or the implementation of proposals to address childhood obesity will have a significant impact on the ability of the Government to achieve their ambition. More children will grow ill and live shorter lives.
I hear—loudly and clearly—the concerns of my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lord Moylan, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I hear their concerns about the science, the research and the public health epidemiology that underpin these measures. I do not agree with their scepticism but I do hear their concerns, so let me pick off a couple of them.
My noble friend Lord Vaizey expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of these measures. He is right that these advertising restrictions will not work on their own. Obesity is a complex issue and no one single policy can solve it. However, small steps matter. It can take as little as 46 extra calories a day for children to gain excess weight, and seeing just one minute of HFSS adverts leads to children eating an extra 14 calories a day on average.
As I said earlier, this question of environment is absolutely critical. I accept that we need population-level structural policies to address the social and economic drivers of obesity, to then address the growing inequalities between the most and the least-deprived children. That is why the levelling-up White Paper earlier this week that tackles housing, education, deprivation and many other aspects of British life was critical to this debate and forms the context in which we should discuss these measures. It is also why my noble friend should not feel that the broadcast and food industries are in some way being uniquely scapegoated. This is a national programme that will touch on many lives.
My noble friends are right to express concerns about the fortune of the broadcast and internet industries, two jewels in Britain’s creative industries and employers that drive local economies. I want to reassure them. I once worked in the media industry and have not forgotten the intense competition for advertising and the existential battle with big tech, but my noble friend Lord Vaizey spoke as if many of these companies would find that all communication by these companies on all their products to all their target markets would somehow be terminated forthwith and that the British public service broadcast industry would be thrown into destitution. That is just not quite right. Cancer Research UK found that ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky One derive a small proportion—just 8% of their total ad revenue—from adverts for HFSS foods.
It is true that almost two-thirds of HFSS product adverts aired between 6 and 9 pm fall within the category that UKHSA has identified as the highest contributors of sugar calories in people’s diets, a fact that I found quite alarming, but under a 9 pm watershed broadcasters would have lost only 5% of their total advertising revenue if all HFSS adverts were removed completely, without anything in their place. Noble Lords should know that over three-quarters—79%—of potential revenue loss from removing HFSS adverts could be mitigated against by companies advertising their existing non-HFSS products instead of promoting their HFSS products. Healthy foods can still be advertising.
It is just not right to call these measures appalling and crude or ridiculous and blunt. To change the environment in which our children make decisions about food is critical for this national mission, and to contribute to a campaign to improve the health of children is a commendable aspiration for these government measures.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, perhaps channelling the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, from this morning, I congratulate the Government on including in the Bill these measures to tackle childhood obesity. As we have heard, with one in four children not just overweight but clinically obese, we are storing up huge problems for the future because we know that what starts in childhood continues into adulthood. In that sense, diet is destiny. Unfortunately, obesity is the new smoking. We know that it is the cause of avoidable heart attacks, strokes, 13 different types of cancer, and respiratory disease, and causes a far higher risk of dying from Covid. Clearly action is needed, and the Bill makes a start.
If anything, these measures, which are certainly proportionate, may be overly targeted. Some of the criticisms levelled at the Bill should have given rise to amendments to extend its scope to deal with some of the loopholes or to level the playing field into other digital aspects that people are concerned about. That would have been a constructive response to legitimate concerns. Instead, I cannot help feeling that this morning we have heard from opponents who are simultaneously arguing that the measures in the Bill go too far and at the same time will not be effective enough, and to ensure that this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy they have included amendments which would essentially fillet the Bill of its active ingredients.
These are familiar tactics. This is the tactic of deny, dilute and delay. The first is denying, claiming to us as parents that ads and marketing make little meaningful difference to kids’ consumption; but on the other hand we have companies—presumably rational economic actors—spending maybe hundreds of millions of pounds every year on the basis that exactly the opposite is true. Like Schrödinger’s cat, which is simultaneously dead and alive, it seems that junk food advertising and marketing simultaneously does and does not work. What is at stake here is not quantum physics but the physical and mental health of millions of children.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
Given the noble Lord’s extraordinary expertise, having worked all over the world, does he know any example of any country where a junk food advertising ban has had an impact on obesity? This is a genuine question.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
As the noble Lord will know, the genuine problem that we have in this country is that unfortunately we are a world leader in childhood obesity. It therefore falls to us to take world-leading action to respond to that.
Even classical economic liberals will accept that children are not sovereign consumers. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, in his earlier remarks, said that there was no evidence that advertising leads to increased consumption. My noble friend Lord Krebs has comprehensively rebutted that point but, to underline the matter, I say that studies of children’s ventromedial prefrontal cortices—the areas of their brains associated with reward valuation—suggest that watching food commercials systematically alters the psychological and neurobiological mechanisms of children’s food decisions. Even small but sustained reductions in at-risk children’s calorific content provide demonstrable physiological benefit.
By the way, this figure of 1.7 grams or 3 grams, as my noble friend Lord Krebs pointed out, is a mistaken application of epidemiological maths—that is, dividing the assumed totality of calorific reduction against the totality of children on an even basis, when in fact the children who will disproportionately benefit are those who are disproportionately exposed and disproportionately obese.
Systematic evidence reviews conclude that
“screen advertising for unhealthy food results in significant increases in dietary intake among children.”
Therefore, once we have had the denial, the second tactic is to dilute the regulatory effort—to insert loopholes, to neuter regulators, to drive a coach and horses through what is proposed. We have a number of amendments which seek to do that. They pretend, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out, that advertising to children of a smaller item is not in practice also advertising the identically packaged larger item. They exempt ads for certain bars which by themselves may contain half of a child’s maximum daily recommended sugar intake. They give a green light to brand advertising, even where children perceive the fast food or confectionary brand and its associated unhealthy products as essentially the same. Widespread evidence shows that current narrow restrictions on children’s exposure to harmful junk food ads are routinely breached, and frankly these amendments seek to repeat the trick.
Even more absurdly, Amendments 245A and 250ZA would restrict harmful advertising only on a Saturday and Sunday. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out that those of us who are parents know that our kids are not exposed to screens only on a Saturday or Sunday; it turns out that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are also days of pressure for those of us trying to be responsible parents. Or are we asked to believe that rising obesity in pre-school and school-age children does not happen on school days? If so, these amendments imply the discovery of a phenomenon unknown to medical science: weekend-only obesity.
Finally, when denial has been disproved and the dilution tactic has been debunked, the amendments try for delay—for more time to lobby for a weakening of the political will, to live to fight another day. “Lord make us pure, but not yet”; even St Augustine would blush at these amendments. Nor for that matter do government Amendments 249, 252 and 254 have anything to commend them. We have heard this morning a strange contradiction between the acknowledged urgency of the spiralling health crisis affecting our children versus the long and leisurely gap that some still want before further action is taken. These preventive measures were first announced by the Government in 2018. Three years is more than long enough to prepare and adapt. The Government’s goal is to halve childhood obesity by the end of the decade, but we are nowhere near being on track. We had better get on with it because, as the saying goes, children may be only a fifth of our population but they are 100% of our future. In the past, the blocking tactics of deny, dilute and delay have often succeeded—but today, perhaps not, because young people and parents want change, and because today, in this Bill, the Government are showing resolve; so too should we, my Lords.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 245, tabled by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, and to others in this group to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as a director of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance and deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, and note my other interests in the register. I am also a vice-chairman of the ITV APPG.
This does not need repeating: I support the Government’s aim to tackle childhood obesity, but I am wholly opposed to their proposals to tackle it through an advertising ban. I believe that even now, at the 11th hour, they should think again, because it is disproportionate and based on scant and frankly implausible evidence. It will damage the creative economy, which is already under such stress, and it will have unintended consequences, like so much legislation that impacts on the media.
Also—and this is a very important point—it sets a hugely dangerous precedent for the Government to interfere with advertising freedoms, which are a fundamental aspect of freedom of expression. This is bad legislation.
As we have heard so often, the reduction in calories will be minimal, but this ban will take £200 million out of the media and creative industries when they can ill afford it and when they are in a life-and-death struggle with the all-powerful platforms. My noble friend Lord Bethell said that it would take out only 8% of revenues. When you are in day-to-day combat with the platforms for advertising revenue, 8% of revenues is a huge amount of money. More than 265 news media outlets have closed over the last 15 years, and many more will follow if the burden of regulation is increased, not cut in the way it should be.
This ban will not impact just broadcasters; it will disproportionately affect news publisher websites, too. This blunderbuss of a ban will reduce freedom of choice for advertisers and harm the ability of news media publishers to monetise content online, which is crucial for their long-term survival. At the same time, astonishingly, it will allow the tech platforms to continue to derive enormous amounts of revenue from HFSS advertising.
Here is the great irony: the platforms have a significant audience of children, because that is where children go to get their news, but they will not be impacted. News publisher websites have only a de minimis child audience but will suffer directly as a result of this policy—and they will do so at a time when the entire industry is under great stress, as countless reports, including the Government’s Cairncross and Furman reviews, the report from our own Communications and Digital Committee and a comprehensive report from the CMA, have demonstrated. In winding up, could my noble friend explain why news publishers are caught but the platforms are not? It is, as somebody famously said, “voodoo economics”.
Even at this late stage, I hope the Government will think again and drop these ill-thought-out restrictions. In case they do not—I am a practitioner of the art of realpolitik and I know this ban may end up going through—as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, we must at least make sure the policy is workable. That is the job of this House and this Committee because, at the moment, the measures are not fit for purpose.
As noble Lords know, during my career I have had one or two encounters with the issue of regulation, and I am clear that, for regulation to work properly, it must have a number of inherent qualities. First, you cannot rush regulation. Stakeholders from those affected need to have their input and they need time to adapt. That is what the amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 245, are all about. This is not just delay for delay’s sake; it is delay because that is what the real world demands. When this Bill becomes law, that is just a starting point. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, you have to designate a regulator, then the regulator has to implement it and there has to be public consultation on code changes. That long process could easily take the rest of the year and possibly longer.
Once that is all complete, in the real world, advertisers, agencies and media owners will need time to assess how the system is going to work in practice. This is a very complicated part of the creative economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. You cannot just flick a switch and expect everything to change at once. It will take at least a year for all those involved in the advertising supply chain to adapt, review processes, set new legal procedures in place and so on—leaving aside the impact on the creative aspects of their work. That is why I genuinely believe that this Bill must not come into force until one year after the final publication of the rules and guidance from the appointed regulator.
A judicious approach to implementing the rules is one characteristic of sensible regulation. Another is certainty, which is what Amendment 247 and others are about. The Bill quite rightly focuses on ads where an identifiable HFSS product is shown, with brand advertising and sponsorship exempt. I applaud that, but the Bill is not crystal clear on the point. Within the creative industries, there is a huge amount of uncertainty, which is the enemy of effective regulation, about what is and is not permitted. I believe the terms of the exemption should be set out in the Bill, not least so that, if this or a future Government wish to revisit the matter, they must come back to this House to set out why they are doing it and to seek our consent. Given the potential harm this legislation could cause and the precedent it sets, that must be right.
The final aspect of sound regulation must be the measurement of its effectiveness. Regulation that does not work—and I am afraid that I am sure this will not—should not remain on the statute book simply for the sake of it. If it is found wanting—or, worse, damaging—it should be repealed. This is too important an issue to leave to chance. We should therefore know now what metrics the Government will use to measure the success of these restrictions, the definitions they will employ and how data will be collected. Will they measure the impact on the creative economy as well as on obesity? We should know. If those metrics are not met, the restrictions should fall at the end of the review period.
In the absence of dropping this legislation—I notice some reports that its demise might be part of Operation Red Meat, which we are hearing so much about, and let us hope so—our job is to ameliorate its worst aspects and ensure that it is sound and workable. These amendments do that, and I hope they will find widespread support across the Committee.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Vaizey’s amendments. He said all I could possibly say to support them. This is a shocking piece of bodged legislation, which needs the support of these amendments to make it fairer and more proportionate, practical and sensible.
At the heart of all this legislation and all the speeches today, I think we are all agreed, is that unhealthy food is the real villain here. It is not the messengers, the advertisers or the media; it is the people who create the formulations that are doing so much harm and increasing obesity at a scary rate, which we can all unite in trying to fight. I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is in for a terrible disappointment if she thinks that just banning ads in some form on television is the answer to all our problems. Many Governments—
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I never said—and other noble Lords who oppose these amendments never said—that the single act of banning junk food advertising at certain times on television will solve the obesity problem. When McKinsey did a survey on what needed to be done, eight or nine years ago, it came up with 81 different measures the Government needed to undertake. This is just one of them. It happens to be an important one that the Government have put forward, and I believe the Committee should support it.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
I will continue. Successive Governments throughout my too many years in the media, faced with intractable social problems, have turned to bashing television, television advertising, violence on television, the Troubles and so on. I remember Prime Minister Thatcher introducing a measure that banned direct speech by duly elected Members of Sinn Féin, thinking that it would in some way contribute to the end of the Troubles. The list is endless, and this is yet another one.
The Government have missed the target. The target is the manufacturers of unhealthy foods. I ask the Minister whether, at the end, she will kindly give us a sense of what the Government are doing to get to the heart of the problem, which is the reformulation of these unhealthy foods. It is no good blaming the messenger and the media; you have to get to the heart of the problem, and at the heart of the problem are products that have too much sugar and other harmful—maybe even addictive—contents in them.
I will conclude, in the interests of brevity, by expressing my great sympathy for the Front Bench in having to defend this ghastly piece of legislation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Grade. The point he made relates to my own experience in that, when the nutrient profiles in question were introduced in January 2011, I was Secretary of State. They were very much in the context of precisely the programme that I think he is looking for. It was about the reformulation of foods in the manner that had been done in relation to salt and to do the same for sugar and fats and the voluntary removal of transfats, which I think has essentially been accomplished. I have to say to my noble friend and the Committee that we have to be very careful because a lot of progress was made, but much more could have been made on a voluntary basis with the industry.
The nature of the attack made upon the Government and the industry was that, I paraphrase, “You’re working with the industry and, therefore, your activity is undermined by that fact.” It was rejected by many of the organisations that were seeking to achieve a public health objective. That was misplaced, and I am very disappointed that it happened like that. It would be a justifiable approach only if less healthy foods—HFSS foods or, for that matter, alcohol—were in the same position as tobacco. We do not deal with the tobacco industry because there is no safe level of tobacco consumption; we deal with the food and drink industry because there are safe levels of food and drink consumption.
My noble friends are nodding merrily, but I have to warn them that I actually agree with the Government’s proposals, partly because I think they are capable of being implemented in some respects in ways that meet some of the objectives that my noble friends are setting out. They can put practical timetables in place. They can give clear guidance about identifiable products, as distinct from brand sponsorship and the like. I do not like sunset clauses if we do not have to have them—if we have too many of them, as my noble friend Lord Moylan suggested, we would be clogged up with re-legislating all the time—but the Government can, by regulations, significantly change this.
I support the Government partly because they are clearly being attacked for doing too little and attacked for doing too much, so they are probably doing about the right thing. I think they are doing the right thing because we all know—the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said it—that obesity, and perhaps especially childhood obesity, is a multifactorial problem, so we must have multifactorial solutions. The one thing I would not accept is the proposition that I have sometimes heard from Governments of all persuasions: something must be done; this is something; therefore, it must be done. We need to implement many responses to this major public health issue—the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, is quite right—and we must tackle it as if it really matters. It is one of those missions that a mission-led Government should be seeking to achieve. It will need a wide range of different responses, of which this is one. All of them should be examined carefully to see whether they are evidence-based and effective.
I have to say that it is very difficult to say what is effective in this context because, for example, although we know that children who consume relatively more less healthy foods have a less healthy diet and are more likely to be obese, if we look at all the correlations, there are quite a lot of children who have a poor diet but it is not necessarily particularly heavy in less healthy foods. There are a lot of children whose poor diet is directly the consequence of their poverty, as my noble friend Lord Bethell said. The idea that we will see direct cause and effect is difficult to accomplish, but that does not mean we should not try. So, for public health reasons, I support what the Government are setting out to do.
I shall make one final point. The lead amendment in this group was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and we have a later group on alcohol labelling. I have to say to her that I think that, in this context, her amendment is misplaced, first, because I think it derives from the idea that alcohol is like tobacco. For only a small minority of people is it necessary not to drink at all; most people who have a low or moderate alcohol consumption are at low risk. Secondly, she dismissed with a wave of the hand the codes and what has been achieved. I do not think that is fair. I think the alcohol marketing code has made a difference in relation to alcohol. I wish there was an HFSS marketing code that had been similarly effective because, where alcohol is concerned, the Health Survey for England 2019 said that, in 2003, 45% of eight to 15 year-olds had consumed an alcoholic drink and that, by 2019, that had dropped to 15%. These things can move in the right direction. We just need to make them do so. It does not automatically follow—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Will the noble Lord clarify some of his statement about young people? We know that there are specific cultural groups among young people who do not drink at all, which has brought the average down, just as we know that there is a spectrum in poverty and obesity. Does the noble Lord feel that the current guidelines or whatever are working, given that there were 7,000 deaths from alcohol liver disease in 2020 and that there has been a 400% increase in the number of deaths from alcohol liver disease since 1972? If this had been working really well, we would not be seeing these increases. At the moment, we have a catastrophically large number of people dying from alcohol liver disease, which has got much worse during lockdown.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The noble Baroness is drawing me into what is a very important debate, but I do not think it is this one in this group. We will come on to it perhaps on Amendment 259 at a later stage. I do not disagree that we have not succeeded where alcohol consumption is concerned, but the nature of the problem has manifested itself more recently, especially in smaller numbers of people consuming alcohol, some not at all, but those who do very often doing so through binge drinking, which is exactly what is giving rise to what we are all most concerned about, which is the significant harm that is resulting for those people. We need to think behaviourally about the nature of the problem in order to find behaviourally what is the nature of the solution.
I need to stop, but I shall raise just one point with my noble friend on the Front Bench. I started with nutrient profiling. Nutrient profiling is terribly important. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made the point that we do not get to look at that, but what it says is terribly important. As I understand it, we are due for a revision, but we have not yet seen it. There was a 2013 study that looked at our nutrient profiling and compared it to that of the WHO and five European countries. It concluded that, in relation to a large number of processed and packaged foods, under our system 47% would be able to be advertised to children, while under the WHO system it was 32%. There is a significant difference in what one puts into the nutrient profiling. It is not an objective truth, and putting alcohol in it completely misses the point, since it is not constructed around that proposition. I ask my noble friend to tell us a bit more about the nutrient profiling process, the timetable, the evidence and how we are going to put it together to meet the objectives under the Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I will be very brief. I declare my chairmanship of the Communications and Digital Committee. A lot of powerful speeches have been made all around the House today and clearly, we are all united in our care and concern for the issue of child obesity. The complexity of what is proposed in this legislation has been illustrated to such an extent that there is a case for delaying implementing these measures so that it is got right.
But the main reason for my decision to speak in this debate is the issue of fairness, equal treatment and the difference in the way these regulations apply to broadcasters and to the online platforms. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood have already spoken in some detail about the inequality of treatment between broadcasters and news publishers, and the online platforms.
I spell out clearly that what we are talking about here is that responsibility for the control and compliance of advertising that appears on television or radio rests with broadcasters, which can be sanctioned severely with huge fines by regulators if they allow anything that is non-compliant to air. But responsibility does not rest with the online platforms, which take far more in profit from the advertising they publish on their sites than any broadcaster is able to. They are equally able to control what appears on their platforms, as the noble Viscount powerfully described. Could my noble friend the Minister therefore explain why the Government are not ensuring parity between broadcasters and the likes of Google and Facebook at the point of legislation, to ensure parity in the way this will be applied?
Also under the heading of fairness, I say that, in the case of the small manufacturers of the products affected by the advertising ban, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which ensures that the definition of “SME” in the Bill does not provide a loophole exempting large international manufacturers from these advertising restrictions just because they have a small workforce in this country.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I feel the need to balance the sides of this debate. I attached my name to Amendment 244 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I associate myself with everything said by her and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in particular, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who gave powerful and well-evidenced presentations of why we need to see action here. Given the time and the fact that I have a train to catch, I will be brief.
The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Moylan, talked about freedom of speech—the freedom of the advertisers to push on to children whatever they want to push. I put against that the freedom to flourish and live a healthy life with a decent lifespan. The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, illustrated that that is not being achieved and there is a deep inequality in our society.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, talked about how difficult it would be to measure or separate out the impact of these measures. We are in a hugely obesogenic environment. We have this huge problem with obesity not because human nature has suddenly changed and people have lost self-control, but because they are bombarded and barraged from all sides with ultra-processed pap, which we should stop all advertising of. I do not think that “High in fat, sugar and salt” goes far enough. There is evidence that under-11s—primary school kids—cannot distinguish between adverts and editorial content, so we have to protect them.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Black, asked about the international comparisons. Perhaps one of the most obvious ones is Norway, which brought in a ban somewhat similar to this in 2012. It has struggled for the reasons outlined by many noble Lords. Indeed, a study was produced by Oslo Metropolitan University last year, using the categorisation of the WHO European Office for Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Eight out of 10 adverts that young people in Norway were seeing online were for unhealthy food. That is a problem, but it is an argument not for doing nothing but for tackling the whole obesogenic environment that our young people are growing up in, with demonstrable effects. Norway, which has taken similar action to that which we are talking about today, as have Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Latvia and Lithuania—that is just a shortlist—has half the level of childhood obesity that we do, and it regards it as a serious problem.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House that I did not take part in the Second Reading debate; I am afraid that my wife was in hospital at the time. I was a trainee and marketing manager with Reckitt Benckiser—Reckitt & Colman in its early days—which is obviously associated with Colman’s foods and Robinsons drinks. As my career developed, I changed from the company side to the advertising agency side and was responsible for a fair amount of food advertising for the next 15 years. I am particularly proud of Jacob’s Club biscuits, which are full of chocolate—more than any other chocolate biscuit. So, I suppose I have a heritage to declare in that area.
I have supported a number of the amendments that my noble friends Lord Vaizey and Lord Moylan have tabled, and I also listened to my noble friend, in this case, on the Liberal Benches. But I will not talk about them because they have been more than covered; I will keep it quite simple.
We are thinking and talking about a major industry in the UK: the food and drinks industry—not the alcohol side. It has co-operated with previous Governments of both dimensions—or three dimensions, if you include the joint one with the Conservatives—so it has had a long history of involvement. It declares and has indicated that it is helping to reduce child obesity, and it has performed on this, so it is not as if it is resisting anything. It is very important that there is a good working relationship with a dynamic industry like this.
As I see it, the tragedy is this. The ISBA, IAB, IPA and the Food and Drink Federation have worked closely with previous Governments and succeeded in coming a long way in trying to tackle obesity. The industry has demonstrated that by the number of initiatives that have taken place, which have been mentioned already: projects like The Daily Mile and Eat Them To Defeat Them. It has put forward a proposal to Her Majesty’s Government, although I will not go into it because it is fairly technical: targeting filters, based on robust audience data. Some of your Lordships are particularly tech-oriented; I am not, but I am advertising-oriented. When an industry puts forward a proposal of a high-tech nature that will achieve the objectives that the Government of the day want, and set in the first place, it seems to me very strange when that approach is totally rejected.
It goes deeper than that, because unless Her Majesty’s Government listen to my noble friends and think long and hard about their amendments, this will undermine public health policy. Manufacturers have been working in partnership with government for years—over two decades—to reformulate products, reducing salt, sugar and calories and offering smaller portion sizes. Now, all of a sudden, my Government have decided that they will not work with the industry but will handicap it. That will even affect the future, because it will stifle the investment we want in this country, particularly at this time. Finally, this will undermine the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a digital leader.
I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to have another look at what the industry offered. Yes, it is high-tech and yes, it is quite difficult for us normal humans to really get a hold on what it is about and how it actually works, but, after 25 years in the communications world before I entered the other place, I believe, and hope, that my noble friend on the Front Bench is broad-minded enough to go and have another look at what was on offer, before the sword of Damocles falls on this aspect of allegedly helping to reduce poverty.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the great Nicholas Parsons, who is the Chief Whip’s go-to source of quotations for today, also said:
“The saddest thing about getting old is seeing my cricket bat in the corner and wondering if I will ever play again.”
I am sure that Amendment 297C in my name and those of some colleagues, who I will come to in a moment, would have been warmly welcomed by him, as I hope it is across the Committee. If accepted by the Government, it will ensure that many more cricket bats are rehabilitated with a wipe of linseed oil and put to good use again.
I did not want to interrupt the excellent debate, so I have waited until this point to come forward with my amendment, but I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, that if there was ever an amendment in this group to tackle obesity, this is the one. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
Amendment 297C stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, from the Labour Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, from the Liberal Democrat Benches—who admirably chaired the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, which recently published a unanimous report that recommended a requirement for a national plan for sport, health and well-being to be placed in primary legislation—and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who has been campaigning with me for this change in the law for well over 20 years.
Of course, the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House ceased to exist on the publication of its report. However, unusually, after hearing 76 witnesses in public evidence sessions and reviewing 163 pieces of written evidence, in addition to four round tables, we were unanimous in our hope that this Health and Care Bill could be amended, to reflect the views from all sides of the House, to include a statutory responsibility on the Secretary of State for Health to draft and publish a national plan for sport, health and well-being. The Minister for Sport would be moved from DCMS to the Department of Health to oversee the process of preparing the national plan, presenting it to Parliament and undertaking the additional functions that the Minister for Sport’s office currently undertakes with a very small staff of just 33, who work on sport and recreation, as set out in the Minister’s written reply to me on 29 July. Despite DCMS’s good work, participation rates in sport and recreation in this country are lamentably low and add to the problems of obesity.
Our rationale for encouraging the Prime Minister to make such a move was more than the obvious natural fit that sport and recreation sit more appropriately with health and well-being than with data protection, cybersecurity and the TV licence fee; more than the natural policy fit between sport and health; more than an attachment to a department on the fringes of government, established courtesy of David Mellor’s charm in persuading his good friend John Major to create the department in the first place; and more than a recognition that a Minister at the heart of government could position sport and recreation where it should be: an essential component of a fit and healthy nation, as part of preventive care, health and well-being.
The purpose of our amendment is to create a catalyst for change. The status quo simply does not work. We heard evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, where the Minister of Finance is responsible for setting out a well-being budget that fully includes and embraces sport and recreation in that portfolio.
In the context of the UK, the three key elements of our amendment include focusing on outcomes that meet the needs of present generations, at the same time as thinking about the long-term impacts for future generations; taking a holistic—not the current siloed—approach to the subject; ensuring that society is fitter, healthier and happier; and increasing sports participation rates by at least 10% per annum, which happens on the continent, as opposed to the static levels of participation since 2005 in this country and the major lost opportunity to deliver a participatory sports legacy from London 2012. We face a crisis of obesity, as we have heard in this excellent debate. We have to take action now. We also face a crisis of inactivity, and we need a national plan.
Secondly, we need to break down departmental and agency silos and work across government to assess, develop and implement policies that improve sport, health and well-being. Efforts to increase levels of participation as a percentage of the population have simply failed, and that should be the most important outcome for the Minister for Sport at DCMS. In our view, it requires the major clout that comes with a central, large department of state to co-ordinate and deliver cross-departmental initiatives. There is hardly a department of state now that does not have to promote policies in sport and recreation—including, for example, the Department for Transport, which recently announced a £2 billion package to create a new era for cycling and walking, equal to the total amount of money spent by Sport England on all sport and recreational activities, outside Covid, over the last eight years.
Thirdly, we need to track progress with broader measures of success, including the health of people, communities, the environment and public finances. This is exactly what the Prime Minister said when launching the office for health promotion on 29 March last year. Our amendment backs the Government’s announcement of that day, which stated:
“New Office for Health Promotion will lead national efforts to improve and level up the public’s health … It will help ministers design and operationalise a step change in public health policy”.
Above all, it said that the
“New approach will see action across government to improve the nation’s health by tackling obesity, improving mental health and promoting physical activity”.
The Prime Minister had this to say:
“The new Office for Health Promotion will be crucial in tackling the causes, not just the symptoms, of poor health and improving prevention of illnesses and disease.”
Backing his words is all we are asking for. He went on:
“Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of physical health in our ability to tackle such illnesses, and we must continue to help people to lead healthy lives so that we can all better prevent and fight illnesses.”
The then Health and Social Care Secretary, Matt Hancock, said:
“Good physical and mental health are central to our happiness and well-being. Yet so much of what keeps us healthy happens outside of hospital and the health service. By establishing the Office for Health Promotion we will bring health promotion into the heart of Government, working to the Chief Medical Office, so we can level up the health of our nation, working across national and local government.”
For reasons unknown, the cross-governmental approach to improving the nation’s health by tackling obesity and promoting physical activity was quietly dropped last summer. The office for health promotion was reorganised and rebranded as the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, which retained all the objectives of the office for health promotion, save the essential component of promoting physical activity. Let us add that essential goal, so strongly backed by the Prime Minister and the Government at the time. This amendment would do that, and would add this core objective to the work of the OHID.
In the interests of time, I will not argue the case for all the issues that need to be covered by a national plan, some of which are set out in the amendment. I also will not go into detail, further than to say that my noble friends and colleagues who have worked on this, not least the noble Baroness who will follow me, will cover some of those issues in this debate in Committee. In conclusion, the case is admirably set out in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and his committee, in the excellent, unanimous Select Committee report. In that spirit, I commend the amendment standing in our names to the Committee.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declaration of interests: I am chair of ukactive and a board member of the National Academy for Social Prescribing, and I also sat on the Select Committee which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. My name is attached to Amendment 297C.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I first apologise for not being present at Second Reading. It is unusual for me not to be there when a health Bill is being discussed, but I have had a lot of personal family problems.
Never, in the years I have been in both the Commons and the House of Lords, have I been as proud of a committee as I have been chairing the one on sport and recreation. I thought the committee would look very narrowly at sport and recreation and what could be done for them, but it ended up with a set of proposals that are quite revolutionary, which state something really quite different about the way forward, not only for sport and recreation but for the NHS itself. I am deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his leadership as our special adviser and for his membership of the committee, and of course to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, who is not here today, whose experience of working in the Department for Education was invaluable. As we heard earlier in the debate, that department has a crucial role to play in developing some of these key policies.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I would have preferred for this proposed new clause to be debated as a separate entity, but perhaps it was fitting that it was grouped with amendments that have a common theme, because despite the disagreements between various parts of the House on the previous set of amendments, they are all based around the same issue of how we get a healthier nation. It was incredibly rewarding to see that.
It might seem quite obvious that during the Health and Care Bill in the House of Lords we should be talking about health matters and improving health, but I have to say that, together with the 2012 Bill, so much of this legislation is about shifting the chairs again; it is not about looking at the future health of the nation. There will be marginal improvements from the bureaucratic changes in the Bill, but I was looking at what we can do to make a fundamental difference, and we will not do that until we change the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said in that debate, the NHS is currently a repair-and-maintain service. It cannot go on like that because the money will run out and the number of people serving it will run out. We have to change it to a prevent-and-improve service, and that is what the new clause proposed by Amendment 297C is about.
It proposes just a minimum of reorganisation: for instance, simply moving sport from DCMS to the Department of Health is not a massive reorganisation. With moderate investment—nowhere in our report do we spend time talking about massive investments to get change; this is really about changes of attitudes—it has the potential to change the way in which the NHS operates to a very different mode of making sure that people do not get ill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, quite rightly said. Indeed, the previous amendments were all about that too. Those amendments rounded on obesity and childhood obesity, and that is an area that we should be tackling; there should be masses of things in this Bill which are about supporting that, not just the odd one or two. Making people active from the cradle to the grave, or near the grave, seems to me the right thing to do.
Other amendments in this group rightly observe that what people eat and drink is related to their health outcomes. Given the alarming levels of obesity we have heard about this morning, I am very supportive of some of those, and particularly what the Government are doing in advertising. I fully support their approach, though clearly it is not a once-and-for-all idea.
How is it possible that the UK is world-leading in elite and professional sports, that 3 billion people across the world watch our Premier League matches in over 187 different countries and that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has consistently said, at Olympics after Olympics we are near the top of the league in terms of our elite activities, yet for decades we have failed at grass-roots level to get more people from more diverse backgrounds to be more active, despite all the investment that successive Governments have made?
With one-third of the adult population at the moment getting less than 150 minutes of moderate activity each week; with schoolchildren doing consistently less activity both at school and at home; with PE marginalised in the school curriculum and no longer inspected by Ofsted while, as we heard in our evidence, many primary school teachers get less than three hours’ training in a three-year degree course, which is shameful, so physical literacy in most of our primary schools means nothing, frankly, because it does not appear on the league tables; with access to facilities ever more difficult; with local authorities closing swimming pools and leisure centres to save resources; and with transport non-existent for large parts of the day for large swathes of the community, we have become one of the most lazy, inactive nations in the modern world. Those sections of the population with the poorest diets and the worst levels of deprivation are, not surprisingly, the least active, too, and of course the pandemic has disproportionately affected all the target groups.
My colleagues and I sought in our report not to blame Governments, local authorities or sports and recreation providers, who have worked hard to maintain facilities. This is not a party-political amendment at all; all the groups on the committee were totally united. All the empirical evidence that we looked at shows the huge benefits from being active: improving learning at school; improving mental health; building up resilience and resistance to disease; and, above all, making people happier and more positive in life.
What is more, investing in active lives, as the Health Foundation research demonstrated, would save countless billions of pounds of future NHS spending by placing sport, physical activity and well-being at the heart of government within the Department of Health; by establishing in law an office for health promotion, sport and well-being to replace the Office for Health Inequalities and Disparities—whatever that means—with the same personnel as initially proposed by the Prime Minister himself; by making the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Wellbeing responsible for preparing the national plan that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has so ably proposed, a plan that is at the centre of government policy in New Zealand, Australia, Norway and Sweden; by ensuring that the school curriculum places physical literacy alongside numeracy and literacy as a core subject; by making it mandatory for local authorities to provide active-life facilities; and by ensuring that the duties of care and safeguarding, so brilliantly articulated in the earlier review by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, are actually given legal enforcement status, years after they were proposed. We can begin by addressing the physical well-being of this nation. There need be no massive new bureaucracies. Using existing organisations, centralising policy and using the office for health promotion would be a game-changer.
If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is a supporter of the levelling-up agenda, and I am pretty sure that he is a strong supporter, how better to make his mark than by supporting this amendment? It goes right to the heart of those government policies. If you are going to level up, level up at the start and make sure that we have an active nation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I cannot follow the edict of that late, great Liberal Democrat, Nicholas Parsons, and speak for only one minute. The Committee knows that it is my habit to speak very briefly, but unfortunately I cannot do that on this occasion, although I will do my best. It is my duty as a member of the APPGs for health, obesity and a fit and healthy childhood to scrutinise this legislation and the large raft of amendments that have been made to it.
The intention of Clause 144 is of course to reduce the rise in childhood obesity, an objective with which we all agree. An early attempt to do this via legislation was the UK soft drinks industry levy, the so-called sugar tax, which was introduced in 2018. Before the levy was introduced, it had already resulted in over 50% of manufacturers reducing the sugar content of their products after it was announced in March 2016, the equivalent of 45 million kilograms of sugar every year. That was the intention: to reformulate, not to raise tax. Since then it has continued to be highly effective in encouraging reformulation. In the 12 months following its introduction, the consumption of soft drinks rose by 7.7% as people chose healthier options, so neither the food industry nor the TV advertising industry suffered at all.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, today we have had a very extensive and impassioned debate, and we have heard in your Lordships’ House challenge and counter-challenge. I will seek to pick up the main broad points that we have heard about. What we cannot turn away from is the fact that two in five children in England are above a healthy weight when they leave primary school, while last year saw the fastest increase in childhood obesity on record.
Children with obesity are five times more likely to become adults with obesity, increasing the risk of developing conditions including type 2 diabetes, cancer, and heart and liver disease. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the incidence of this is not equally spread. As we observe from the levelling-up White Paper, there is a huge need to tackle poor diet and obesity in order to reduce health inequalities and the damage that obesity causes, both in childhood and adulthood.
I welcome the provisions in the Bill that help people to make informed choices about what they eat and drink, but this should not be misunderstood. Choice can only really be choice if there is no distortion, and if those making the choices have the information they need. They need to be able to make decisions and be supported in doing that. When I look at the Government’s analysis, which suggests that a watershed on TV and online that introduced restrictions to prohibit advertisements for products high in fat, sugar or salt being shown before 9 pm could lead to 20,000 fewer obese children, I think that this is something that should not be dismissed. This is about not only the direct outcome but shifting the environment, so that we can manage the challenges we all face in supporting good health.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and engaging debate. There has been consensus that childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems this nation faces—and maybe not just a health problem. We have also talked about the impact of inequality and broader life chances. The latest national child measurement programme data, from 2020-21, showed that some 40% of children leaving primary schools in England were overweight or living with obesity.
That is why, as part of our ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030, it is imperative that we reduce children’s exposure to less healthy food and drink product advertising on TV and online. To be clear, the Government know that this is not a silver bullet, and this action alone will not solve the problem; it is part of a multifaceted plan. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that this includes working with manufacturers on reformulation and to produce healthier food. Indeed, we are clear that products that are reformulated to pass the MPM will be able to be advertised, and we hope this provides a motivation for brands to do so. Obesity is a complex problem that builds over time through frequent excessive calorie consumption. Through this one action, as part of a wider programme, we estimate that we can remove up to 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets per year in the UK.
Turning to specific amendments and looking first at what should be covered by these priorities, I will speak to Amendments 253B, 254A, 254B, 247A, 249ZA, 249ZB, 250B, 252ZA, 252ZB, 248, 248A, and 251. We believe that the current approach to defining food that is less healthy provides sufficient legal certainty and is consistent with other healthy weight restrictions and policies. For example, it is used in a similar way in the promotions and placement restrictions for less healthy food and drink, which were made law last December.
It is important to provide detail in the Bill on the two-step criteria to determine what is less healthy, in order to ensure that the primary legislation is sufficiently clear. The nutrient profiling model has been used by Ofcom since 2007 to determine what can be advertised around child-specific programming on TV, although outside the statutory framework. The technical guidance of January 2011, which provides the steps to calculate the nutrient profiling model score, is an existing document that has been specifically developed and used to support industry since it was published. Its substance is not changeable at the discretion of the Secretary of State and, as an additional safeguard, the Government have already amended Schedule 17 to include a statutory duty to consult in the event that a change is proposed to the meaning of “the relevant guidance”.
I can assure noble Lords that the current approach would allow healthier products, which may contain fruit, nuts and seeds or be a source of protein, to not be caught by restrictions, while still restricting those which are less healthy overall. However, that will also need to be underpinned by secondary legislation, which the Government will be consulting on shortly, and the points your Lordships have raised will be considered as part of this.
The proposed amendment to permit the advertising of confectionery of less than 200 calories could mean that adverts for chocolate confectionery products could still be permitted on TV before the watershed and online, given the likely difficulty in determining portion sizes in such adverts. This would undermine the policy and send out the wrong message to consumers and producers.
In response to Amendment 244, we do not believe it is necessary to consult on whether alcohol should be included as a “less healthy” product, as these provisions are aimed at reducing the exposure of children to less healthy food and drink advertising. Unlike alcohol, less healthy food and drink products are not age-restricted at the point of purchase. In addition, as noble Lords have noted, there are other measures in place that address the advertising of alcohol.
Turning to Amendments 247, 250A and 253A, I assure noble Lords that brand advertising is out of scope of the restrictions, as these clauses focus on identifiable products. Including an exemption in the Bill for something that is already out of scope would have no legal effect and therefore may cause undue confusion.
I turn to Amendments 248B, 251A and 253C on who will be covered by these proposals. We intend to define food and drink SMEs as businesses with 249 employees or fewer, as outlined in our consultation response. By doing this, the Government want to ensure consistency with other similar definitions, such as for out-of-home calorie labelling. We will consult on the secondary legislation defining food and drink SMEs shortly, but this approach will allow Ministers to act promptly to change the definition of food or drink SMEs in future, should it be necessary.
I turn to platform liability and other questions regarding the watershed hours in Amendments 250ZA, 253ZA, 254A, 255A, 255B, 257B and 253AA. Platform liability is incredibly important. During the 2020 consultation, we considered whether other actors in the online advertising supply chain should have responsibility for breaches alongside advertisers, but concluded that this was not the right place for this broader issue, given the far-reaching impacts for the industry. However, I reassure my noble friend Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and many others that the Government intend to consider platform liability as part of the wider online advertising programme.
On the question of when these restrictions should apply, Ofcom’s research—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am so sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but can she please give us a timescale for that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe it is being conducted this year, but I will check that and come back to my noble friend and all other Members of the Committee, because I know there is significant concern on that point.
On the timing of the restrictions on television, Ofcom research suggests that children’s viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated between 6 pm and 9 pm. In this period, half of children’s viewing takes place during adult commercial programming. We do not therefore believe that introducing advertising restrictions only on the weekend is sufficient to meet our policy objectives.
We are committed to ensuring that businesses are supported now and when the regime comes into force. We will, of course, consult on the secondary legislation and guidance, which should give stakeholders more clarity. However, in response to Amendments 245, 255, 256, 257 and 317, we believe that the overall policy direction has been set out effectively and we do not think that there is a need to add the kind of gap between publication of final guidance and implementation, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendment.
In response to Amendments 249A, 252A and 257A, I can assure your Lordships that we will conduct a post-implementation review five years after implementation. This is intended to be based on the variables set out in the impact assessment, published in June 2021. However, the Government believe that further tying down of the criteria at this stage would be counterproductive. We will also use this opportunity to look at any displacement of advertising to other media not covered by the restrictions, such as outdoor advertising.
However, in response to Amendment 244A, there is insufficient evidence at this stage of the influence of further national advertising restrictions in other media on calorie consumption in children, which is why these restrictions focus on TV and online only. We would also advise against adding a sunset clause, as it would pre-empt this evaluative work and could undermine compliance. We have heard quite a bit from noble Lords about the need for certainty on the Government’s approach in this area. I say to my noble friend that a sunset clause on these regulations would undermine that case.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, can she give the House some sense of what the Government would regard as success as a result of the advertising ban? Is there some target of reduction that they expect to see at the end of five years as a result of this ridiculous ban?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe that I said that the criteria for measuring the success of this policy have been set out in the impact assessment. I will happily send that to my noble friend. I do not think that it is a finalised list. We have discussed in this Committee the difficulty of assessing success, so we would not want to preclude new research or information that would help us to assess our approach better in future.
My noble friend was right in anticipating that I was about to conclude. This has been a substantial group of amendments—
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, can I ask her about the nutrient profiling technical guidance? What is the timetable and process for its review?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend was of course eagle-eared—I am mixing a metaphor—in that I did not address his point on that. I can tell him that, in 2016, the Government commissioned Public Health England to review the UK NPM algorithm that has been in place since 2004, to ensure that it aligns with dietary recommendations from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, particularly for free sugars and fibre. I am afraid to say that my next line is that the outcome of that review will be published in due course.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I want to follow up on that question. It was in 2018 that the consultation took place; is the Minister aware of that? We are now four years down the track and nothing has come out.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The date that I have for the commissioning of the work is 2016, which means that we are even further down the road on that piece of work. I am well aware of the time that has passed since then. I will undertake to see if I can provide any update beyond “in due course”, but I do not want to raise noble Lords’ hopes too far on that.
I hope that I have been able to provide noble Lords across the Chamber with assurances as to our plans and, therefore, that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we are three hours and 49 amendments on and I am sure that everyone in the House will join me in saying that we have enjoyed hearing from the noble Baroness the Minister now that she is back in Committee with us.
It is perhaps a crumb of comfort to those who have been worried about advertising and the outcomes that Norway’s ban since 2013 has shown that other products moved into the space and there was not a total loss of income. Quebec has had the least rise in childhood obesity in Canada since its ban. I will not comment any more on that other than to say that we have all recognised that obesity is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The Wild West digital space of the platforms needs to be addressed quite urgently and will be more difficult, but I hope that this will not deter the Government from their action to tackle obesity.
For my amendment, I just remind the House that alcohol adverts are tempting young people into early consumption. It is a highly obesogenic and highly addictive substance, which is why my amendment was there. I am disappointed that the Government are not even considering incorporating it in the list of substances, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Penn
“(1A) OFCOM must ensure that the prohibition provided for by the first standards set by virtue of subsection (1) takes effect from the beginning of 1 January 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the watershed on television advertising of unhealthy food and drink will not apply until 1 January 2023.
Baroness Penn
“(4A) The Secretary of State may, before the date specified in subsection (1A), amend that subsection so as to substitute a later date for the date that is for the time being specified there.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to defer beyond 1 January 2023 the date when the watershed on television advertising of unhealthy food and drink begins to apply.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the watershed on advertising of unhealthy food and drink in on-demand programme services will not apply until 1 January 2023.
Baroness Penn
“(5A) The Secretary of State may, before the date specified in subsection (1), amend that subsection so as to substitute a later date for the date that is for the time being specified there.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to defer beyond 1 January 2023 the date when the watershed on advertising of unhealthy food and drink in on-demand programme services begins to apply.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the prohibition on online advertising of unhealthy food and drink will not apply until 1 January 2023.
Baroness Penn
“(6A) The Secretary of State may, before the date specified in subsection (1)—(a) amend that subsection so as to substitute a later date for the date that is for the time being specified there, and(b) make corresponding amendments to the references to that date in subsections (10) and (11).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to defer beyond 1 January 2023 the date when the prohibition on online advertising of unhealthy food and drink begins to apply.
“(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than one year after this Act is passed—(a) publish a report on alcohol labelling, considering the question of whether to require the following on alcohol product labels—(i) the Chief Medical Officers’ low risk drinking guidelines,(ii) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption,(iii) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant,(iv) a warning that is intended to inform the public of the direct link between alcohol and cancer, and(v) a full list of ingredients and nutritional information; and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(4) A Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out in detail any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report prepared under subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment requires the Secretary of State to report on the alcohol labelling consultation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, these amendments also relate to alcohol. Amendment 259 is about alcohol labelling to prevent harm and Amendment 296 concerns dealing with the harm when someone has become addicted to alcohol. I shall cut what I was going to say dramatically because of the time spent on other amendments earlier today.
Labelling is the way we inform the public of what they are getting. About 70 people die every day from alcohol-related causes in the UK. Alcohol is responsible for 12,000 cancers every year. Covid has compounded this harm, with deaths from alcohol now at the highest rate since records began. There is more information on a carton of orange juice than a bottle of beer. Awareness of the health risks of alcohol is very low. Just one in five people can identify the low-risk drinking guidelines and less than one-quarter know that alcohol can cause breast cancer. Alcohol is linked to the worst pregnancy outcomes and serious lifelong impacts for a baby, yet one in three people are unaware that it is not safe to drink in pregnancy. It has been estimated that 41% of pregnant women consume alcohol.
Alcoholic drinks are also extremely calorific, as we have heard. We have already spoken about the number of calories those who drink take in and I will not go there again, but calories need to be included on the labelling. People have a right to know what they are consuming, but they cannot make informed choices about their drinking. Voluntary inclusion of information on labels has not worked and has been very low: 70% of labels do not include the CMO’s low-risk drinking guidelines, over 70% do not list ingredients and only 7% display nutritional information, including calories. The public want the information. In July 2020, the Government agreed to consult on requiring calories and drinking guidelines to be on alcohol labels, yet here we are all this time later and we are still waiting for the consultation to even be launched.
Amendment 296 refers to treatment services. Alcohol addiction is a complex problem, with many factors driving and perpetuating harmful drinking. People who are trapped by alcohol dependence need help to move towards recovery. The benefits for the health service are reductions in emergency service call-outs and unnecessary hospital admissions, and the benefit for everyone is a reduction in avoidable deaths. These are the outcomes by which the effectiveness of any measure can be assessed.
Many people who require alcohol dependency treatment also have problems with other substance abuse, mental health, domestic abuse and homelessness. It is alarming that, during the pandemic, only 20% of people who need help for problem drinking have been able to access it and there has been a significant and sustained increase in the rate of unplanned admissions for alcohol liver disease. Since 2012, there have been real-term funding cuts in alcohol treatment services, yet every £1 invested in alcohol treatment yields £3 in return; that rises to a return of £26 after 10 years. Only 9% of people with alcohol dependence account for 59% of in-patient alcohol-related admissions. So, a cohort of more than 54,000 people accounts for 365,000 admissions and more than 1.4 million bed days, at an estimated cost of £858 million a year. There are also significant pressures on the treatment workforce because there is a shortage of psychiatry trainees.
I hope that these amendments are self-explanatory, and that the Government will look favourably on doing something about the problem of alcohol harm. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 259 and 296 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shipley, who, unfortunately, cannot be here today but has added his name to those amendments.
The amendments are on the Marshalled List to push the Government to move faster on something that the public want that has now been shown to be effective, particularly alcohol labelling. A recent YouGov poll showed that 71% of the British public want to know the number of units in an alcoholic drink, 61% want to know the calorific content and 53% want to know the amount of sugar in alcohol. There is clear public support for this, so it is interesting that we have not moved faster.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have been in this House for 22 years and I have been asking for this for at least 20 of them. It really is time that the Government got on with it. At the time, I was told that most wine comes from abroad and we cannot legislate for what is put on the labels, but it cannot be impossible to put information on the shelf labels or online. If people do not know what they are putting inside their bodies, they cannot moderate it.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I will tell a true story of a teetotal preacher who harangued his congregation that nobody should be drinking because it is dangerous, damages our health and damages everything else. “Alcohol should be banned,” he said, “and the best thing to do is go and drown it in the river.” Unwittingly, he then said, “Our final hymn is ‘Shall We Gather at the River?’ The beautiful, the beautiful river.” He did not see the contradiction in what he said. This amendment is full of clarity, clarifying areas that need to be put fairly clearly. The obligation that it puts on the Secretary of State and, incidentally, all of us is very clear. Because of the real danger in what overdrinking does to a lot of people, I say: no, we shall not gather at that river, that beautiful, beautiful river.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, who reminds us of our obligations to assist with alcohol-related ill health. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for putting these amendments before your Lordships’ House today. The first is a probing amendment about the need to report on the consultation on alcohol labelling. It is absolutely right to raise this: consumers have a right to know what is in their drinks, to make informed choices about what and how much they drink. Currently there are no legal requirements for alcohol products to include health warnings, drinking guidelines, calorie information or even ingredients. Research by the Alcohol Health Alliance found that over 70% of products did not include the low-risk drinking guidelines, and only 7% displayed full nutritional information including calories. I certainly add my voice to welcoming the forthcoming consultation on alcohol calorie labelling. When can we expect to see this, and what is the reason for the amount of time that it has taken to bring it forward?
Amendment 296 requires the Secretary of State to make a five-yearly statement on the cost efficacy of alcohol services. As we know, rigorous impact evaluation is absolutely key to good policy-making and improving the lives of those who use alcohol services. At present, the Government cannot say that they are meeting their responsibility to tackle alcohol harm with the requisite financial commitment and in the right places. Perhaps the Minister will tell your Lordships’ House what evaluation measures are already in place.
Of course, the background to all this is that, since 2012, there have been real-terms funding cuts to alcohol services of over £100 million. Pre pandemic, only one in five dependent drinkers was believed to be in treatment, leaving a shocking four out of five without help. The pandemic has only worsened the situation. I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a need to do better to ensure that we know how policies and services help or hinder the treatment of problem drinking, in order that efforts and resources can be targeted to where they work best.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her work as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. I thank her for this opportunity to set out the current state of play on the Government’s alcohol policy. I am the first to acknowledge the seriousness of the harms caused by the consumption of alcohol, which she pointed out.
Effective alcohol labelling is an important part of the Government’s overall work on reducing alcohol harm. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that the legal powers available to the Government are already sufficient to enable us to consult and report on alcohol labelling. The kind of power proposed in her probing amendment is highly prescriptive, and, from a purely practical point of view, would not allow for sufficient flexibility in the consultation process, which could make the process less effective.
As she knows, as part of the Government’s Tackling Obesity strategy, published in July 2020, the Government committed to consult on whether mandatory calorie labelling should be introduced on all pre-packed alcohol as well as alcoholic drinks sold in the out-of-home sector. I repeat that commitment today, and, as part of our public consultation, we will also seek views on whether provision of the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Low Risk Drinking Guidelines, which includes a warning on drinking during pregnancy, should be mandatory or continue on a voluntary basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked when we might expect that consultation to be forthcoming. I am afraid I can say no more than “in due course” at this stage, which I realise is not wholly enlightening, but it is as far as I can go at the moment.
Turning to Amendment 296, which proposes additional reporting and government statements, we do not think a new reporting requirement is necessary. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already publishes annual data on estimated numbers of alcohol-dependent adults within local authorities in England. Health commissioners can use this data to estimate local need and appropriately plan their alcohol treatment services. Outcomes for local authority-funded alcohol treatment services are already published at local and national level via the national drug treatment monitoring system. The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities also provides a number of data tools to enable local areas to compare their performance against other areas and nationally, including the public health outcomes framework, local alcohol profiles for England and the spend and outcomes tool.
On funding, local authorities are currently required to report on their spend on alcohol services annually to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Through the “why invest?” online guidance, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities already produces data and information on the return on investment for alcohol and drug treatment. The guidance includes cost savings data on treatment interventions in primary and secondary care and on specialist and young people’s treatment services. There is a strong programme under way to address alcohol-related health harms and their impact on life chances, and to reduce the associated inequalities which the noble Baroness emphasised, including an ambitious programme to establish specialist alcohol care teams in hospitals and to support children of alcohol-dependent parents.
Throughout the Covid-19 outbreak, drug and alcohol treatment providers continued to support and treat people misusing drugs and alcohol. OHID supports local authorities in this work by providing advice, guidance and data. OHID is developing comprehensive UK guidelines for the clinical management of harmful drinking and alcohol dependence. These aim to develop a clear consensus on good practice and to improve the quality of service provision. The work is expected to be completed later this year.
Finally, we are currently developing a new commissioning standard for drug and alcohol treatment which aims to increase the transparency and accountability of local authorities on how funding is spent. It will include requirements to commission services—
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am sorry to disturb the Minister in mid-flow. He described this amendment as prescriptive. Seat belts became prescriptive, and most people now wear their seatbelt. There was no question of an in-between. Smoking was another, and the effect has been to improve our public life. Without clarity—and we still will not have options—how will the Government achieve what wearing seatbelts and not smoking have achieved in terms of health? Alcohol needs to have similar treatment.
Earl Howe (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord makes an extremely cogent set of points. I criticised Amendment 259 only on the grounds that it was overprescriptive. Surely, what we want in any consultation is a broad enough question to put to the public and those who have expertise in this area. If we make it too narrow—I said “overprescriptive” rather than “prescriptive”—we are in danger of introducing a lack of flexibility. That was my only point there.
I was just mentioning the development of a new commissioning standard. It will include requirements to commission services to meet a wide range of individual needs, and services will be monitored against these. I hope that information provides the noble Baroness and the Committee with a useful update on where we are with this important agenda and will enable her to feel reasonably comfortable in withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister, and particularly to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for pushing on the point of whether the amendment was overprescriptive or adequately prescriptive. Given that, and the rather disappointing remark that the consultation will happen “in due course”, I will withdraw my amendment but am minded to return to something like it on Report if we do not have even a provisional date for when the consultation might start. We seem to have been waiting for it to start for a long time. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Regulation of the public display of imported cadavers
(1) The Human Tissue Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) In subsections (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b) of section 1 (authorisation of activities for scheduled purposes) after “imported”, in each place it occurs, insert “other than for the purpose of public display”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that imported bodies for display would need the same consent requirements as bodies sourced from within the UK.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 265 I will also speak to Amendment 282. I am glad to have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Northover, for our endeavours.
Article 3(2) of the Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting states:
“The killing of vulnerable prisoners for the purpose of harvesting and selling their organs for transplant is an egregious and intolerable violation of the fundamental right to life.”
My two amendments seek to prevent UK citizens’ complicity in forced organ harvesting by amending the Human Tissue Act to ensure that UK citizens cannot travel to countries such as China for organ transplantation and to put a stop to the dreadful travelling circus of body exhibitions that sources deceased bodies from China.
As noble Lords know, I come from Birmingham, where in 2018 an exhibition called Real Bodies by Imagine Exhibitions visited the National Exhibition Centre. It consisted of real corpses and body parts that had gone through a process of plastination, whereby silicone plastic is injected into the body tissue to create real-life mannequins or plastinated bodies. The exhibit advertised it as using
“real human specimens that have been respectfully preserved to explore the complex inner workings of the human form in a refreshing and thought-provoking style.”
But those deceased human bodies and body parts are unclaimed bodies with no identity documents or consent, sourced from Dalian Hoffen Bio-Technique in Dalian, China. Notably, Dalian labour lamp from 1999 to 2013 was notorious for its severe torturing of Falun Gong practitioners, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has reminded the House on many occasions.
The commercial exploitation of body parts in all its forms is surely unethical and unsavoury, but when it is combined with mass killings by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
Most recently, further evidence was heard during the course of the Uyghur Tribunal, including from Sayragul Sauytbay, who testified during the June hearings that she discovered medical files detailing Uighur detainees’ blood types and results of liver tests while she was working at a Uighur camp. In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response, as they said, to “credible information” that
“Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians”
are being killed for their organs in China.
The recent findings of the Uyghur Tribunal, again chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, were profoundly disturbing. We discussed some of this in our debate on genocide only a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating. The tribunal concluded:
“Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs—with some estimates well in excess of a million—have been detained by
Chinese
“authorities without any, or any remotely sufficient reason, and subjected to acts of unconscionable cruelty, depravity and inhumanity … Many of those detained have been tortured for no reason, by such methods as: pulling off fingernails; beating with sticks; detaining in ‘tiger chairs’ where feet and hands were locked in position for hours or days without a break; confined in containers up to the neck in cold water; and detained in cages so small that standing or lying was impossible … Detained women—and men—have been raped and subjected to extreme sexual violence … Detainees were fed with food barely sufficient to sustain life and frequently insufficient to sustain health, food that could be withheld at whim to punish or humiliate.”
This is the context in which we debate these amendments. I feel a sense of, shall I say, sadness, at least, that this is the opening day of the China Winter Olympics.
Currently, human tissue legislation in this country covers organ transplantation within the UK itself, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money has to pay for anti-rejection medication for those people who then come back to the UK and go to the National Health Service, regardless of where the organ was sourced. According to the excellent NHS Blood and Transplant, between 2010 and 2020, there were 29 cases on the UK transplant registry of patients being followed up in the UK after receiving a transplant in China. This is a billion-pound business in China, using the bodies of executed prisoners—mainly prisoners of conscience.
The Human Tissue Act 2004 has strict consent and documentation requirements for human tissues sourced in the UK, but it does not restrict human tissues from abroad in this way; it is merely advisory. My amendments seek to amend the Human Tissue Act in the following ways.
First, they would prohibit a UK citizen from travelling outside the UK and receiving any controlled material for the purpose of organ transplantation when the organ donor or the organ donor’s next of kin had not provided free, informed and specific consent. Secondly, they would prohibit a UK citizen from travelling outside the UK and receiving any controlled material for the purpose of organ transplantation when a living donor or third party receives a financial gain or comparable advantage; or, if from a deceased donor, a third party receives financial gain or comparable advantage. Thirdly, it would provide for the offence in Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 to be prohibited even if the offence did not take place in the UK, if the person had a close connection to our country. Fourthly, it would provide for regulations for patient-identifiable records and an annual report on instances of UK citizens receiving transplant procedures outside the UK by NHS Blood and Transplant. Finally, it would provide for imported bodies on display to have the same consent requirements as those sourced from the UK.
Article 4 of the Universal Declaration on Combating and Preventing Forced Organ Harvesting says:
“All governments shall combat and prevent forced organ harvesting by providing for the criminalisation of certain acts and facilitate the criminal prosecution of forced organ harvesting both at the national and international levels.”
I believe we must take action internationally and in the UK to do all we can to prevent this abhorrent practice. I know from the success we had in the medicines Bill that a change in the law of this country has a much wider impact; it gives great encouragement to those brave people fighting these practices in China and globally. I very much hope the House will support this. I beg to move.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking in the Second Reading debate, for reasons of ill health.
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has set out the case against genocide most convincingly. As he said, there is a risk of repetition, as we covered so many of these issues in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill in 2020 and in the noble Lord’s Organ Tourism and Cadavers on Display Bill only last year. I said then that the Human Tissue Act 2004 made it clear that written consent was required while the person was alive before donated bodies or body parts could be displayed.
The Government were supportive of our amendment in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who I am pleased to see in her place, said the Government would undertake
“to strengthen the Human Tissue Authority’s code of practice”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 705.]
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who was here earlier, stated in summing up that the new code laid before Parliament in June 2021 was clear that
“the same consent expectations should apply for imported bodies and body parts as apply for such material sourced domestically.”
In relation to exhibitions such as “Real Bodies”, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned and to which our Amendment 265 applies, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said
“it would need proof of the donor’s specific consent to be displayed publicly after death. If it failed to provide such proof”,—[Official Report, 16/7/21; cols. 2123-24.]
that would prevent a licence being issued. In relation to organs for transplantation, our Amendment 282 makes it clear that consent must be given and that there must be no evidence of genocide in the country from which the organs are sourced.
As a former president of the Royal College of Surgeons, I associate myself with the statement of December 2021 on the abuse of Uighurs in China made by the British Medical Association and the presidents of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges—of which the Royal College of Surgeons is a member—the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Pathologists. It said:
“We … and the organisations we represent, in advance of the report of the Uyghur Tribunal, express our grave concern regarding the situation in China and the continuing abuse of the Uyghur population … as well as other minorities.”
The UN special rapporteurs have continued to raise concerns surrounding organ harvesting from Uighurs in China, which the evidence overwhelmingly suggests continues to this day, with hearts, livers, kidneys and corneas being the most commonly taken.
In January this year, the BMA condemned the appalling involvement of doctors in China in what was a fundamental abuse of human rights and genocide against the Uighurs. It urged Her Majesty’s Government to exert pressure on the Chinese Government to stop these inhumane practices and to allow the UN investigators into Xinjiang region. The Minister may wish to comment on the Government’s response.
I will leave your Lordships with a quote from Dr Zoe Greaves, chairman of the BMA ethics committee. She said:
“It is a doctor’s duty to help improve health and ease suffering, not to inflict it on others. The use of medical science and expertise to commit atrocities is abominable and represents an appalling antithesis to every doctor’s pledge to ‘first, do no harm’”.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has introduced Amendments 265 and 282 on this appalling subject extremely effectively and I wish to make clear the support for both those amendments from these Benches. I am also sympathetic to the different but separate Amendment 297H on tissue being retained for research, educational and audit purposes, which would bring legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will address shortly.
To return to the issue of human abuse—it is more than the abuse of tissue—this subject has been much debated in your Lordships’ House and I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and others for making sure that we do so and for ensuring that step by step we make progress. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for listening and engaging, for her responsiveness when dealing with the issue and for helping to take it forward in earlier legislation. However, we all know that there is a distance to go.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these amendments seek to protect UK citizens from complicity in forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking. Amendment 282 prohibits UK citizens from travelling to countries for the purpose of organ transplantation. The restrictions are based on ensuring appropriate consent, with no coercion and no financial gain. If appropriate consent is not given, the country supplying the organ must have a legitimate opt-out system in place and must not be considered to be committing genocide, as now determined, as the Government have moved to agree, by resolution of the House of Commons. This will be based on an annual assessment by the Secretary of State.
We cannot say that we do not now know about forced organ harvesting. We also have the reports of both the China Tribunal and Uyghur Tribunal and much other evidence. I pay tribute to the FCDO for engaging in relation to the Uyghur Tribunal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, mentioned, UN human rights experts have called on the Chinese Government to allow independent monitoring by international human rights bodies. If China had nothing to hide, it would accede. We have previously debated the conclusions of the China Tribunal and referred briefly to the Uyghur Tribunal. In 2020, the China Tribunal reported:
“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale”.
As I said, more recently we have had the Uyghur Tribunal reports, which give a lot more detail. A number of countries, including Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway and Israel, have already taken action to prevent organ tourism to China. We surely must do the same.
Amendment 265 aims to put a stop to real human body exhibitions being put on display in the UK when the cadavers do not have proof of identity or consent, such as those sourced from China. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, laid this out clearly. Almost a decade and a half ago, exhibitors in New York were forced to add a disclaimer stating that these bodies came from China and could have come from prisons, which clearly rubbished the idea that people had willingly donated their bodies for such displays.
Once again, certain countries, including France and Israel, and certain US cities have banned such body exhibitions from coming into their territories. We have high standards for dealing with human tissue in this country, as noble Lords are aware. Various noble Lords here today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have played a part in producing those. We need to make sure that we do not become complicit in what happens elsewhere, particularly—as we speak—in China. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have made it crystal clear that we know what happens. I therefore commend these amendments.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am raising my voice to speak in favour of Amendments 265 and 282. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I hope that it demonstrates to the Minister that there is widespread concern from all parts of your Lordships’ House, especially in support of these amendments. It also gives me the chance to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the leadership that he has given on this issue. He has been dogged and focused, insisting that we ensure that this country never becomes complicit in one of the greatest crimes committed against humanity. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Penn—like others, I am pleased to see her back in her usual place. During the course of the earlier legislation, she was not only receptive in dealing with the issues that we raised, but organised meetings for us at the department with officials. I thought that the attitude that was shown at that time was exemplary and I am grateful to her.
It disturbs me that, although the United Kingdom signed the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, unlike 11 other European countries the United Kingdom has not ratified it. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, could say why we have not and whether we have any intentions of doing so. In addition, though, the signature of the United Kingdom has the following reservation:
“In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 10 and paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraph 1.d and e of Article 10 of the Convention.”
Given all that we now know and what has been said in your Lordships’ House this afternoon, I wonder whether we are going to persist with that reservation. The reservation means that the United Kingdom does not have to take legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with the convention when the offence is committed by a UK national or a habitual resident of the United Kingdom, unless it is within our own territory. Therefore, in short, the reservation means that even if it were to be ratified, it would not prohibit citizens of the United Kingdom from partaking in unethical organ tourism.
Let us not forget why the Human Tissue Act was created in the first place. Thousands of families, some in my former constituency in the city of Liverpool, had devastatingly found their deceased family members, including children, had had their body parts and organs removed and kept in National Health Service facilities without consent. The Liverpool Alder Hey scandal created a public outcry and it was our parliamentary duty to respond and take appropriate legislative action, as we did.
Today, throughout China, forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience is taking place. What legislative action are we going to take concerning that? The predominant victims have been Falun Gong practitioners, the Buddhist spiritual meditation group that, at its peak in 1999, had an estimated 100 million adherents in China. The former CCP leader, Jiang Zemin, set up the 610 Office and gave the order to—his word—eradicate Falun Gong. It is believed by many experts that, while young Falun Gong organs gradually became less available over the years, the CCP—the Chinese Communist Party—began to also target Uighurs, as we have heard this afternoon, for forced organ harvesting, with the same torture methods, blood tests and organ scans happening in the Uighur camps as those in the Falun Gong camps. There are also some lines of evidence of Tibetans and Christians in China, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suffering the same fate. I should declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs and as a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response.
For those who had any doubts about China’s state-sanctioned organ harvesting, it is worth noting that as early as 1994 Human Rights Watch reported that
“it has become increasingly evident that executed prisoners are the principal source of supply of body organs for medical transplantation purposes in China”,
and that
“executions are even deliberately mishandled to ensure that the prisoners are not yet dead when their organs are removed.”
Dr Enver Tohti, a Uighur doctor whom I have personally met and taken statements from, described to me that he had been required to remove organs and ordered to “cut deep and work fast” on a victim who was still alive. The theft of organs has been described as an almost perfect crime, because no one survives. Just this week Dr Tohti was interviewed by the London Evening Standard, from which I quote:
“Driven well out of town, he recalls: ‘There was a small hut and two surgeons there waiting. They said, “wait here and come around when you hear gun shots”. Time passed and I started to hear the noise of people shouting, chanting, whistles blowing, trucks running, then gun shots, many rifles shooting at the same time. So, we got in the van and came around the mountain to find 10 corpses in prisoners’ clothes with shaved heads on the left side slope of the mountains.’ He was called away from the corpses to the body of another man in civilian clothes and was told ‘that is yours’, and ordered to remove the liver and kidneys. The man was not dead. ‘I had no choice but to harvest the organs,’ he said.”
It is extraordinary, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that on this day of all days, when what are now known as the “Genocide Games” are beginning in Beijing, we should be having this timely debate in your Lordships’ House. Not since 1936, when the Nazi games were held in Berlin and the world saw Hitler use the Olympics to promote his hideous ideology, and most Jewish German athletes were barred from taking part in the Games, have we seen the Olympic ideal so scandalously debased.
However, forced organ harvesting is just one of many human rights abuses taking place in China. Other noble Lords have referred to Sir Geoffrey Nice’s Uyghur Tribunal, which met here in Westminster in Church House. I sat through many of its hearings and, during our recent debate on this Bill concerning genocide and the purchasing of equipment and medical supplies from places such as Xinjiang, I heard harrowing accounts from those who gave evidence to that tribunal. Sir Geoffrey Nice QC—the prosecutor in the Milosevic trials, who knows more about these issues than probably any other living person—and his panel came to the conclusion that what is happening in Xinjiang amounts to genocide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has said, so has the House of Commons—and, indeed, so has our Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, who has said “it is a genocide”.
Uighurs and other ethnic minorities have suffered torture, rape and forced abortion and sterilisation by the CCP, but the crime does not end there. There is a further twist to this infamy. Anonymous plastinated corpses taken from Chinese prisons have been paraded, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told us earlier, in a carnival of horrors at money-making exhibitions, a final sneering insult to these victims. In 2018, after the exhibition that the noble Lord referred to, I wrote to the Times, along with Professor Jo Martin, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, and 55 others. We said:
“We believe that the legislation requires reform.”
However, I would go further—here, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who it is good to see in her place—and ask why on earth we allow these things at all. There should be a complete prohibition by law.
I conclude by returning to the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games. The Olympic charter states:
“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”
The irony of that is beyond belief. This simply should not be acceptable, at least to those corporations and companies that are sponsoring the Games in Beijing, such as Coca-Cola. The China Tribunal stated:
“Governments and any who interact in any substantial way with the”
People’s Republic of China
“should now recognise that they are, to the extent revealed above, interacting with a criminal state.”
We must do more to stop these human rights abuses. I wholeheartedly support the amendments, which are not country-specific but would serve to close the loopholes in the Human Tissue Act so that the United Kingdom could do its part in preventing collaboration in these appalling crimes.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an elected member of the BMA ethics committee, which looked at these issues and was involved in producing the statement quoted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro. I strongly support these amendments and cannot see any reason for anyone not to. They set a basic moral standard. As the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Alton and Lord Ribeiro, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, have laid out, the arguments they have given us are in many ways only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more than could be said.
Our Human Tissue Authority’s guiding principles have a code of practice which has consent, dignity, quality, honesty, and openness as key pillars. These principles should reflect not only how human tissue is sourced from within our own nation but how we treat human tissue and organs from overseas. There is overwhelming evidence now that in China, Falun Gong practitioners and Uighurs, Tibetans and house Christians are being killed on demand for their organs. There is no consent, no dignity and no transparency. Only yesterday I received a letter from a woman whose mother had been a Falun Gong practitioner, and who has been in prison and effectively disappeared. She has no idea where her mother is; she has not heard from her. That is happening all over this population.
I will not repeat the statement that has already been read out, but I just hope that the Government can see that we have a moral obligation to accept these amendments. I hope that they will do so.
Amendment 297H, in my name, is supported by the Royal College of Pathologists. Post-mortem examinations here are subject to careful legislative control and we have the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, which oversee post-mortems. When a post-mortem happens, it happens without the consent of the next of kin, of course, because there are questions around the cause of death. The coroners’ statistics for England and Wales in 2020 show that 79,400 post-mortem examinations were ordered by coroners. A fifth included histology and a quarter included toxicology samples being taken.
When the coroner’s work is complete, the tissue samples and any fluids taken—the tissue being in the form of blocks and slides—must be destroyed unless specific consent has been provided by someone in a qualifying relationship. However, consent is logistically very difficult to obtain in practice. The McCracken review of the Human Tissue Act in 2013 recommended that:
“Consideration should be given (inter alia) to reducing the scope so that microscope slide and tissue block samples and bodily products such as saliva, urine, and faeces are excluded”.
The Government accepted this recommendation, but the issue has not subsequently progressed.
There are some real difficulties with post-mortems. A post-mortem is effectively a snapshot of the deceased at the point of death. It is only by going back into the clinical records that the pathologist gets some picture of what happened pre-mortem, and many of the other factors. But at the end of the day, it is often subjective in terms of determining the likely cause of death for the report that is then signed off. In Scotland, tissue blocks and slides are deemed to be part of the clinical record and therefore do not have to be destroyed after the procurator fiscal’s investigations are complete. However, no whole organs can be retained in Scotland without explicit consent. In the light of Alder Hey, it is important to stress that point.
Changing to a system that reflects Scottish law could be beneficial because it would provide information about the cause of death if new circumstances came to light months or years after an investigation was complete. Indeed, we have recently had the case of the Farquhar family, where the evidence of long-term poisoning probably came to light many years after the person had died. Crucially, forensic deaths can be masked by natural disease processes and storage of tissues and fluids as part of the medical record would help clarify these at a later date when new information came to light. In a way, that is essential for completion of justice.
In addition, genomics research is rapidly developing, so the family may want to access the tissue later on as disease processes become more clarified. Metabolic storage disorders such as Fabry or Gaucher disease have been examples of this.
The tissue blocks from post-mortems are usually larger than the small pieces of tissue in a biopsy from a living person. That is particularly relevant where you want a piece of the heart or the brain, because a large biopsy from a living person would be impossible. There is also a third use of these tissue blocks and slides, which is as teaching material for autopsy pathologists. There is now a real shortage of teaching material, not only for pathologists who are in training but for ongoing audit of pathology processes.
So this amendment would bring the Human Tissue Act in line with the position in the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, where tissue samples as blocks and slides, but not—I stress not—organs, automatically become part of the person’s medical record after a post mortem. Explicit consent to keep them does not have to be sought from a grieving family, but it would allow justice in the long term to be pursued if necessary, and it would allow better development of autopsy pathologists.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for missing the first minute—but it was only the first minute—of the splendid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am delighted to add my support to his initiative, most splendidly supported by my noble friend Lord Ribeiro. We entered this House on the very same day and it was very good to hear what he had to say. Of course, the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, all have an impeccable record on these matters.
Earl Howe (Con)
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me but, as he was not here at the beginning of the debate, strictly speaking it is not permitted for him to speak. If he could make his remarks brief, I am sure that would be appropriate; I do not want to stop him mid-flow.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Well, I certainly was going to make my remarks brief, and I am sorry that I was detained for one minute. I just want to give my wholehearted support to these amendments. There is no more despicable trade than the trade in human organs and no more despicable practices than those that are going on in China at the moment, simultaneously with the opening of the shameful Games. I very much hope that my noble friend, who so politely interrupted me, will be able to give us a very supportive statement when he comes to wind up this debate.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I also stand to support Amendments 265 and 282. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Finlay.
I declare an interest as, quite a number of years ago now, I was one of those who signed up to say that, at the moment of death, all my organs will be left to the National Health Service for any scientific work that may be required. I carry a card, but it says that my organs should be kept in this country and not exported anywhere else, because I have no trust that they would not be used for purposes for which they were not intended.
When I was doing philosophy in Cambridge, Professor Williams posed a question. He said “Surprising things happen—that they are no longer surprising. Comment.” Noble Lords who have done philosophy will know how complicated that question is.
In Uganda, Idi Amin was known for the people that he feared most. He would cut off their heads, put them in the fridge, and put their organs in another fridge. People did not believe this, and he was overthrown. His treating of the human body like something you simply dispose of was horrific. No wonder a lot of people died under that terrible Government of his when he was in power. What we are being asked is: should the standards in this country also be somehow given over to other countries so that they can learn? But we too have got to be very careful that our standards are as high as the tissue Act says.
We live in a world that is so perilous at times, and where some people may disappear and you never see them. In Uganda, quite a number of leading people disappeared and, up to today, we do not know where they went. The thing is, they would be put in drums of acid and their bodies would be dissolved. Surprising things happen—that they are no longer surprising. May we be so vigilant. These two amendments do the job, so I hope that the Minister when he responds will have heard the urgency in the speeches, but, most of all, in the amendments themselves.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Alton? They know I have been with them on this journey throughout. I probably would go a bit further than my noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 265, because I believe that this country should follow the example of France and ban the exhibition of plasticised cadavers and human body parts.
In 2019, we had an OQ on this, which many noble Lords here today took part in. I said at that time that there is an
“ethical issue at play here”
and that it seemed that the businesses that had
“the exhibitions which use plasticised cadavers and foetuses for supposedly educational purposes could use modern materials and production to create the same exhibits. That begs the question: why use cadavers and human body parts at all? If the answer is that people want to see such things and will pay to do so, I remind noble Lords that people used to flock … to see public executions until 1868.”
It is an ethical issue. I am afraid that the noble Baroness answering that debate at the time said that
“the ethical position is not one for government.”—[Official Report, 27/2/21; cols. 228-29.]
Well, I would say that this debate shows that the ethical position is absolutely one for government.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and many other noble Lords for bringing these amendments relating to these important and sensitive issues to the Committee today.
Amendment 265 seeks to prohibit the use of imported bodies or parts of bodies for the purpose of public display without the specific consent of the donor. The Government share the concern motivating Amendment 265 that bodies may in the past have been displayed in public exhibitions without the donors’ consent. We therefore committed in this House, during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act, to address this concern, and have since worked closely with the Human Tissue Authority to strengthen its code of practice on public display, which was laid before Parliament last July. The code now guarantees that robust assurances on consent for all donor bodies, including imported bodies, are fully received, assessed and recorded, before the authority issues any licence for public display. The Government therefore do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, would it be possible to collect data to substantiate what my noble friend has said about the reduction in people going overseas to get organs for transplantation? Can we get some figures to be absolutely clear that the numbers are reducing and not continuing, as some of us fear?
Earl Howe (Con)
I expect it is possible to capture some data but, of course, there will always be cases of people going overseas who are invisible to those who collect data, and we can never guard against that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I will follow the noble Lord’s point. Even though it may be impossible to collect credible data on people leaving who are not going to say they are going overseas to collect organs, when they return—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out—many of them will receive treatment and care inside the National Health Service as a result of having an organ that has not come from within the United Kingdom. That is data that could surely be collected.
Earl Howe (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point and, if I may, I will investigate the feasibility of doing that and what systems are in place to capture that kind of data.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her Amendment 297H, which covers the retention and use of tissues after coroner post-mortem examinations. I of course share the commitment to promoting education and research. However, I am afraid I do not believe that this amendment represents the right approach to supporting this aim. I appreciate that the noble Baroness emphasised that she was referring to blocks, slides and urine samples; the amendment refers to tissue samples. The advice I have received is that it is important that we remain committed to the principle that consent is fundamental to how we treat the remains of the deceased. I remember the passage of the Human Tissue Act; the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was absolutely right in what he said earlier about that. All of us should have a choice about what happens to our bodies after we die, and if we cannot exercise that choice, those close to us should be able to.
Post-mortems can already be distressing to the families of the deceased. Denying them a say as to what happens to the remains of their loved ones will compound that distress—often unnecessarily, as many of the retained tissues will never be put to use.
There are three other defects, as I see them, in the amendment; I am concerned that it would allow tissues to be stored indefinitely; it would allow for an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes a tissue sample —that is, in fact, my main concern; and it does not address the considerable challenge of how to effectively catalogue, audit or access the large amount of new material that would have to be retained.
Having said that, I believe that under the current consent-based model we can and should do more to encourage the active identification of tissues that could serve an important purpose, and to communicate the significance of retaining this tissue to the deceased’s family when seeking their consent. I understand the force of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve and there may be different ways of doing that.
While I am grateful to noble Lords for their amendments in this area, I respectfully ask them to withdraw or not press them at this stage.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Will the Minister undertake that the Government ask the Scottish Government about their experience of retaining tissue blocks and slides? Only tissue blocks and slides—not, I stress, organs—are being retained as part of the clinical record, so that we have some information about problems that have arisen. Also, given that the Government accepted the McCracken review, how do they then intend to implement that acceptance? If you accept the need to have consent, there has to be a process by which consent is obtained. You cannot ask for consent prior to the post-mortem because the post-mortem is a judicial process.
Earl Howe (Con)
I noted that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is closely modelled on the current law in Scotland. Because of that, it fails to account for the significant differences between how Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland, regulate the storage and use of human tissue. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that storage and use is regulated by the Human Tissue Authority. In Scotland, there is no equivalent body and the amendment is silent as to what impact it would have on the authority, especially given the challenges involved in managing the great quantity of tissue that would be retained.
I am aware that many Scots share my concerns about consent for retaining tissue. A recent petition to the Scottish Government highlighted the anguish faced by a grieving mother on learning that she did not have the choice to have some of her child’s remains returned to her. She was upset at how long it took for those remains even to be located, so although this amendment would apply only to adults the same kind of issues would apply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very good debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that I sympathise with her Amendment 297H, but clearly it is a sensitive area. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned Alder Hey; I had ministerial responsibility at the time, and it was very traumatic meeting the parents of children who, in the end, had body parts buried up to three times or more because of the dreadful way in which both the hospital and university managed the situation, as well as the pathologist himself. On the other hand, the reasons put forward by the noble Baroness seem very persuasive, and I hope there will be a continuing debate on this with the Government.
As far as my two amendments are concerned, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Thornton for their support. As the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, said, the concession given by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, on behalf of the Government during discussions on the then Medicines and Medical Devices Bill was highly significant both for this country and for the message it gave globally. The debate today, and the amendments, are as much about global messages as UK legislation.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, we cannot say that we do not know; we do know. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, sat through many of the harrowing sessions of the Uyghur Tribunal and the evidence—before a hard-headed panel—is absolutely convincing. There can be no doubt that this is an abhorrent practice and, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said, it may not be on the same scale but these wretched exhibitions that take place are a product of those abhorrent practices. She has persuaded me that my amendment is rather soft and needs to be hardened up. I look forward to her helping me to get the wording right.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the HTA code of practice; I think we need to go further than that. On organ tourism, I will obviously study very carefully the issues that he raised about my amendments, but we have the figures from NHS Blood and Transplant: I think 29 people have come to the NHS for help following a transplant abroad, which gives us some clue as to the numbers but clearly it is not the whole picture. At the end of the day, you come back to the issue of ourselves and China. Clearly, there is huge ambiguity in our policy, whether that is to do with security, trade or human rights. Some of that ambiguity is understandable, given the scale and size of the Chinese economy—we understand that—but I do not think there is any room at all for ambiguity about this country making a strong response to these appalling practices. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Vaccine damage payments
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish an independent judge led review into the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and the adequacy of payments offered to persons seriously injured, or bereaved, consequent upon vaccination against any of the specified diseases to which the Act applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Vaccine Damage Payment Act is now more than 40 years old and the aim of the amendment is to ensure that a judge led review takes place into the operation of the Act.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 268. I indicate in advance my support for Amendment 288 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The amendments are all linked, in a sense, in trying to find a way of ensuring that patients damaged in one way or another through the National Health Service are dealt with in the most open, transparent and sympathetic way. Each amendment tackles the issue differently but, in the end, there is a sense that we have not got it right and that we need to do very much better.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 288 in this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the way that he has introduced this group of amendments; he is quite right that there is a lot of synergy between them.
Before I get to my subject, as it were, I will address litigation. We have been working very hard with NHS England and others to introduce the rapid resolution and redress system—RRR—for maternity services. The damage done to babies costs a huge amount of money. It is very rare, but some of the settlements are now over £10 million per baby, so this issue really needs to be addressed. The noble Lord is right that, when litigation comes in with force, it causes enormous trouble and heartache for those involved in it. We know that, when it is based on clinical negligence, the trouble is that the learning disappears or is suffocated. If we had a system that gave rapid redress and resolution, we would learn so much more from the cases that come to court.
Amendment 288 requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for a redress scheme to help those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to the three medical interventions that were examined in my Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review: hormone pregnancy tests—the most common of which is Primodos—the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, which is used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 268, to which I have added my name, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for moving it so eloquently. I also support the two other amendments in this group.
I declare my interest as chair of ISCAS—the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service—and because I have been involved personally in two clinical negligence situations. The first involved a death. We did not take legal action but tried to get answers. Answers were very difficult to obtain because all the papers that the hospital had disappeared. On the second, we had to take legal action.
Amendment 288 will, as discussed, do exactly what it says on the tin. It will ensure an independent review of the process for handling clinical negligence. The present situation where the only solution is to resort to law to get damages is far from satisfactory. Where a patient sustains damage, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege so eloquently explained, the impact on them and their family is utterly devastating. In some cases, there is a need to get damages, because the situation means that there are ongoing costs for ongoing care, as we have just heard. They need financial help in these situations. Legal cases can often take years to settle. The one that I helped with took five or six years going over and over what happened, going to endless meetings, going to meetings with the lawyers and chasing the lawyers, who seemed to have dropped it. It was unbelievably stressful. I cannot think that anybody would want to go down that route unless they really had to. For the patient, if they are still alive, or the relatives, it means reliving and reliving the incident on top of coming to terms with the damage that has been inflicted.
Moreover, I understand that the costs of medical negligence have quadrupled in the last 15 years to £2.2 billion in 2020-21, equivalent to 1.5% of the NHS budget. I understand that about 25% of this goes on legal fees. I believe we urgently need to find a better way to deal with these cases, rather than resorting to the law. Not only do long, drawn-out legal wrangles put patients through years of unnecessary stress, but huge legal fees eat into the resources that should be available for front-line care.
An independent review would hopefully be able to examine and deliver a more satisfactory solution for patients and the NHS alike, and I hope the Minister can support this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I certainly support these three amendments so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The beauty of their presentations is that they not only outlined the terrible suffering that can be caused by the things we are discussing but came up with very reasonable solutions to make the situation better. That is what we always try to do in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lord Storey put down Amendment 297E in this group. Because he was unable to make it today, I do not intend to speak to it. I do not think that would be appropriate in case he wishes to bring it back on Report. I think he would be happy to support all three of the other amendments, in particular Amendment 268 from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, say just now that clinical negligence costs £2.26 billion per year. That is about the same as the whole budget of the Ministry of Justice and, as a result, hardly anybody can get legal aid these days. That is a very good reason why we should look carefully at the performance of NHS Resolution. There is clearly no incentive for the NHS lawyers to get things through quickly, because they are being paid anyway. The fact is that there is no equality of arms; I have said this on this subject before. It should be a principle of justice in this country that there is equality of arms, but in this case there is not—so I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group and there is little to add to the expert contributions on the amendments, which have been spoken to so comprehensively. We have always championed the need for patients’ voices to be heard and listened to in the care and treatment they receive, and are doing so in pressing for the patient voice to be properly embedded in the new structures established under the Bill.
When appalling safety incidents occur, such as those so graphically spelled out in the First Do No Harm report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, we need not only to ensure that there are effective systems to make sure that victims receive the care, treatment and proper financial compensation needed but to enable the NHS to acknowledge and learn from what has happened, both to prevent further harm and to promote future patient safety.
In opening this group, my noble friend Lord Hunt made a strong case for an urgent, expert-led review of the 40 year-old Vaccine Damage Payments Act in the light of major developments and growth in vaccine usage and, of course, huge gains in population health and ill-health protection as a result. But the small numbers of individuals and their families who sustain serious injury or adverse reactions to vaccines—now to the fore as a result of the highly successful Covid vaccination programme—need legislative protection and a scheme that is up to date, fit for purpose, properly resourced and based on compensation levels and criteria that fully reflect the needs of today’s victims.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would have made an equally strong case for the repeal of the NHS Redress Act, a slightly younger 16 year-old scheme for adverse health incidents, which is out of date and also not fit for purpose.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, led an expert and informed debate in Grand Committee last December on the NHS clinical negligence scheme and its ever-escalating costs, which is reflected today in my noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 268 and its call for a major review of the scheme, including consideration of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act and repealing its Section 2(4).
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and moving debate. We should recognise that, behind the technical aspects of the topic, there are stories of real harm and life-changing events for people and families.
Amendment 267 would establish an independent judge-led review into the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. I appreciate the spirit behind this amendment and agree that we need to ensure the vaccine damage payment scheme works as effectively as possible. We recognise that the scope and scale of the scheme has significantly changed since 1979; it has expanded from the original eight diseases to cover 18 and the payment value has increased from the original value of £10,000 in 1979 to the current level of £120,000.
Most recently, responsibility for the operation of the scheme transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department of Health and Social Care on 1 November last year. The NHS Business Services Authority has now taken over the operation of the scheme. It is looking to improve the claimant journey on the scheme in three main ways: increasing personalised engagement; reducing response times; and making more general support available to claimants. It has also allocated additional resource to the operation of the scheme. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the department will further engage with the NHS Business Services Authority to progress service improvements and, in particular, greater digitalisation.
Our focus now must be on completing the transfer of the scheme, getting support to those who are eligible as quickly as possible and improving the claimant experience. Against that background, I am not convinced that an independent review at this stage would support these goals. Indeed, it might risk delaying progress.
I shall just comment on a couple of detailed points made by the noble Lord. The first is on the disablement threshold. The 60% disablement threshold is aligned with the definition of “severe disablement”, as per the DWP’s industrial injuries disablement benefit. It is not clear that this is a significant barrier to claimants. In 2019 and 2020, just one claim out of 151 was rejected due to the 60% disability threshold not being met. Of course, there is also the option for claimants to appeal the decision.
The noble Lord also expressed concern about the length of time that it was taking to settle claims. NHS Resolution aims to get to the right answer as quickly as possible in every case but, equally, each case has to be considered on its own merits, and it is important that a proper investigation is undertaken. The department keeps NHS Resolution’s performance under regular review and is satisfied that its approach to settling claims strikes the right balance in delivering timely resolution. Recent performance on time to resolution has been influenced by the pandemic—that is not meant to be an excuse; it is just a statement of fact—and the need to relieve pressure on front-line NHS staff. To mitigate this, NHS Resolution worked with a range of industry stakeholders to introduce a specific Covid-19 clinical negligence protocol to support the management of claims during this time. This collaborative approach has been widely welcomed in the written evidence to the HSCC inquiry on NHS litigation reform.
On Covid-19 vaccines in particular, clearly, they are new, and establishing a causal relationship between the vaccines and their purported side effects is not a straightforward matter and takes time. So, while we would like to have an accelerated process, it was vital that we did not make assessments before the scientific evidence reached a settled position, to avoid payments being made in error, or those who qualify potentially missing out on payments. The NHSBSA will be writing to claimants when there is an update on their claim, and we appreciate the continued patience of claimants at this difficult time.
I turn now to Amendment 268, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and supported by my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger. The Government already have robust arrangements for reviewing public bodies such as NHS Resolution. Our assessment is that NHS Resolution is a well-run organisation. The National Audit Office noted in its 2017 report the efficiency gains it has achieved, including significant progress in reducing unnecessary litigation through the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. In 2020-21, 74% of claims handled by NHS Resolution were resolved without formal court proceedings. In fact, very few cases—0.3% of litigated claims—actually go to trial. Of the 56 cases that went to trial in 2020-21, NHS Resolution achieved a judgment in favour of the NHS in 38 cases: roughly two-thirds.
I also draw the Committee’s attention to the work under way to manage rising clinical negligence costs—a topic very appropriately raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The department is working intensively with the Ministry of Justice, other government departments and NHS Resolution, and we will publish a consultation to address this issue. An independent review would duplicate this work and, in any case, legislation would not be necessary to establish such a review.
In 2017, the NAO identified the main drivers of the cost rise as, first, compensation payments; secondly, claim volume increases; and, thirdly, legal costs. Since then, the picture has changed: payments for compensation now drive the increase and are growing at rates above inflation. We share the noble Lord’s concern that existing legislation may mean that the state pays twice for care. While from our analysis we do not think it is likely to be a significant driver of increasing costs, we remain open to evidence. Furthermore, the Government recently submitted evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee inquiry on NHS litigation reform. We welcome the inquiry and look forward to its recommendations.
Turning to Amendment 288, I thank my noble friend for her and her team’s diligence and dedication and the brave testimonies of those who contributed to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. Anyone who has read that review cannot fail to be moved by the evidence submitted to my noble friend’s team. I assure your Lordships that the review has been a powerful call to action. The Government have accepted the majority of the report’s nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement.
I understand my noble friend’s point about redress, but, at the same time, I believe it is important that we focus government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety. For this reason, the Government have already announced that redress schemes will not be established for people affected by hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. However, as my noble friend knows, in order to put patient safety at the heart of the system, we have established— thanks to her recommendation—the new patient safety commissioner. The appointment of the commissioner will put the patient voice at the centre of patient safety and deliver improvements in how the system listens to and responds to concerns raised by patients.
We are also improving the safety of medicines and devices and embracing the new opportunities to reform regulatory frameworks following the UK’s departure from the European Union. The Medicines and Medical Devices Act delivers further on our commitments to patient safety, embedding reform and delivering an ambitious programme of improvements for medicines and medical devices.
I hope I have provided at least some assurance and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend’s response. Of course he is right: we must always look to the future safety of our services. I am really grateful to Ministers and the department for what they have done in response to our report. It is not 100% yet, but we are nearly there, and I thank them for that.
But I am not talking about the future. I am talking about the people who are suffering now as a consequence of the treatment they received, not knowing that it would do them harm. So I ask my noble friend to take this away and think further on it. As I tried to explain, we have devised in the amendment a system that is not, as we said, an open cheque. It is not huge amounts of money; it is not huge numbers of people. It is to help those who are struggling with their lives as a consequence of the harm that has been caused to them. I just ask my noble friend to take this away and think further.
Earl Howe (Con)
I appreciate of course my noble friend’s remarks, and I undertake to bring them to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate, again, and I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his sympathy. I really support the plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for more thought to be given to the specific area of redress for the three groups of patients she mentioned. Any of us who have met some of the women involved—I think in particular of the women I have met who have been affected by surgical mesh issues—will be taken with the huge damage that has been done to their lives and well-being. I think they deserve listening to.
I will also say that I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for her support and for the information she brought to your Lordships, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler, who pinpointed the need for action in this area.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I rather wish it were my noble friend Lord Kamall handling this group because he is the Minister, and I am not. However, what I can do is undertake to bring the request of the noble Lord to his attention—I am sure I do not have to—and I am sure he, in turn, will wish to respond as soon as possible to that request.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I know how generous the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has been with his time. I can but hope for a sympathetic response and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Age of sale for tobacco
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after this Act is passed, consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco from 18 to 21, and publish a report on the consultation.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament, and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out in detail any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco products to 21 and report to Parliament.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 270, and add my support to Amendments 271 to 279 in this group. I have added my name to each of these, and they will be spoken to by noble Lords in all parties in the Chamber and by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I pay particular tribute to them for all being present at this late hour on a Friday—but this is an important issue.
We have signed these amendments because we see them as important steps on the journey towards a smoke-free Britain by 2030, which is the aspiration the Government have identified. They are in line with the approach that has been repeatedly taken in your Lordships’ House in recent years, to reduce harm caused by tobacco smoking and which has been consistently supported by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he was answering for the department of health in earlier debates. His support for tobacco control measures has always been appreciated.
As recently as 14 July, your Lordships approved the Motion to Regret that I tabled, regretting that the draft pavement licences regulations were not revised to take into account the evidence of benefits of 100% smoke-free pavement licences. That was agreed by a majority of 30 in a Division.
The amendments in this group are based on the recommendations in the 2021 report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health; I declare an interest as an officer of it. The Public Health Minister in the other place has committed carefully to review these recommendations as she develops the forthcoming tobacco control plan. I suspect that we may hear a little more about that from the noble Earl.
The rationale for Amendment 270 is clear. Raising the age of sale would have a larger impact in reducing smoking rates among young adults than any other single intervention. Experimentation has been found to be rare after the age of 21, so the more we do to prevent exposure and access to tobacco before this age, the more young people we can stop from being locked into a deadly addiction from which they may never escape. Two-thirds of those who try smoking go on to become regular smokers and only a third succeed in quitting during their lifetime, with the remainder at serious risk of smoking-related disease, disability and premature death.
When the age of sale was raised from 16 to 18 in 2007, smoking rates among 16 and 17 year-olds declined by 30%. When the age was raised to 21 in the United States, there was a similar reduction there, which in the UK would equate to 100,000 fewer smokers aged 18 to 20, simply by making it harder for young adults to buy tobacco.
Raising the age of sale would also help to reduce inequalities. Compared with non-smokers aged 18 to 20, smokers in this age group are more likely to be from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This means that the effect of increasing the age of sale would be particularly beneficial in poorer and more disadvantaged communities. The Government’s levelling-up White Paper, published earlier this week, rightly states on page 203:
“Tobacco is still one of the single largest causes of preventable mortality, and smoking rates remain high in some areas of the UK. In 2019, the UK Government set the ambition for England to be Smokefree by 2030. A new Tobacco Control Plan for England is due to be published in 2022, setting out how the UK Government will deliver on this commitment, with a focus on reducing smoking rates in the most disadvantaged areas and groups.”
Elsewhere, the White Paper states:
“These and other changes will contribute to narrowing the gap in Healthy Life Expectancy … between local areas where it is highest and lowest by 2030, and increasing Healthy Life Expectancy by five years by 2035”.
I hope that, with those very desirable aspirations, the Government may be able to accept these amendments or propose similar ones of their own on Report. These amendments are designed to help them to achieve what they want to do.
Raising the age of sale is simple and inexpensive to implement and enforce, as retailers are already required to check the age of young people trying to purchase tobacco, so it is not an additional regulatory burden. Raising the age to 21 would do more than any other measure to help achieve the Government’s ambition of a “smokefree generation” and has already proved effective in the US.
I shall conclude with a brief word on Amendment 271. This requires the Government to prohibit the free distribution of nicotine products to under-18s and to regulate the marketing of any novel nicotine products, not just e-cigarettes. Unsurprisingly, tobacco companies have shown themselves more than willing to exploit this loophole. Free vapes have reportedly been handed out without age checks in cities all around the country. After all, it is not illegal to do so, although it clearly contravenes the spirit of the existing regulations, which set the age of sale at 18. I hope the Minister will agree that the current situation is unacceptable and will take action now to prevent e-cigarettes and other nicotine products being promoted to children. Including all nicotine products, not just e-cigarettes, will ensure that any new nicotine products introduced into the UK in future will be properly regulated from the outset.
I commend all the amendments in this group to the Committee, and remind the Minister that all that Amendment 270 requires at this stage is a consultation and a report back to Parliament. Surely that is not too much to ask for a measure which has majority support among small tobacco retailers as well as the adult population, makes a major contribution to public health and reduces health inequalities. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support all these amendments but will speak to Amendments 276 and 277, to which my name is attached, requiring health warnings on cigarettes and inserts in cigarette packs containing quitting advice.
My father used to smoke, as very many people did in the war. At the age of 52, he died of coronary thrombosis; I always felt that smoking caused his death. In addition, one of my best friends who smoked died early. At this very time, my housekeeper is in St James’s University Hospital in Leeds receiving treatment for cancer. The other day, she scolded herself for having smoked. Smoking causes serious disability as well as premature death; far too many people have died because of smoking.
I strongly support the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition. The measures in the amendments will help put us on track; they are well-evidenced, cheap to implement and easy to enforce. Health warnings on cigarette packs have progressively increased in size over time and, most recently, their impact has been enhanced by the removal of colourful banding. Warnings on cigarettes is the logical next step, and it will have particular impact in preventing children and young people starting to smoke. Hundreds of children start smoking every day in the UK. Children are much more likely to have access to individual cigarettes than full packs, meaning that warnings on cigarettes are likely to be particularly effective in preventing youth uptake. This measure has strong public support. Adding health warnings to cigarettes and cigarette papers is a simple measure with minimal cost which would help deliver the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition.
Amendment 277 would give the Government powers to require that health information messages be inserted in cigarette packs. This is not a novel idea; it has been a legal requirement in Canada since 2000. They are proven to work, and there is already good evidence from Canada on which messages are most effective. If the Government could give an assurance today regarding the increased use of health warning inserts—they already have the power to do this—these amendments might not be necessary and we could save time on Report. If not, Amendments 276 and 277, which are by no means the only measures needed to address this terrible addiction, would be a small and significant step in the right direction. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who spoke in favour of Amendment 276, which replicates a Private Member’s Bill I am endeavouring to pilot through Parliament; we will see which of us has the fastest track towards the statute book. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, who has campaigned against the damage done by tobacco for as long as I have known him, and I agree with every word he said.
I will speak to Amendments 272 to 275, which are in my name but supported by all parties. They apply the polluter pays principle to tobacco manufacturers. In view of the lateness of the hour, I will curtail my remarks as much as I can. The principle that the polluter should pay has been accepted by Conservative Governments for over 30 years, starting with the landfill levy to promote recycling, running through the sugar tax on soft drinks to tackle obesity, and referred to only on Wednesday this week by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh in the debate on building safety, advocating a levy on the construction industry to finance remediation.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 270, which requires the Government to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21, and which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has just introduced. I also express my support and that of these Benches for all the anti-smoking amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Rennard will speak on them shortly. Together, these amendments seek to close loopholes, strengthen regulation and provide a mechanism to reinstate vital funding for tobacco control and smoking cessation. Tackling tobacco and the tobacco industry has strong cross-party support, as the noble Earl well knows, having been very much part of that himself over the last 20 years. He will note the number of us speaking to support these amendments, even though only four can sign each one. He will also note the contribution made by his noble friend Lord Young, not only here but in his Private Member’s Bill, and he will no doubt note that there are very few voices—possibly one—who tend to speak against such measures.
I welcome the progress that the Department of Health has made in this area, and that of local government, but other parts of government are not always totally aligned. We found that with pavement licences—the noble Earl will remember this—in the now-termed Department for Levelling Up, even though the new White Paper on levelling up has, rightly, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, pointed out, identified addressing health inequalities as vital, and addressing smoking as part of that. Two cities in the north have the highest smoking rates in the country: Kingston upon Hull, at over 22%, and Blackpool, at over 23%. The average in the south-east is just over 12%.
These amendments are designed to help the Government and the Department of Health take forward their very welcome apparent intention for the country to be smoke free by 2030. The Government say they are committed to delivering a smoke-free country by 2030 but keep putting off what they have themselves declared to be the “bold action”, promised in 2019, needed to deliver what they said was an “extremely challenging” ambition. The tobacco control plan promised in July 2021 has been delayed again. When will it be published? No doubt “in due course”.
Meanwhile, instead of those bold actions, according to a recent leak to the Sunday Times, the Secretary of State “plots vaping revolution”, by providing e-cigarettes on the NHS. I agree that vaping has a role to play in a comprehensive strategy to end smoking. Vaping doubles people’s ability to quit smoking compared with existing nicotine replacement therapy. However, as we know, smoking is highly addictive, and even doubling success means that only a small proportion of smokers who were trying to quit would remain quit at the end of one year. Vaping is not a magic bullet and, although it will increase quitting, it will not prevent youth uptake, as raising the age of sale would, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has indicated. He set out extremely cogently the evidence for why this measure would be highly effective. I will briefly focus on why it would be proportionate and justified.
The age of 18 is often considered to be the age at which someone acquires all the rights and obligations associated with adulthood. However, this is not the case, and there are several examples of rights or obligations which are acquired earlier or later than the age of 18. Raising the tobacco age of sale to 21 would be consistent with the flexible approach that we apply to other age-restricted activities: those prohibited to under-21s in England include adopting a child, driving a large passenger vehicle, and supervising a learner driver, for example. Thresholds change over time, as demonstrated by the Government’s support for a Private Member’s Bill, which I welcome, to raise the age of marriage from 16 to 18.
It is now accepted that the late teens through to the early 20s—ages approximately 18 to 26—are a distinct period of life: young adulthood, when young people may still need support and protection. It was the period during which I hoped that my sons would develop what I thought of as a judgment gene—a gene that my daughter seemed to have had from at least the age of four, but they noticeably lacked. For care leavers it was excellent, for example, when in recent years social care was extended from 18 to 25. That had long been needed.
As we know, smoking is highly addictive and uniquely harmful, and an addiction which, if not begun by the age of 21, is very unlikely to happen at all. Tobacco is the only legal consumer product which kills when used as intended, causing the death of more than 200 people a day in the UK. This means that a unique response is required to minimise the burden of preventable death and disease that smoking inflicts. The evidence is surely sufficient to proceed with raising the age of sale, therefore this amendment is simply a modest proposal requiring the Government to consult. I commend this proposal and the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because I would like to pick up almost where she ended, on raising the age for the sale of tobacco. That measure has been successfully implemented in the United States, where smoking among 18 to 20 year-olds has been reduced by nearly a third as a result, so I support Amendment 270.
On Amendment 271, which affects the sale of nicotine products to children, it is rather horrifying to realise that it is not illegal for free samples of e-cigarettes to be given out to those under 18, even though it is illegal for them to be sold to those under 18. Amendment 271 would cover this. It would also cover the novel nicotine products, such as Japan Tobacco International’s widely advertised nicotine pouches—I do not particularly want to use their name because I do not want to advertise them. Unlike e-cigarettes, the marketing of these products is currently completely unregulated, despite the high levels of nicotine, which is an addictive substance. A quick search on the internet to look at the questions around them reveals that it is admitted that they are highly addictive, that they could affect the development of the brain and that they could result in mood changes in the user as well, possibly making them emotionally volatile. These are loopholes in the law, which can easily be fixed by our Amendment 271.
In Amendment 278, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, seeks to ban all flavours in smoked tobacco. Again, this is another gaping legislative loophole which has allowed tobacco manufacturers to flout the current flavour ban.
I have led on Amendment 279, which relates to the packaging and labelling of nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. A cursory search online for these reveals that widely available electronic cigarette e-liquids feature cartoon characters in garish, appealing colours, with child-friendly descriptors, including sweet names such as gummy bears. Such branding is clearly unacceptable; it is targeted at the young. It is therefore deeply disappointing to discover that an amendment giving the Government powers by regulation to prohibit child-friendly packaging was voted down by them in the other place. The Minister said then that the Government
“are committed to ensuring that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 88.]
The Government can prove their commitment by supporting Amendment 279, which requires the Secretary of State to consult and report to Parliament on e-cigarette packaging, in particular the branding elements designed to be attractive to children.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I have never smoked and I have no wish to smoke, but I am a marketing man by profession. We have here a legal product, the consumption of which has been steadily falling, particularly in recent years, in every age group throughout the country.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, for decades, all the various weak arguments associated with the tobacco industry, opposing tobacco regulation, have been comprehensively and completely disproved by the effectiveness of that regulation at reducing the prevalence of smoking rates. Tonight, we will argue why we need to go further with measures of tobacco regulation to further reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking. I will speak briefly on Amendments 276, 277 and 278.
It is topical that, this week, mission seven of the Government’s Levelling Up White Paper committed
“to narrowing the gap in Healthy Life Expectancy … between local areas where it is highest and lowest by 2030”.
As Ministers regularly acknowledge, half of that gap is down to smoking, so real commitment to levelling up means that immediate action must be taken on these issues.
The tobacco-related amendments in this group will assist the Government in their stated aim to reduce the prevalence of tobacco smoking to below 5% by 2030. Amendment 276 requires the Secretary of State to introduce health warnings on cigarette sticks and rolling papers, in addition to the existing pack warnings. The claim that there is not yet sufficient evidence to justify the policy is a very weak excuse for inaction, and similar claims were made before the introduction of health warnings on cigarette packs. That is why the tobacco industry opposed them so strongly. These warnings on the packs are proven to be effective in reducing the prevalence of smoking tobacco, saving the lives of some of the people who were addicted to tobacco.
What is effective on the pack must be effective on the product, and 29 different studies have concluded that this would be the case. Other countries are considering this measure, and there is no reason why this country should not again lead the way.
Amendment 277 requires the Secretary of State to mandate pack inserts advising smokers about how to quit, and we know that very many smokers do want to quit. When the Government announced their smoke-free ambition in 2019, they said they believed that there was a “positive role” for such inserts, which they would consider as part of their review of regulations on exiting the EU. But the Government have inexcusably held back so far, making the lame excuse that
“further research”
is supposedly required to
“establish the public health benefit”—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 28/10/21; col. 813.]
before proceeding.
The best research would be to introduce the inserts—at worst a harmless policy and something the tobacco companies could easily pay for from the huge profits they make from shortening the lives of half their customers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said, pack inserts have been mandatory in Canada for two decades. They have been shown to enhance motivation to quit, increase quit attempts and sustain quitting tobacco.
Amendment 278 would close a loophole in current legislation. In May 2020, it was rightly recognised that menthol can hide the harsh taste of tobacco and make cigarettes easier to smoke and more appealing to children; that is why it was banned. However, a massive loophole allowed flavouring to continue. The Government’s response on this issue in the other place was that
“it is not clear how a ban on flavours would be enforced in practice, as it would include a ban on flavours that do not give a noticeable flavour to the product.”––[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 28/10/21; col. 815.]
However, this has not been a problem in either the Canadian provinces or our European neighbours, such as Germany and Finland, which have successfully implemented a complete ban on flavourings.
In the year after the ban on menthol cigarettes came into force, Japan Tobacco made more than £90 million in profits from selling 100 million packs of its so-called “menthol reimagined” brands, which, it argued, were entirely legal. The loophole must be closed. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government plan urgently to step up a gear on tobacco regulation and support the tobacco-related amendments in this group.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that, in your Lordships’ House, any lack of zeal for persecuting smokers marks one out as an aberration, but some realism has to be brought to this debate. It is my understanding that the Government will rightly resist these amendments so, in the interest of brevity, I will leave it to my noble friend the Minister to give a detailed rebuttal of each of them. However, I have a few things to say.
Unless smoking tobacco is made illegal, which would only bring with it all the organised-crime consequences associated with illegal drugs, the UK will not be smoke-free by 2030 or any other foreseeable date. There is likely to be an irreducible demand for smoking among both a small core of regular smokers and a wider population of people who enjoy the occasional cigarette. A sensible policy would recognise this and seek to accommodate it. There are widely understood risks to health associated with smoking, of course, but, as we have heard in this Committee, so there are with fat, salt, sugar and even fluoride. Despite all that, we have the constant efforts of well-funded zealots to bully and humiliate smokers and place burdens in the path of businesses engaged in the manufacture and distribution of this lawful leisure product.
Each of these amendments falls into one of those categories in one way or another, despite the smoothly expressed words of those who tabled them about increasing public information and the like. The public are already better informed about the risks of smoking than about almost any other topic. The UK is already highly regarded globally for its success in reducing the number of smokers. Those who wish to give up smoking deserve some modest help from public authorities, I agree, but they can be helped in other ways—for example, by diverting into products with much lower health risks. However, the campaigners against smoking cigarettes have been almost as determined to kill vaping as an alternative—although, as was indicated by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, even public health officials are now beginning to question whether the initial blanket opposition to vaping is preventing some people making the transition from smoking cigarettes.
A similar question arises now as non-combustible tobacco products increasingly come on to the market. These contain tobacco but it is not heated to the point of combustion, although they still deliver nicotine to the user. Most of the harmful effects of smoking come not from the nicotine as such but from the smoke. Non-combustible tobacco products do not give rise to any smoke. The Government should be able to say, and make clear in their tobacco control policy, whether there should not be distinct regulations covering, separately, combustible and non-combustible tobacco products. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure me that this will be so on sound public health grounds.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I imagine that your Lordships’ House and Parliament generally very often have a choice in terms of the rightful tensions between, on one level, supporting freedom of action and speech and, on the other, balancing that against harms to individuals and society as a whole from smoking. I know that I am on the latter side of the argument in this case.
It is also worth noting that this is not about just the risk that comes from smoking—risk comes from many sources—but rather the scale of the risk and the impact that it has across the whole of the health system. Despite everything else that has been said about public health, it is worth remembering that this is the biggest risk and that half of the difference in life expectancy between people in poorer neighbourhoods and those in richer ones is due to smoking. That scale is the issue that we are talking about.
I was pleased to add my name to the four polluter pays amendments led by the noble Lord, Lord Young. On the notion that a payment or levy based on income—not a tax—will be used for reducing smoking, providing smoking cessation clinics and improving public health, I believe that this is a different arrangement from that consulted on by the Government in 2015.
I will make several other quick points that very much fit in with what has been said. First, this is about what the Government need to do if they are going to level up under the ambitious plans that were set out only yesterday for delivering improvements in life expectancy and the differences in life expectancy around the country—that is really important, and something will need to be done about smoking if those plans are going to be achieved.
Secondly, this is also about poverty: the average smoker spends £2,000 a year on smoking, and some new research suggests that this leads something like half a million households around the country into poverty. I have not studied that, so I only say “suggests”, but it seems to me to be an important point.
Thirdly, perhaps at one level, this started off for people as a lifestyle choice, but it is actually an addiction. I speak as a former smoker who made an enormous effort to give up. The average number of attempts before you give up is around 30, but I think that I probably exceeded that, and I can tell you the day on which I finally succeeded. It is an addiction, and this whole business runs on addiction—not on the occasional cigarette or the cigar at Christmas—and we should never forget that.
Fourthly, I ask whether the polluter paying is right in principle or just pragmatic. In a sense, it does not really matter: it is pragmatic. Over the last five years, NHS smoking cessation treatment services have been cut: about £23 million a year was spent on such campaigns, but now it is less than £2 million. There is not a lot of money around at the moment, obviously, and this seems a very pragmatic solution for finding money to support smoking cessation services—in addition to the fact that I would see it as being right in principle.
Finally, there is real evidence that those smoking cessation services work. Therefore, it would be money well invested in the future health of our nation.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and we have heard various views. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for leading on this group of amendments, and I thank noble Lords for putting forward their amendments and views so that we can explore how we respond to the challenge of smoking.
My first point leads on very neatly from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature death. As the noble Lord observed, it is a matter where we should consider the scale of the effect and the fact that this is about addiction. It is not about free choice but is something that we must assist people to overcome. While rates are indeed at record low levels, there are still more than 6 million smokers in England, and the need to reduce this number is particularly important now, as smokers are more at risk of serious illness from Covid.
The economic and health benefits of a smoke-free 2030 would be felt most keenly among the most disadvantaged. However, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Young, at current rates we will miss this target by seven years on average, and by at least double that amount for the poorest groups in our society. So it is vital that we motivate more smokers to quit while reducing the number of children and young people who start to smoke.
Within this group of amendments, noble Lords have suggested a broad raft of anti-smoking measures, including information inserts and warnings printed on rolling papers, a consultation on raising the age of sale to 21 and a “polluter pays” approach which argues that tobacco companies should pay for smoker treatment programmes. All these measures can be underpinned by broad cross-party support and public support. Certainly, the All-Party Group on Smoking and Health is very supportive of this group of amendments.
The pandemic has posed new challenges to us, and there is a new group of people who started smoking but who otherwise would not have done so. We have been promised a new tobacco control plan, and I hope that the Minister tells your Lordships’ House when we can expect it. The labelling and information interventions contained within this group of amendments have a strong evidence base from other countries, as well as from research in the UK. I hope that the Minister will be amenable to them.
Picking up on a few of the points raised within this group, it is very shocking to note that more than 200,000 11 to 17 year-olds who have never smoked previously have tried vaping this year. It is a very strange situation that e-cigarettes and similar products can be given free to somebody under 18 but they cannot be sold to them. We do not want to see a situation where young people are brought to smoking by smoking substitutes.
In reference to the amendment that proposes a United States-style “polluter pays” model to fund all these interventions, including the restoration of lost smoking-cessation services, the noble Lord, Lord Young, described practical ways in which this could come about. Certainly, the Minister in the other place did not close the door to this idea in Committee. I hope that we will hear from the Minister some agreement towards this.
Amendment 270 promotes a consultation on raising the age of sale, because we know that the older a person gets, the less likely they are to start smoking. If this is to happen, it requires proper consultation with relevant stakeholders, not least young people themselves, including those who are underage. It must be rigorous in checking what will work. Attitudes to the incidence of smoking have changed over the years, but the direction now is firmly one way, and that is to prevent ill health and premature death. This group of amendments contains proposals to keep us moving in this direction, to assist those who smoke and to prevent those who seek to smoke, particularly those at the younger end of the scale. I hope that this group of amendments will find favour with the Minister.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and other noble Lords for bringing this discussion on tobacco control before the Committee today. In responding to these amendments, I begin by emphasising the Government’s commitment to the smoke-free agenda. Over the past two decades, successive Governments have successfully introduced a strong range of public health interventions and regulatory reforms to help smokers quit and protect future generations from using tobacco. Our reforms have included raising the age of sale of tobacco from 16 to 18, the introduction of a tobacco display ban, standardised packaging for tobacco products and a ban on smoking in cars with children.
The Government are committed to making this country smoke free by 2030, and we will outline our plans in a new tobacco control plan to be published later this year. As part of our Smokefree 2030 programme of work, I am pleased to announce that we have launched an independent review into smoking. The review, led by Javed Khan OBE, will make a set of focused policy and regulatory recommendations to government on the most impactful interventions to reduce the uptake of smoking and support people to stop smoking for good. I am sure he will consider many of the policies raised by noble Lords in today’s debate as part of his review, which is expected to report in late April.
The action I consider vital for the Government is to conduct research and build a robust evidence base before bringing any additional measures forward, such as those outlined in Amendment 276, which would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring tobacco manufacturers to print health warnings on individual cigarettes and rolling papers. This evidence-base principle also applies before raising a proposal, even through a consultation such as that outlined in the requirement in Amendment 270 to consult on raising the age of sale.
Several amendments that have been put forward by noble Lords are not required, because relevant legislation is already in place. For example, legislation is already in place that prohibits the sale of tobacco and e-cigarettes to under-18s, including proxy sales, as outlined in Amendment 271, and provision to enable this to be extended to all nicotine products. While we support proposals further to protect young people from these products, we do not have the evidence base at present to suggest that free distribution is a widespread problem. We challenged the industry on this, and it claimed that it is targeting only smokers who are over 18 when it gives free samples. Whatever one may say about that, there would undoubtedly be reputational damage to businesses if they did give out samples to minors. I am sure that evidence in this area will be gratefully received by the department.
When looking at further regulation of e-cigarettes, we need to assess which policies provide us with the best opportunities to reach our bold Smokefree 2030 ambition. Once we have fully considered the evidence, the most ambitious policies will be included in a new tobacco control plan. I do not in the least intend to sound complacent, but it is worth noting that in 2018 regular use of e-cigarettes among 11 to 15 year-olds remained very low, at 2%.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to nicotine pouches. There are existing powers in the Children and Families Act 2014 which allow us to extend the age-of-sale restrictions to include any nicotine products, such as nicotine pouches, so the proposed new clause is not strictly needed in relation to sales.
We recognise the need to address disparities in smoking across the country and we are committed to helping people quit smoking and to levelling up outcomes, as referenced in the recent levelling-up White Paper. There is already a lot of good work going on within both the NHS and local authorities in this area, but it is a theme that we will be developing in our tobacco control plan.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate, which has taken a little over an hour. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly those who signed the succession of amendments we have been debating. We have heard marvellous speeches from each of them. A huge number of points have been made, which we need to take away and consider in terms of what we should do with amendments such as these on Report.
I am encouraged by the tone and content of the Minister’s reply. I am particularly pleased that he did not close the door on the possibility of some form of polluter pays levy on the industry. I shall read what he said quite carefully, but that is certainly how it appeared to me. The commitment to be smoke-free by 2030 is still there, but I think we all take the view that, if we are going to reach that target, we must do more now or we will miss it. The key to that is doing something about the problem of smoking among poorer people in more deprived parts of the country.
To argue that this is just another product that people can choose whether to start or stop is complete nonsense, as all the evidence has demonstrated over the years. Apart from the fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out, that it is the only product which kills a high proportion of its users if they follow the instructions exactly as set out by the manufacturers—that is not the case for gambling, incidentally, which can be dangerous but does not cause people to die in the way that tobacco smoking does—the point about the tobacco industry is that we are not dealing with a normal industry with normal ethics or morality.
That is why the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was adopted by the United Nations in 2005. It is a supranational agreement that seeks
“to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke”
by enacting a set of universal standards, stating the dangers of tobacco and limiting its use in all forms worldwide. We have done well in following the framework convention; it is important that we follow it in engaging with the industry, which is utterly unscrupulous, as anyone who has had any exposure to it over the years will know. It denied that smoking was dangerous or caused disease, then it denied that nicotine was addictive, then it denied that second-hand smoke was dangerous, and now it is saying that it is just another product.
These are important issues which need to be looked at and addressed. I take comfort from what the Minister has said. I shall read very carefully what he and other noble Lords have said in this debate but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege
“GMC register: interests
In section 2 of the Medical Act 1982, after subsection (4) insert—“(5) The register shall include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for medical practitioners, as well as their clinical interests and their recognised and accredited specialisms.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the General Medical Council to include the financial and non-pecuniary interests of medical practitioners on its register.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is supporting me. She is a clinician of distinction and a palliative doctor, but so much else besides. She will know as well as any of us—those of us who are not doctors—that one thing is at the heart of good, safe care: trust. As patients, we place our trust in our doctors. We trust them to use their skills and knowledge to treat us, to cure us and to keep us healthy to live our lives. We trust our doctors with our bodies, our minds and our lives. That brings great power and great responsibility. Doctors must make decisions and take actions in our interests; that is what we trust them to do. We know that trust is fragile. It is said that trust arrives on foot but leaves on horseback.
Noble Lords who were in the Chamber for the debate on Amendment 288 will know the context of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which I chaired. The people—the children—who were harmed placed their trust in their doctors and the wider healthcare system. They were let down. The lives of many have been turned upside down as a result of the harm they suffered. One woman who had been terribly harmed by a pelvic mesh implant told us:
“As patients, we allow the medical profession access to our bodies, our thoughts and our lifestyles. All manner of information to better assist them in reaching decisions about the best course of treatment for us. We, the patients deserve the same, we should be aware of clinicians’ allegiances or involvements whether they be financial or other. So we too can reach informed decisions about who is best to treat us, and how they should treat us.”
Doctors do wonderful work, often in extremely difficult circumstances. Decisions they make are not always perfect—they cannot be; we know and accept that—but must always be led by the best interests of the person who is their patient, not by external factors and commercial interests.
Amendment 283 would require the General Medical Council to expand its register of doctors to include their financial and non-pecuniary interests, as well as their particular clinical interests and their recognised unaccredited specialisms. In doing so, it would implement one of the nine major recommendations we made in our review.
The concept of declaring interests is hardly new, not least to all of us in this place. We know that it is important. It brings transparency and accountability, and the public have a right to know. Who in a position of responsibility can have a clearer, more significant impact on someone’s life and well-being than a doctor or a surgeon? Maintaining information about doctors’ clinical interests and specialisms is a vital foundation of patient safety.
I was pleased that, in their response to the recommendations of the Paterson inquiry, the Government committed in principle to creating a single repository of the whole clinical practice of consultants across England, setting out their practising privileges and other clinical consultant performance data—for example, how many times a consultant has performed a particular procedure and how recently. This information should be accessible and understandable to the public. It should be mandated for use by managers and healthcare professionals in both the NHS and the independent sector. It would be a way of measuring outcomes and ensuring safety and quality. For all these reasons, we urgently need a register.
I have been extremely encouraged that the leading journal for doctors, the British Medical Journal, is in full support. It has written extensively about it. Its editor has spoken expertly on the subject at a meeting of the First Do No Harm All-Party Parliamentary Group. The BMJ found that current reporting of interests, which is meant to be done locally and held by employers, is at best patchy. Many hospitals do not keep the information and, when they do, it is hard to find and may be out of date.
We need a central register, one that is easily accessible and complete. The General Medical Council already holds the register of qualified doctors. Adding their financial interests to the register is not difficult; it can be done via the annual appraisal. Every doctor must undertake an annual appraisal to maintain their registration. I have spoken to the GMC about this, but it seems—shall we say—lukewarm.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her Amendment 283, which would include financial and non-pecuniary interests of medical practitioners alongside clinical interests and their recognised and accredited specialisms on a register. I particularly thank her for explaining exactly why this is so important for patients. Currently, the GMC does not require them to hold or publish that data, but it is the obvious place for it to be held—and then linked, as she explained, to local employers, contractors and organisations. Anything that reduces the complex maze for a patient or a member of the public trying to find out whether a doctor is being paid for doing some work or using particular devices, and might therefore have an interest, has to be one of the cornerstones of a truly accessible and accountable register of interests. In today’s data-rich society, patients and the wider community want to understand what interests a doctor may have, but which may not be obvious.
A website called whopaysthisdoctor.org at Sunshine UK—so-called, I presume, because sunlight is always the best disinfectant—was set up by number of doctors, including Ben Goldacre. It is a database where doctors who want to be transparent about their interests can declare and register them, and the public can see whether their doctor is listed. The problem, of course, is that those who do not want to make these declarations voluntarily may be those we most want to see. That is why the amendment would make it compulsory.
I thank the GMC for its helpful brief, in which it recognises that the
“current arrangements to register conflicts of interest fall short of delivering adequate transparency and assurance for patients.”
However, the GMC would prefer this register to be maintained just at a local level and
“published by a doctor’s employer, contractor or organisation”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has already referred to the recommendations in the First Do No Harm review and the Government’s response, in which they said that it was proposed that information would be published locally at an employer level. However, I believe that there is also a golden thread from the obvious place to go, where doctors already have a duty to register other information, and that is the GMC.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I am keen to see action on this. Personally, I believe that the registration body is a good place to hold that data and, as she said, we need to start somewhere. But, frankly, we need to see progress on a register of interests. I hope the Minister can give your Lordships’ House some encouraging news on this.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was—it is fair to say—flattered when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me to co-sign her amendment, because I have admired all the work she has done, and I think her report, First Do No Harm, has had influence way beyond the group of patients she was looking at. Indeed, I was vice-chair of a NICE review, and we referred to it in terms of helping to empower the voice of the patients we had in that review process, which was, first, very important and, secondly, particularly helpful because they were very clear in their thinking, and they worked extremely hard.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for referring to the General Medical Council’s briefing, because the GMC agrees that a solution to this needs to be
“Accurate, up-to-date, accessible and presented in a way that is useful for patients, so that they can have confidence in it”.
It also said that it must be “Enforceable”, and the GMC also wants it to be “Multi-professional”. However, I agree that we have to start somewhere. Your Lordships may think that the advantage of a local register is that it is more accessible, but the disadvantage is that doctors move around in different jobs, particularly trainees—but even consultants’ time in one post is now relatively short; it used to be a lifetime appointment.
It is important that, as a doctor, I am prompted to be completely open so that there can be no subliminal influence on my decision-making. The most dangerous influences are the subliminal ones—not the ones where you are completely open about what is going on. There has been a great clamp-down over recent decades on the pharmaceutical industry because of sponsorship and so on, and that has decreased influences on prescribing. But when it comes to using other products in medicine, the same can apply. I think that a register would help the profession itself in making clinical decisions. I do not see this in any way as inhibiting research; on the contrary, it would display who is research active and who is achieving results through their research.
A register would support the development of innovative healthcare and support novel thinking because it would be declared and open. It would also support the move that people should always publish their results, whatever they are.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 283 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and my noble friend Lady Finlay. Like my noble friend Lady Finlay, I want to say how grateful I am and how touched I was that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me to add my support to this amendment. I also need to beg your Lordships’ indulgence: if we do go beyond 7 pm, which I sincerely hope we will not, it is actually the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. I should not be here now, and I certainly cannot be here after 7 pm. I will pretend that I am just slipping out briefly, but I am vanishing at 7 pm whatever happens. Your Lordships will be very glad to hear that I am not going to talk until then.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked me to support the amendment, I said that I would consult with the medical directors at the two NHS trusts that I chair, the University College London Hospitals Foundation Trust and Whittington Health NHS Trust. I did exactly that, and I have never had emails back so quickly from the medical directors—there are four of them between the two trusts. The amendment was welcomed unreservedly; they really want this to happen. The medical directors had no doubt that this was both an ethical requirement and indeed something to be encouraged in how doctors think about their own practice. That is the point that my noble friend Lady Finlay made. It is something about the subliminal; it makes you start thinking differently and your reactions become different.
One of the medical directors pointed me to Patrick Radden Keefe’s superb book about Purdue in the United States, Empire of Pain, and said that in a way that is exactly the issue here. Some of the people clearly knew that what they were doing was totally wrong, but some did not realise that what they were doing was wrong, because they had not got the subliminal way of judging, because this was accepted practice. That is the really strong argument for this: we need to be able to encourage people to think differently. There are lots of doctors who desperately want it, as the medical directors at my two hospitals have made entirely clear.
I pay huge tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her report First Do No Harm—as well as for the many other things she has done, but in particular for that report. It has changed the way that quite a lot of people think; it is quite hard to achieve that with a report and it is a very remarkable thing to have done. This is a national and international issue. We are concerned here only with the national, but we could—and should—set an international example of good practice.
After the Paterson review and First Do No Harm, this is now urgent. The GMC is obviously the right body to hold such a register, and I say so as a former member of the GMC. I was rather sad to see its somewhat lukewarm reaction in its briefing and I think that it has got this wrong. They are the right people to hold the register and to make it available to patients. The public must be able to access it. The employers, individual doctors, the Medical Royal Colleges and others must all play their part and, of course, other health professions must follow suit.
Let us start here. This needs to happen, and it needs to happen fast.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I can only add to the last remark of the noble Baroness that this does need to happen. I can see why the GMC is so unenthusiastic, as it was in its briefing note, because it looks like it is probably about 300,000 people and that is a big job. However, the question that I ask myself is, if a large pharma or large manufacturer of medical products is having a national campaign that involves hundreds of clinicians across the country, how will we know that is happening if all the registers are local? It seems to me that that is absolutely the point. It has to be a national register and the GMC probably has to be persuaded. If it is not the GMC, we would have to set up something different, and that would probably be a ridiculous thing to do. So the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Finlay, are quite right: we have to make progress on this.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Baronesses who have spoken in this group, and in particular to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for all the work that she has done on patient safety. I have noted their points very carefully and look forward to the further discussion of transparency and scrutiny of healthcare professionals in the debate on the next group where, on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made about payments from pharma and so on, it is my understanding that it will be on industry to declare those nationally.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank so much the noble Lords who have supported this amendment. I always welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because she is clear, concise and very authoritative; she commented that doctors already have a duty and that we should see progress. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was accurate; she talked about accuracy and accessibility for patients, and said that the register really is so important because it actually safeguards doctors, a point that has been put to us by some doctors. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is a chair of one of our great hospitals in London, and I was so grateful for her contribution. She went to her medical directors and found out that they thought this was an ethical way forward and should be encouraged. I also thank her for her generous remarks about the report—I would just like to say it is not my report; it was the team’s report, and I had some really good people on the team. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who was right: it has to be a national register, not a local one, and it has to be accessible to patients.
In summing up, I thank the Minister very much for her comments. There is such feeling about this in the country that it would be very helpful if she could convene a meeting with me, my team and the GMC to discuss this together. I think that a little more persuasion—especially from sources such as those on the Front Bench—would make all the difference.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 9th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee - (7 Feb 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I should like to update the House on a matter that has generated significant concern. I have noted the strength of feeling in the House on the issue of, and draft guidance on, elected councillors being appointed to integrated care boards. I discussed this matter with NHS England and can confirm that it will revise its draft guidance to remove the proposed blanket exclusion of local authority members sitting on integrated care boards. I am informed that, although ICB members from local authorities are normally likely to be officials, local councillors will not be disqualified for selection and appointment to an integrated care board.
I welcome this development and hope that it demonstrates that the department and NHS England are actively listening and responding to scrutiny and debate in this House. I have also informed the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and asked for a meeting between the Labour Front Bench and NHS England on its preparations.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the noble Lord for that information. Before we continue with the Committee on the Bill, I wanted to raise my concerns on the Floor of the House as to the importance of always treating each other with respect and courtesy. It is not the fault of anyone in this House that despite a majority of 80 in the other place, the Government have taken longer than expected to present several Bills to this House for our consideration. Although backed by the other place—I fully accept that—the Bills are very controversial in nature and quite properly attract considerable attention.
On a few occasions when considering the Nationality and Borders Bill last night and into the early hours of the morning, our standards slipped. We have another long day ahead of us today and another tomorrow before we all have a well-deserved break in the Recess. I hope that Members on all sides of the House, no matter what position they hold, will respect and pay proper attention to the advice and guidance as set out in the Companion. Committee is a conversation, different from both Question Time and Report. Shouting “question, question, question” from a sedentary position is unacceptable in Committee. Chapter 4 on the conduct of the House and Chapter 8 on Public Bills in the Companion are helpful and informative. I respectfully suggest that all Members regard it as essential reading.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I add the voice of these Benches to the protest by the Opposition Chief Whip in the strongest possible terms. I regret that the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House were not here to hear it. I hope that they will read Hansard, because I have some questions to put.
Do the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House accept that Members of this House have a right to be treated with courtesy and not bullied by members of the Government, that they are able to speak when they have a right to do so under Standing Orders, and that they have a right to have their health and welfare considered appropriately? None of that was respected last night when the House sat until 3.20 am.
I emphasise that my comments are not aimed at the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who has always been most courteous. I ask the Leader and the Government Chief Whip: do they agree that this is a self-governing House; that the Government, like all Governments, are temporary and cannot override the rights of noble Lords appointed independently of this Government; and that opposition parties have no duty to help the Government get controversial legislation through this House? On the contrary, we have a duty to scrutinise it. This House has built its reputation on intelligent, careful and courteous consideration of issues laid before it. Long may that continue.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Green group would like to throw its considerable weight behind the two noble Lords who have just spoken. What we saw last night was disgraceful, and I hope we never see it again.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, I will respond very briefly to the noble Lords who have spoken by saying that I shall ensure that the comments and questions do reach the Leader, and are treated with appropriate seriousness. We have all heard propositions from both noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite with which there would be wide agreement in the House as to the way we should conduct ourselves. In a spirit of sympathy with many of the comments made, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is appropriate that we discuss this in the usual channels.
Amendment 284
Baroness Cumberlege
“Industry reporting
Companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices must publish any payments made to—(a) teaching hospitals,(b) research institutions, or(c) individual clinicians.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices to publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions, or individual clinicians.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 284 would implement one of the major recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. I will say from the start that I so welcome the government amendments. I thank the Minister and the civil servants for crafting them in such a thorough way.
There is one glitch, however, about which I have given the Minister forewarning. All the government amendments say that the Secretary of State “may”—and of course that is a very sneaky word. What we want to see is a more robust word: the Secretary of State “shall.”
However, I do not want to detract in any way from the burden of my amendment, which is that relationships between the pharmaceutical and the medical device industries on the one hand, and the hospitals, medical research institutes and individual clinicians on the other, can be a huge force for good. Industry collaborating with doctors, researchers and scientists working in the NHS, academia or elsewhere has led to great breakthroughs and great treatments that we have been able to introduce. No one should want to stop that happening—but we do have a right to see where the money goes. Despite all the undoubted good that collaboration between industry and the rest of healthcare brings, we know that there are long-standing concerns about undue influence.
We need transparency so that trust can be rebuilt where it has been undermined in the past. Voluntary arrangements are all well and good, but they have a drawback: they are voluntary; they are not a requirement; they carry no teeth. So I am encouraged to see that the ABPI, which represents many pharmaceutical companies in the UK, agrees. It is supportive of moving to mandatory disclosure.
Amendment 284 would make it a requirement for payment by the industry to teaching hospitals, research bodies and individual clinicians to be published by the companies themselves. Such legislation exists and works very effectively in the United States. It is called the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, and it has been in existence since 2010. All the information is held on a public website. Americans can see at a glance which pharmaceutical or device companies have made payments to physicians or others: when, why and how much. It is not just the US which benefits from this level of transparency; various European countries have similar legislation in place, and we should not be the poorer cousin.
I of course welcome the Government’s own amendments that are grouped with mine and very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about them. I hope we can all agree that transparency, trust and good, safe care go hand in hand. That is why the amendments are so important.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment is a companion piece to the previous amendment on declarations of interest that we believe should be made by doctors and other regulated healthcare staff, and ensures that any companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices must publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions or individual clinicians. Whether someone wants to know about a doctor working with a pharma company, or the other way around, we need a system that provides a golden thread of transparency and accountability.
Reporting payments or benefits in kind by the relevant organisations and individuals receiving them ensures that the links between donors, recipients and their respective interests are always visible. Although it is, we hope, rare, this is more than just transparency. As in any walk of life, occasionally there is malpractice and fraud, which needs to be prevented. A register such as this helps to remind all those concerned of the rules.
I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that “may” is not strong enough: “shall” is important here. The noble Baroness also referred to the USA Sunshine register; and, as I said on the last group of amendments, we definitely need the disinfection of sunlight. Can the Minister say whether any such regulations on industry reporting might be published and brought into force?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, to speak remotely now.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for tabling Amendment 284. If we are to avoid the risk of corruption and maintain full public confidence, it is vital that there should be full disclosure of payments by commercial interests to hospitals—I would have thought to all hospitals, not just teaching hospitals—research institutions and clinicians. It is a good maxim to follow the money and to be able to do so.
In regard to research, there has long been public concern about business interests suborning researchers whose judgments and pronouncements influence public understanding, sometimes with important implications for public health. Corrupt scientists certified that DDT and pesticides used in agriculture were not harmful to public health. Exposure of that by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring did not end the mischief. Bogus research evidence was paid for for decades by the tobacco industry in a rearguard action to persuade Governments and the public that tobacco was not harmful to human health.
Today, firms in the food industry deploy spurious evidence and arguments about the damage certain foods do to human health. They have lobbied Government with considerable success to the terrible detriment of human health—it is good that the Bill limits the advertising of unhealthy foods. Scientists, paid by energy firms, have abetted those who deny that climate change is manmade.
Disclosure payments in regard to research will help, but more is needed. The noble Baroness might have considered—and may yet consider—tabling another amendment needed to underpin research ethics. The data on which research conclusions are based should be held independently. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council rightly now requires researchers to deposit data connected to the research they have funded.
There is huge pressure, in a competitive environment, on scientists to publish research, and there have been notorious instances of fake science—scientific discoveries announced that were made up and whose results could not be replicated by other researchers. A paper entitled Fake Science and the Knowledge Crisis published by the Royal Society said,
“it is especially important that the scientific world as a whole upholds the highest standards of ethical behaviour, honesty and transparency, aiming to sustain the gold standards of research integrity and validated information.”
However, the authors go on:
“Sadly, a range of forces are working counter to this aspiration.”
It is good that the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom supports the transparency that the amendment calls for. We should certainly match the best standards and practice in the USA and Europe.
The NHS holds huge budgets for drugs, medical equipment and hospital building; big commercial interests are at stake. There is scope for corruption if the system is weakly regulated. The scandal of PPE contracts has led to widespread anxieties about the integrity of procurement. The public want to believe that the NHS is free of corruption, and I am sure it mainly is, but reassurance is needed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us. in the old saying, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need the transparency that the amendment would secure.
The government amendments are, certainly at first blush, welcome. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, noted there is a conspicuous difference in language between her amendment, which says that companies “must” publish payments, and the Minister’s amendments, which say that the Secretary of State “may” require or regulate. That slide of language is liable to weaken public confidence. I hope the Minister will explain why he has used the word “may” and not “shall” or “must”.
The government amendments are as elaborate as the noble Baroness’s is simple, and they prompt some questions. In the Government’s Amendment 312B, subsection (6)(b) states:
“The regulations may … create exceptions from requirements to publish or provide information.”
What would those exceptions be? Subsection (8) states that the Secretary of State may,
“grant an exception … in a particular case.”
What sort of case? Earlier in Amendment 312B, subsection (1)(a) refers to “payments or other benefits”. I ask the Minister whether the disclosure requirements he envisages cover benefits in kind, including donations to political parties. whether made by big pharma or small local donors.
I do not want to be cynical. How can the Minister reassure those who are?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I shall try to be brief, otherwise we will be here until 3 am, and I am sure none of us want that. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in the comments she has made, and I support her amendment and the government amendments. I also agree that the system should be mandatory— not “may” but “shall”— and aligned with the similar system in the United States which I was used to many years ago.
To try to explore this further with the industry, I have been in correspondence with the ABPI to test how committed it is to agreeing to this being mandatory and that they “shall report” in all aspects. I will read what it sent me:
“ABPI are supportive of the intention to move to a mandatory model of disclosure for payments made between industry and relevant individuals including Health Professionals, and”
all healthcare organisations and research institutions. It continues:
“We believe proposals to introduce a legislative mandate are an opportunity to further strengthen the pharmaceutical sector’s existing transparency mechanism for branded medicines”—
that was the point I made to it, that its system needs to be transparent, mandatory and easily accessible by patients and the public. It goes on:
“Our briefing outlines a number of considerations and learnings based on ABPI’s experience running Disclosure UK, which since 2016 has supported transparency around transfers of value made by the innovative pharmaceutical industry to relevant individuals including Health Professionals … and Healthcare Organisations”.
I asked for a similar comment from industries that market medical devices, and I understand that a similar commitment is made by those companies too.
I therefore support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and support the Government’s amendment. However, I hope that the Minister can confirm that the loose word “may” is not intentional and they intend to make this mandatory.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, rather enjoying this reunion from our debates during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill of a group of people who taught me a great deal about dealing with legislation. We also looked at an amendment that was very like this. There is a phrase I use often: “Campaigning works”. I should make that “Campaigning by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, works particularly well”. We are seeing real progress here, although, as many noble Lords have already said, we need to make sure that this is mandatory and not some kind of voluntary extra.
When I was working on the then Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, I spoke to a number of people from the industry. They were very much concerned about the fact that they wanted tight rules that apply to everybody, otherwise those who cut corners and push the envelope have a competitive advantage against people who doing the right thing, being absolutely open and not flinging money around. Many parts of the sector are keen on tight rules.
It is interesting that it has taken us so long to get to this point when the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, presented ways of doing this back in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. We have not heard the Government using their favourite phrasing “world-leading” or “world-beating” very often in this area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we are very much trailing behind other countries in our transparency here.
I will make one final comment. We have a huge problem with public trust—we see this on the street outside your Lordships’ House quite often. Absolute transparency and openness is crucial and, as we heard in Oral Questions earlier, the fact that some companies have been able to profiteer hugely from the pandemic causes more damage to public trust. We need to tackle that with as much of the sunlight of transparency and openness as possible.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Briefly, I also support these amendments, including the Government’s comprehensive amendment, but I was spurred into action by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is worth saying that when it comes to public trust, a survey of 28 countries conducted at the end of last year found that British doctors were more trusted by people in this country than doctors in any of the other 27, so we start from a well-founded position of high trust. However, trust in a profession is of course founded on the basis that people will act in a way that puts the interests of the person they are looking after first, and these amendments help to deliver that.
I want to use the opportunity to try to draw the Minister out slightly on a couple of questions supplementary to those which my noble friend Lord Patel raised. Sunlight may indeed be the best disinfectant. but we have two types of shade going on at the moment. The first is that, through the voluntary register which the ABPI established in 2017, we have just under a third of eligible doctors who are not reporting. Therefore, obviously to the extent that the Government commence these amendments on a mandatory basis, that will deal with that aspect of shade; the 68% will become 100%, which will be most welcome.
The second type of shade relates to the scope of the payments that have to be declared. Here, I think the Government’s amendment is potentially very suitably broad. However, it would be wonderful to hear the Minister confirm that it will cover payments to all NHS bodies, not just to trusts or indeed teaching hospitals; that primary care will be in scope; that it will cover the independent sector as well as the NHS; that it will cover payments made to patients’ organisations; and whether, in time, the Government will consider extending it to payments made to health professionals other than doctors. I conclude by simply reporting that when you ask people in this country which profession they most trust, the answer is actually not doctors; it is nurses.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have my name on this amendment. I will not repeat all the points made by other people so far, but I point out that using the words “shall” or “must” avoids any argument over threshold. The problem with having a word that is not definitive is that there would be arguments over what would and would not have to be declared.
To put a slightly positive note on the whole situation, I say from clinical experience that patients want to go into trials and to contribute to the level of knowledge. Very often, people who are seriously ill will say, “I know that I won’t benefit from it, but I hope that other people will by me going into this trial”. But they want to know that the trial is properly conducted, that everything is open, that nobody is profiteering from their generosity and that they are genuinely contributing to the body of knowledge across the country. When people who I know socially contact me because they have been given a potentially devastating diagnosis and have been referred to somebody, the question is always, “Are they the best in the field?”, which is often followed up with, “Are they doing research in the field?” and “Are they completely up to date?” So often, when people realise that they are deteriorating, they will ask whether there is a trial that they can be entered into.
This goes much further than just being sunlight. This amendment would support future endeavours and innovation in the country and would encourage people to enter into studies.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, we welcome the Government’s proposals on mandatory disclosure of payments, a companion piece to the previous debate that we had, as has been pointed out.
As noble Lords have always stressed, greater transparency is highly desirable and a very good thing. I am grateful to the Minister for listening to the voices of stakeholders and parliamentarians on this. Indeed, nine out of 10 medical professional bodies think that patients have a right to know if their doctor has financial or other links with pharmaceutical or medical device companies and they support stronger reporting arrangements, as contained in the amendments. I am grateful for the briefing I have received from the ABPI, which, as we have heard, also supports mandatory disclosure.
I also note that Amendment 312D refers specifically to the consultation with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and to obtaining the
“consent of the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland … before making provision within devolved legislative competence in regulations relating to information about payments etc to persons in the health care sector.”
We would welcome the Minister reassuring us that full consultation is under way and setting out the timescales involved.
On Amendment 284, the non-government amendment leading this group, the intention of the amendment and the arguments put forward by noble Lords are extremely persuasive. The requirement for companies involved in the production, buying or selling of pharmaceutical products or medical devices to publish any payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions or individual clinicians is a sensible measure that would complement the Government’s package, and I await the Minister’s thoughts on it, including on the one glitch underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on moving from “may” to “shall”.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate, especially my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her work on the independent review of medicines and medical devices, and other noble Lords who were involved in that. I know that she worked tirelessly to make sure that patients and their families have been heard and I pay tribute to her and her team. I also thank her for her lobbying—or reminding—me of the pledge that I made when I first became a Minister on championing the patient.
I welcome my noble friend’s amendment to increase transparency and promote public confidence in the healthcare system. The Government fully support the intention behind the amendment. That is why I will be moving Amendments 312B, 312C, 312D, 313B, 313C and 314ZB in my name. Before I do so, let me answer some of the questions.
All these amendments relate to the transparency of payments made to the healthcare sector. The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review led by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege listened to the brave testimony of over 700 people to understand where improvements needed to be made to make the healthcare system safer for all patients, especially women. The Government have given the review deep consideration and accepted the majority of its nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement.
To improve transparency, the review recommended that
“there should be mandatory reporting for pharmaceutical and medical device industries of payments made to teaching hospitals, research institutions and individual clinicians”.
The amendments deliver on this recommendation by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring companies to publish or report information about their payments to the healthcare sector. The clause covers any person performing healthcare as part of their duties, benefiting patients and building on initiatives by regulators and industry. I hope that partly answers the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
The amendment also allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring that the information be made public and make further provision about when and how the information must be published. This could include requiring self-publication or publication in a central database. That ensures that we can adapt the system to improve reporting as necessary. To ensure that companies fulfil the obligation, requirements introduced by the regulations can be enforced using civil penalties.
There are benefits to this duty applying UK-wide, aligning with the approach taken by the pharmaceutical industry with its Disclosure UK system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, referred to, the clause contains a statutory consent requirement, so we will work closely with the devolved Governments to develop regulations following the passage of the Bill. We will also work with patients, industry and healthcare providers to create a system that enhances patient confidence while maintaining a collaborative, world-leading UK life sciences sector.
A question was raised about the issue of “shall” versus “may”. The Government have not tabled these amendments in bad faith; we would not have tabled these amendments if we did not intend to work with them. It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations under the clause to make sure that there is transparency. If that is not reassuring enough, perhaps between this stage and Report there can be some conversations to make sure that noble Lords are assured. It is for these reasons that I ask your Lordships’ Committee to support these amendments.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can the Minister confirm what he just said: that it is the intention to bring regulations? How strong is that intention? The “may” creates a problem.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, can I add a question about timeframes to that? When can we expect the regulations?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have two points to make to the noble Lord. First, I have been advised that this is standard wording. Secondly, I have made the assurance at the Dispatch Box. It is here; it is on public record that the Government intend to bring forward regulations. On the timeframe, I will either write to noble Lords or arrange a follow-up meeting. I will make sure that there is some communication to bridge that gap.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate, particularly my noble friend the Minister for the work he and his officials have done to bring this into the Government’s remit. That is so important, because I learned through the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Act that we could incorporate the patient safety commissioner and some of the other things we wanted to achieve only through government amendments. My heart leaped when I saw these amendments and I thank the Minister.
I still think these amendments could be improved and it is important that we get the word “shall” in, or “might” or whatever others have said, rather than “may”. I was looking at the Oxford English Dictionary. My father-in-law was the publisher to the Oxford University Press, so the dictionary is very close to my heart. The dictionary says that the verb “shall” relates to the right or sensible thing to do, whereas the verb “may” is defined as a possibility.
“Dispute resolution in children’s palliative care
(1) This section applies where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment about—(a) the nature (or extent) of specialist palliative care that should be made available for the child, or(b) the extent to which palliative care provided to the child should be accompanied by one or more disease- modifying treatments.(2) Where the authorities responsible for a health service hospital become aware of the difference of opinion they must take all reasonable steps—(a) to ensure that the views of the parent, and of anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child, are listened to and taken into account;(b) to make available to the parent any medical data relating to the child reasonably required to obtain evidence in support of the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion); and(c) where the authorities consider that the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved entirely informally, to provide for a mediation process, acceptable to both parties, between the parent and the doctor.(3) In the application of subsection (2) the hospital authorities—(a) must involve the child’s specialist palliative care team so far as possible; and(b) may refuse to make medical data available if the High Court grants an application to that effect on the grounds that disclosure might put the child’s safety at risk having regard to special circumstances.(4) Where the difference of opinion between the parent and the doctor arises in proceedings before a court—(a) the child’s parents are entitled to legal aid, within the meaning of section 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Lord Chancellor’s functions) in respect of the proceedings; and the Lord Chancellor must make any necessary regulations under that Act to give effect to this paragraph; and(b) the court may not make any order that would prevent or obstruct the parent from pursuing proposals for obtaining disease-modifying treatment for the child (whether in the UK or elsewhere) unless the court is satisfied that the proposals—(i) involve a medical institution that is not generally regarded within the medical community as a responsible and reliable institution, or(ii) pose a disproportionate risk of significant harm to the child.(5) Nothing in subsection (4) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution; in particular, nothing in subsection (4) —(a) requires the provision of resources for any particular course of treatment; or(b) requires a doctor to provide treatment that the doctor considers likely to be futile or harmful, or otherwise not in the best interests of the child.(6) In this section—“child” means an individual under the age of 18; “health service hospital” has the meaning given by section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation);“parent” means a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.(7) Nothing in this section affects the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—(a) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and(b) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned within the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this amendment has been several years in gestation. It dates back to the case of Charlie Gard in 2017. There have also been other cases that suggested we must do better than rush to the courts, with all the anguish that causes to parents and clinicians alike, let alone the expense to the NHS and others. That is why I am proposing that there should be independent mediation where there is a serious disagreement between loving parents and the clinical team caring for a child who is not Gillick-competent.
Difficulties arise when the child’s prognosis seems hopeless to clinicians but the parents do not share that view and want to know that they have tried everything. The clinicians may feel that the best interests of the child would be for the child to be allowed to die, but the parents can perceive this as life being ended, even though the child would have already died without all the care and interventions that had been put in place. In other words, when death occurs, the child dies of their underlying condition. The clinicians have not euthanised the child. However, pressures in the media towards doctors administering lethal drugs and euthanasia have portrayed death as a solution, and there is a perception that our overwhelmed NHS is desperate to clear beds, save money and, sadly, even cover up shortcomings.
However, no one has interests when they are dead; they are a corpse. By contrast, the parents feel that any improvement is worth having, and that it is in the best interests of the child to continue to experience their love and affection and to try a novel therapy that seems, on balance, possibly to do more good than harm—that is, it does not cause significant harm to the child—and, if there is no improvement, it is easier for them to accept the natural death of their child.
In Charlie’s case, a novel treatment seemed to offer hope, a nucleoside powder to be added to feeds of mitochondrial depletion syndrome. This did not involve invasive procedures and was estimated by New York-Presbyterian Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center’s Dr Hirano to have a 56% chance of success. That is important because it is over 50%. In 13 out of 18 children with TK2 mitochondrial depletion it had appeared to be beneficial but it had not been tried in RRM2B, the variant that Charlie had. This was not a distressing invasive treatment from a dubious medical centre, and the parents would gladly have had Charlie as part of an N of 1 trial, accepting failure but knowing that they had done everything.
The total cost of a three-month trial of nucleoside powder would have been about £3,000. Contrast that with the costs of over £250,000, made up of £205,225 costs to Great Ormond Street Hospital, almost £35,000 that his parents had to fundraise for, and £32,500 spent by Cafcass. That seems to be the norm. Cafcass also reported that in 2016 it was involved in 18 parent-doctor disputes that ended up in court. If these costs are indicative, that suggests around £4.5 million from the NHS each year.
No one should underestimate the intense emotional anguish of these parents in such cases, nor the stress and difficulty for the clinical team. The requirement that the parents can seek a second opinion means that they can do so swiftly, with full access to their child’s clinical record. This recognises the speed with which children can deteriorate when very ill.
Currently a second opinion may be sought only by a clinician. This part of the amendment would put the parents on an equal footing to ensure that they could seek one too. If there is a dispute between those with parental responsibility then, as now, the court would have to be involved. It is for the courts to veto inappropriate demands, and no clinician would ever be forced to administer a treatment that they did not view as being in the best interests of the child.
Rather than clinicians and parents being pitted against each other, with press interest and the risk of campaigning groups further polarising views, the amendment proposes that independent mediation must be offered. It needs to be independent to remove the suspicion that the mediator is entering the discussion biased towards the clinical establishment and away from the parents. Mediation is different from arbitration; it must be voluntarily entered into, using mediation processes designed to avoid legal disputes. It may help the parents to realise that the clinicians’ decisions are right after all and in the best interests of the child. Indeed, such realisation is evident in some of the very sensitive judgments given by the court.
The amendment would focus on the balance of probabilities. There is no absolute line because each case is different. If the dispute remained intractable, the case would proceed to the court, where the court would have to take into account all the evidence and consider whether the risk was significant. “Significant” is not a precise medical term; it would leave it to the court to decide whether the risk of harm involved in the parents’ proposal was sufficiently significant to interject across their parental responsibility and prohibit the proposed treatment. It would create the legal test of “disproportionate risk of significant harm” to assess the balance of factors, replicating the legal test already used by social services under the Children Act 1989 to consider whether to remove the child from their parents’ care. This legal test would sit before, rather than replace, the current “best interests” test, which is very broad and can be subject to different interpretations.
Contrary to the misleading briefing that some Peers may have received, the legal test in the amendment would not allow a person with parental responsibility to force any intervention. The court must always be, and would remain, free to objectively judge the issues. In the rare cases where disputes still reach litigation, access to legal aid would ensure families can access justice without being forced to rely on outside interest groups to fund the case.
The aim of this amendment is to solve some major problems for the Government. It would ensure resolution of some distressing prolonged disputes between loving parents and clinicians, disputes that benefit no one, and would reduce the likelihood of cases escalating to the courts and the millions of pounds in litigation costs. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
I advise the Committee that the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham of Ilton, have indicated that they wish to take part remotely. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am sorry, I thought it was in alphabetical order. I shall therefore call first the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 287 I cannot think of a better person to have moved it than my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative care. If there is a dispute, a difference of opinion, between a parent and a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment, it can be heartbreaking. The stress and anxiety the parents can be put under can be unbearable if the doctor in charge is invincible. It is important to ensure that the views of the parents and anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child are listened to and considered.
The amendment would put mechanisms in place and highlight benefits that Charlie’s law can provide for both parents and doctors when a major difference of opinion arises. Most parents will do anything for their children in a critical situation if there is a slight hope that the treatment might work and benefit their child. Sometimes the treatment is abroad and not available in the UK. This happened to Ashya King, a young boy who had extensive surgery for an aggressive brain tumour. His parents wanted to take him to the Proton Therapy Center in Prague for treatment, but there was a dispute with Southampton hospital. At that time, there was no proton treatment in the UK. His parents took him from the hospital to Spain via France, landing up in prison in Spain and making a court appearance. This traumatic struggle hit the headlines and, in the end, young Ashya did go to the Czech Republic for treatment. How much better it would have been if there had been an agreement to save a humiliating situation for everyone.
A great deal of work and care has gone into this amendment. I thank my noble friend for all she has done, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will be very brief, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has comprehensively explained why her amendment, Amendment 287, which seeks to create a dispute resolution mechanism in children’s palliative care, is important. There is no doubt of the challenges experienced by parents who are facing the dreadful news of their child’s deteriorating health and likely end of life, and who are trapped in a process that makes them feel as if their requests for new, different or more treatment are being refused by the hospital, not least if they feel that the hospital is acting as prosecutor, jury and judge against their wishes.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has outlined, one must also sympathise with doctors and other healthcare professionals who believe that they are doing the best for the child in these distressing circumstances. For these cases to end up going through the courts is not a good dispute resolution process. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has also outlined the extreme costs to the NHS and to the parents of the child. We now need a system, even if rarely used, which parents can feel is independent but medically expert to help to resolve and mediate the dispute when the relationship between them and the hospital has broken down.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 287, and I thank my noble friend for tabling Charlie’s law. Charlie Gard’s case was painful for all involved, including his parents and the doctors at the hospital where he was receiving treatment. Protracted disagreements can have far-reaching effects, particularly when they are played out in public, as has happened in a small number of cases. For the child, it can mean a delay in a decision about their care and treatment. For the parents and family of the child, there can be enormous distress, feelings of loss of control, and financial strain. Healthcare staff can also experience stress and anxiety, and they might be subjected to intimidation.
The parents of Charlie Gard, Alta Fixler, Alfie Evans, Tafida Raqeeb, and many others, wanted to do what any parent would do to try to improve their child’s condition and alleviate their child’s suffering. However, it is evident that the parents in such cases do not feel adequately heard and listen to when discussing options about their child’s treatment. This results in the devastating conflicts that lead to litigation. With this amendment, parents would be given the chance to discuss their views openly with the clinicians and hear the views of those clinicians, too.
Too often in my career, I have heard distressed parents described as “difficult” and “impossible to work with—nobody can work with them”. These are grieving parents who are looking for someone they can trust to help them. Mediation can sometimes help parents, and professionals to acknowledge that the consequence of conflict has been to shift focus away from the needs and welfare of the child. An independent mediation process can help to facilitate less confrontational conversation while supporting both parties. Thus, it provides support for both. Mediation across England is inconsistent. It needs to be available in every NHS hospital where conflict emerges, and at an early stage, so that the lives of very sick children such as Charlie are less likely to escalate to court.
In the rare event that a child’s case escalates to court, the amendment seeks to provide access to legal aid to ensure that families are not burdened with the financial strain of legal representation. Currently, families in this position are effectively punished, both financially and emotionally, through litigation for simply doing what they strongly believe is in their child’s best interest. Although this amendment makes provision for legal aid, the main purpose is to keep cases such as Charlie’s out of court, rather than arming everyone to be prepared to enter into long-winded and expensive legal disputes. Parents would not automatically win the right for their children to be given novel treatment, but the amendment would rebalance the dialogue towards resolution, rather than towards costly and distressing legal battles that do nothing to help the parents’ grief.
I also strongly support the introduction of the significant harm test. This legal test would focus on whether an alternative credible medical treatment could cause a child “disproportionate risk of significant harm” when deciding whether a parent can seek that treatment for their child. A key point here is that no medical professional would ever be required to give care or treatment that they did not view as in the best interests of the child. The legal test is already widely used under the Children Act 1989 and should be applied to cases such as Charlie’s in the future. I am strongly in support of this amendment and commend it. It is a just and necessary package to support parents and doctors, and I hope the Minister will be in a position to welcome it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have also put my name to this amendment. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on bringing it forward.
We need a broad debate on the balance of responsibility for children as between parents and the various arms of the state. Sadly, these have come to include the medical profession. Today is not the day for that debate, but this amendment does something to give a voice to parents who find themselves in dispute with doctors, often unaided, unsupported and dependent on voluntary contributions, so that they have at least a voice and a status in decisions about their sick child. I very much hope that the Government will be able to support this.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I do not very often become involved in health matters, so I hope that your Lordships will indulge me on this occasion.
Five years ago, when Charlie Gard’s parents were doing everything they could to fight for his life, I, like everyone else, was moved by their determination. Even so, my instincts were to accept what the Great Ormond Street hospital doctors were advising and what the judge decided was in Charlie’s best interests. I fall into the camp which believes that, in such an unimaginable, heartbreaking situation, the objective and dispassionate professionals are best placed to make a decision that no parent would ever want to have to make for themselves. When Charlie sadly died, I was moved by his parents’ dignity in coping with their heartbreak in the midst of a legal battle and in the full glare of publicity. Probably like many others who felt so sorry for their loss, I soon moved on and thought little more about this tragic case.
Then, just over a year ago, during the Christmas lockdown, when I was out on my daily walk, I heard an interview that Charlie’s mother, Connie Yates, gave to Andy Coulson on his podcast, “Crisis What Crisis?” For well over an hour, I listened to Connie tell her story. She spoke clearly, intelligently and reasonably about their experience as a family during the year in which Charlie lived, and about all that she and her partner, Chris, went through in their fight to be heard and taken seriously by doctors and lawyers. From listening to Connie, I learned that their expectations were well-informed and reasonable but that as the dispute continued, the situation became increasingly fraught and distressing —to the point where their efforts to be heard as parents made them feel that others believed they were guilty of not wanting the best for their baby. Even so, she was at pains to praise all the medical staff who had cared for Charlie at Great Ormond Street.
Towards the end of the interview, Connie told Andy Coulson that a Private Member’s Bill was being sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that would bring to life what she called “Charlie’s law”. The noble Baroness has described this law. When Connie talked about it, I was struck by how modest and reasonable it is to create a legal framework to allow for resolution, without the added stress and trauma that they had faced during the time when they were fighting for Charlie. It also struck me very powerfully that, in developing this framework, Connie had taken the time to contact and listen to the doctors who had opposed her, so that she could better understand them and their position. That is worth emphasising again: this young woman is so reasonable that she wanted to create a law that would work for the benefit of the medical profession, not just parents.
As I finished listening to Connie, I vowed that I would support that Bill whenever it appeared. But as we know, Amendment 287 is here in lieu of that Private Member’s Bill, and arguably is a better way to introduce this measure, rather than having to battle with the usual procedural risks that are associated with private Members’ legislation. I am delighted to lend my support to this amendment. I am sure there are technical matters within the amendment which might require discussion between the noble Baroness and the Minister, but I urge my noble friend to take this seriously.
Given the ordeal that Charlie’s family faced a few years ago, when no one in authority listened to them, I am sure it would bring them a huge amount of comfort to know that they are being heard now. That is my main point and motivation today. Of all the things we must do if we are to level up this country, listening and taking seriously people who feel ignored or misunderstood is the most important aspect of that agenda, and in this context it costs us nothing.
I also say to Connie Yates, should she be listening today or read the record subsequently, that she is one impressive woman. When I heard her speak, and listened to what she had to say, she changed my mind and made me realise I had been wrong not to listen more carefully a few years ago.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and will make what have been described as technical points. While I think this is a very good base, there are some things that I think need looking at.
I trained as a commercial mediator some years ago, and practiced for a couple of years, before I was signed up by David Cameron to do a different job. The first point I make is that there is a difference between commercial and family mediation. It is important to realise that. I notice that the amendment says
“where the authorities consider that the difference of opinion is unlikely to be resolved entirely informally”.
I suggest that it cannot be the authorities that decide; it has to be offered equally to both sides. That is why it will not be appropriate for the authorities to provide the mediation service. There are a couple of good, independent mediation services, including the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services, but if it is to be a system which has the confidence of both sides, it must be independent of the authorities.
The next point I would like to make is this. There is a big difference between family and commercial mediation, and the difference is fundamental. Commercial mediation produces a legal, enforceable result; family mediation produces an agreement which has no legal force. One of the points which must be addressed if this is to be brought to fruition is what is to be the status of the mediation agreement. That is fundamental.
I was a commercial meditator and in East Anglia, where I was, we had a practice of commercial mediators going out also with family mediators to get an experience of the full area. One of the most distressing points about family mediation was the way in which families would bicker, eventually reach some sort of compromise, and, before you were through the door, decide they were not going through with it. If mediation is to work, it will have to have some sort of resolution at the end where the medical profession and the family can say, “This is settled”—not where one side can say, “Well, I don’t really like the outcome”. This could be the case, particularly in a complex medical situation, where you have a number of doctors involved and maybe two or three of them are part of the mediation but there is then someone further up the line who says, “No, I just don’t accept this”. There has to be a dispute resolution which has a legality about it.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there is considerable merit in an independent dispute resolution service. I will be very brief, because I believe that at the heart of this is the following: for over two decades, this country has been a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises that a child has its own rights, independent of its parents. So I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, refer to the best interests of the child, which will be based on their rights under the convention.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for this amendment and other noble Lords who have contributed to this highly emotional and compelling debate about the welfare, care and medical treatment of critically ill children. I also thank Emma Hardy MP for ensuring that this key issue was debated in the course of the Bill’s passage through the Commons and the work that she, other MPs and noble Lords have undertaken with parents and medical staff to help build and develop the framework that is set out in the amendment where care and treatment are disputed: Charlie’s law, in memory of Charlie Gard.
The amendment seeks to mitigate conflicts at the earliest stages, provide advice and support, and improve early access to independent mediation services to prevent the traumatic and bitter legal disputes that we have all seen all too often. Noble Lords have highlighted these, as well as the benefits that the step-by-step processes set out in the amendment would provide for parents and doctors, which are of course central to the consideration of the child’s welfare and best interests. In particular, providing families with access to legal aid if court action takes place would, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, ensure that they do not have to rely on raising funds themselves, or on the financial support of outside interests.
Today’s debate has been powerful but has also demonstrated the difficulties with trying to address and resolve such deeply complex issues within the context of an already overloaded and skeletal Bill. Like other noble Lords, I have received the excellent briefing from the Together for Short Lives charity, which does such remarkable work on children’s palliative care to support and empower families caring for terminally ill children. While supportive of much of the amendment, the charity has what it terms “significant reservations” about proposed new subsection (4) on the issue of amending the court’s powers in relation to parents pursuing proposals for disease-modifying treatment for their child after the final court decision.
So, while there is obviously considerable support for the measures set out in the amendment, as we have heard today, the reservations about this and other provisions in the amendment, from Together for Brief Lives and other organisations, emphasise the need for the continued dialogue and discussion that we are not able to have today but which noble Lords have made clear is needed. This has been an excellent debate and I hope the Minister will be able to find supportive ways of taking this vital issue forward.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has brought a vital and sensitive debate before the Committee, for which I for one am very grateful. At the heart of each of these difficult cases is, as she said, the well-being of a child, and that principle has to remain uppermost in everyone’s mind. While the views of parents and guardians are routinely considered in everyday care, occasionally difficult disputes will arise. When they do, we should carefully consider how best to protect the interests of the child. I will start by saying that I fully agree with the noble Baroness that any failure to listen to the concerns of parents or a guardian would be bad practice.
However, I have a concern about the practical impact of this amendment. In cases of the care of children with life-limiting illnesses, the amendment would place the views of parents and guardians above those of clinicians and—let us be clear—the courts, which have a statutory obligation to act in the best interests of the child. Establishing a default presumption in favour of the parents’ views would fundamentally change the current balance. It would move away from the impartial assessment of the individual child’s best interests being paramount based on all the evidence in each specific case.
I understand the view that parents know what is best for their child and their wishes should be paramount. Sadly, though, I am afraid that I cannot fully agree with the proposition advanced in the amendment. It is sometimes the case that desperate parents in these tremendously difficult circumstances are subject to the flattering voice of hope and, as a result, are not acting in a way that is necessarily in the best interests of their child.
To protect the child, it is right that when every effort at resolution has been unsuccessful there is recourse to a judicial process that can impartially assess all the evidence as to what treatment is best for the child. I also fear that it would be difficult for a clinician to determine, in the wording of the amendment, “anyone else” who has an interest in a child’s care. In considering the provisions of the amendment, I note that a child’s medical data can already be provided to parents following a subject access request, so we do not feel that legislation here is necessary. I absolutely agree that specialist palliative care teams should be part of the multidisciplinary team for any child or adult with a complex life-limiting illness; their involvement is an integral part of good practice, and I would expect referrals in such situations. However, I do not agree that it is necessary to put that into law.
Let me say something about mediation. I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Balfe. We know that mediation can and often does play a vital role in facilitating better communications and creating a space where voices on both sides of a dispute can be heard in a non-adversarial way. Unfortunately, that does not provide a solution in every dispute. The Government are supportive of the many excellent mediation schemes already available, including through charities and the private sector. We agree that parents and clinicians should be able to access such schemes where they wish to do so. However, we are not convinced that legislation is the answer to these thankfully rare but nevertheless tragic cases.
The current lack of statutory prescription means that mediation can be tailored specifically to meet the individual needs of families and their children, clinicians and hospitals, reflecting the unique circumstances of each case. There is currently a wide range of work and research into avoiding such protracted disputes and improving the approach to managing conflicts, with the aim of promoting good, collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare professionals to seek resolution without lengthy and costly legal battles. Furthermore, on those rare occasions where disputes are heard before a court, the amendment seeks to extend legal aid. Legal aid is already available for best interests cases, albeit subject to a means and merits test.
I understand the strong views on the amendment across the Committee. I understand that these issues are ethically charged and I take them seriously. However, I also believe that the current approach properly balances the views of parents and guardians with those of clinicians and, above all, with the paramount importance of the best interests of the child in question. The sensitivities around this subject are acute but I hope that what I have said has clarified why I do not feel able to accept what I know is a well-intentioned amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I cannot hide my deep disappointment at the response from the Government, because I think this situation will only get worse unless we recognise the difficulty of decision-making when you are faced with a child whose prognosis is poor, who has a very rare condition, where nobody has a test to predict what will happen, and where the parents feel that they are not being listened to.
Currently in the NHS we have clinical teams that change rapidly. The one person—often—who has continuity and has seen the child day after day is the mother; sometimes it is the father who is with the child all the time. But you get different clinical teams, and you may have a gap of five days between one doctor visiting and coming back, and they may say: “Oh my goodness, what a change.” But when you have a handover, you do not get a complete picture.
Baroness Greengross
“Social prescribing
The Secretary of State must seek to ensure that health professionals are aware of any benefits of practising social prescribing of music and the arts for dementia, in particular for patients at the onset of symptoms so as to preserve their brain health and resilience in the community.”
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and Amendment 291D in the name of noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I will speak only to Amendments 290 and 291 in my name in this group. Amendment 291 calls on the Secretary of State to
“publish a plan for dementia care”
which recognises
“the different types of dementias and the specific care needs of each type”.
It also places a duty on local authorities and the
“NHS integrated care system to implement this plan for their own areas”.
Some 70% of care home residents and 60% of home care recipients in the UK have some form of dementia. When we talk about the crisis in social care and the urgent need for social care reform, one of the major drivers of this crisis is the growing number of people living with dementia, with one in 14 people over 65, and one in six people over 80, living with some form of dementia. By 2040, the number of people living with dementia is expected to have grown to 1.5 million. Globally, the World Health Organization reports that over 55 million people are currently living with dementia; by 2050, this number will have grown to 153 million.
It is easy to get caught up in the numbers, but we need to remember that these are usually people with family and loved ones who often become carers, even once the person with dementia ceases to recognise their loved ones, and in many cases spend prolonged periods of time in a state of distress and even anguish. It is not just unpaid carers who struggle to help those with dementia: Skills for Care has recorded that only 44% of care staff have any form of training in dementia. Social care staff should have tier 2 training in the dementia training standards framework to support the delivery of more personalised care for people with dementia.
As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia, I work closely with the Alzheimer’s Society. This organisation has been working with the small team at the Department of Health and Social Care that has been trying to develop a new national dementia strategy. With no co-ordinated strategy for dementia since 2020, and with the conditions of people living with dementia deteriorating during the pandemic, the strategy needs to be published promptly. There also needs to be dedicated funding to deliver it.
There are over 100 types of dementia. We know that the most common are Alzheimer’s disease, which accounts for over 50% of dementia cases; vascular dementia, which accounts for roughly 20% of cases; Lewy body dementia, which accounts for just over 10%; and frontotemporal dementia—FTD—which affects 2%. Each type of dementia has its own symptoms and has different care needs. Also, some forms of dementia can develop tragically at a younger age, and some may cause deterioration of memory and cognitive function for many years.
Dementia is a condition that uniquely cuts across social care and healthcare, because it has no disease-modifying treatment, meaning that the main support someone receives is through the social care system. As I said on Amendment 235 on the social care cap, there is a clear inequity where, if someone is diagnosed with cancer the NHS will cover the full treatment cost, whereas if someone is diagnosed with dementia they may require many years of care, which will cost them and their families thousands of pounds, as this is not covered. That is made much worse by the fact that, despite best intentions, the care being delivered may not even be suitable for the type of dementia the person needs care for. That brings me to my next amendment.
Amendment 290 requires the Secretary of State to ensure that health professionals are aware of the benefits of the social prescribing of music and art for those with dementia, especially at the onset of symptoms to preserve brain health, and protect against cognitive decline, loneliness and fear in the months and years leading to diagnosis. Over 200,000 people are expected to be diagnosed each year. A third more do not even have a diagnosis, so the arts have a vital part to play for them. When I spoke in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on social prescribing, I and others who spoke on that group outlined the many benefits of social prescribing for the social exercise of arts activity, which empowers patients to preserve their brain health. This amendment specifically outlines the importance of this for those affected by dementia as part of an overall care plan, so links to Amendment 291.
If we look at the four main types of dementia I spoke of earlier, we can see how different forms of art can play an important role. The charity Arts 4 Dementia has found that, for those with Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia, participating in music, dance, visual arts, poetry and drama, and trying new techniques and art forms, stimulates interest and joy, relieves anxiety, preserves confidence and improves cognitive functioning. Some musicians continue to play for years, artists to paint and dancers to dance. People with frontotemporal dementia are better able to read words and music and are more interested in dialogue around pictures and the mechanics than creating art. Musicians and artists with frontotemporal dementia can often continue to enjoy singing, playing and painting for years after diagnosis. Researchers have found that those with Lewy body dementia are happier to be involved in social arts programmes, poetry and dressing up than physical drawing, or going to arts events, galleries, concerts or the theatre rather than performing. For those with Parkinson’s-related dementia, dance can be helpful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 297D is very important. Unacceptable practices of bullying and intimidation of the most vulnerable people must not take place. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this amendment to the Committee. I support it.
I congratulate “Panorama” and those who worked undercover to expose these unacceptable wrongdoings in the past in care homes, nursing homes and hospitals for residents who are very vulnerable. The programme showed one girl who was a resident and had asked to be looked after by female staff only. This did not happen, and the film showed men taunting her and seeing her get upset, as they carried on with their bullying and tormenting. All sorts of abuse has been exposed in some of the homes, which were spread across the country, such as Whorlton Hall in Barnard Castle, Winterbourne View near Bristol, Ashbourne House in Rochdale, and many, many others. This is not easy work and staff need to be well trained and suitable candidates, with patience and dedication.
During Covid-19, this situation has been a great risk. Many of the residents are a long way from home and they are very isolated. There should be independent inspections and spot checks; there should not be closed doors. There should be regular safeguarding in the regulations.
I hope that the Government will take this seriously. There should be a duty of candour so that whistleblowers are not victimised when reporting what they think is bad practice. I look forward to the Government’s reply, and I hope it will be helpful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. No one has done more than she has to champion the elderly and the frail. I support all the amendments in this group but will speak only in support of Amendment 290.
There is much evidence of the benefits of creative activity to dementia. Some of this was set forth in the Creative Health report, and more recently in the document A.R.T.S for Brain Health, edited by Veronica Franklin Gould, the founder and now president of Arts 4 Dementia. I pay tribute to her passionate and indefatigable work.
As noble Lords, we have the opportunity to exercise our aging brains in trying to understand amendments to the Health and Care Bill. Others at our time of life take even greater pleasure and benefit to their health through music, painting, poetry, dance, drama and other art forms. Of course, that range of cultural opportunities is there for us too—the cultural scope of Peers is not limited to “Iolanthe”.
Veronica Franklin Gould has very well said:
“music-making provides a tool for a total brain workout”.
The mental activity of learning poetry, performing drama and creating painting or craft opens new neural pathways and connections. Research shows that creativity benefits the plasticity of the cortex, enhances cognitive abilities—perception, motor function and memory—and improves cardiovascular strength. In more humane language, engagement with the arts allows creative self-expression, offers sociability, reduces stress and increases resilience—all leading to joy and achievement. These are profound and measurable benefits. Arts 4 Dementia offers programmes in creative arts venues for people, from the onset of early symptoms of dementia. I draw the attention of the House to the very important work of Manchester Camerata, in partnership with the University of Manchester, in its Music in Mind dementia programme.
There can be years between the appearance of early symptoms and the moment at which someone receives a memory assessment and a diagnosis. This can be a lonely and fearful time, during which the arts can be particularly sustaining. Creative activity slows the deterioration of the brain. The benefits of engagement with creative activity continue for a long time.
Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, has recognised this. He said:
“The shift for us in general practice is not just engaging with the medical activities which are core, but to engage with social activities, and make sure the two are aligned.”
Will the Minister accept amendments to this legislation to ensure that the structures and requirements that it creates encourage, facilitate and drive the shift of which Professor Marshall speaks, and bring the crucial support of the arts and other forms of social prescribing to people with dementia and others? If he does not believe that the legislation needs amendment, will he explain how, as presently drafted, it will drive that change?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others for the amendments in this group, which would help transform some of the long-standing problems in social care, as well as improve the quality of life of patients and their families, especially those who care for them. I will speak to Amendment 297D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which seeks the establishment of a review into institutional abuses in care settings within six months of the passing of this Act.
Amendment 297D talks about the effects of restrictive visiting and eviction notices
“on the emotional, psychological, social and physical health of service users, and on the well-being of service users”
and their families. Obviously, “restrictions on visiting” has taken on a whole new meaning throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. I note that the Rights for Residents campaign group has secured more than 270,000 signatures on a petition for a law that ensures that
“every resident has the legally enforced right to the support of an essential visitor”.
Currently, homes are meant to support an essential caregiver for all residents—but this is advisory and some homes are still imposing blanket bans on visits. That may be because they have some Covid infections inside the home, but that is not universally true.
There is still no clear picture of how visits are going on in care settings. These could be difficult for residents with dementia, for example, if there is only a very small window for visiting—and perhaps it is just not the right time or the right day for them.
Unlock Care Homes is also doing work on this, including highlighting good practice. It is important to remember that most care homes are not just doing their best, they are doing really well with looking after their residents, despite the constraints of the pandemic, staff shortages and burnout.
Time and again, investigative journalists are uncovering practices going on in care settings that are inhuman, breach vulnerable residents’ human rights and damage patients’ mental, physical and psychological well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to a long list, and that list is indeed shameful.
A series of scandals led to a CQC report into restraint, seclusion and segregation for autistic people and people with a learning disability being commissioned in 2018. It was published in October 2020. The report said:
“We found too many examples of undignified and inhumane care in hospital and care settings where people were seen not as individuals but as a condition or a collection of negative behaviours … We also found that a lack of training and support for staff meant that they are not always able to care for people in a way that meets those individuals’ specific needs. This increases the risk of people being restrained, secluded or segregated.”
However, the Government have not yet commissioned a review of the entire sector, to understand and learn from the causes and poor practices that have resulted in those institutions failing their residents. Commissioning such a review would demonstrate that the Government really want to bring a halt to these practices.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 297A is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Cumberlege, but I am also supportive of the other amendments in this group.
With people living ever longer, looking after older people so that they can stay healthier for longer is critical, as is ensuring that they receive the care they need and have a dignified and secure old age. Amendment 297A seeks to introduce a new clause that will not only lower, from 75 to 65, the age at which every patient is assigned a named GP but sets out to ensure that named GPs will actually have to meet and have some knowledge of each patient they are responsible for, and will communicate directly with them and the family.
We need to encourage everyone to take responsibility for their health. Having good and regular health checks is an essential part of the prevention of ill health, as well as leading to earlier identification of conditions and earlier interventions. I am sure that other noble Lords who are doctors will put me right, but I was once told that 65 is an age where things can start to go wrong. Therefore, it is important to start monitoring people’s health and being able to identify changes from this age. This will deliver better outcomes and may also enable people to stay at home and lead a fuller life for longer. The role of the GP in all this is absolutely critical.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 297D, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Brinton, for their support. However, I also express my general support to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for their amendments. The common theme of this collection of amendments is the question of how we support vulnerable people.
My amendment is about the experience of many of us who have seen the harm caused to our loved ones in care homes during Covid when visits were not allowed for so long. Even now, it can be difficult to visit in some homes because of the Covid restrictions that continue or where a member of staff or visitor has Covid and then 14-day long impositions are imposed. It is a bit rich when one hears in the media that all restrictions are being lifted, because for many of us, in practice those restrictions have not been lifted at all.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on care home blanket bans and other excessive restrictions recommended that regulations for care and treatment should include a requirement to ensure face-to-face contact wherever possible between residents and the people most significant to them. I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by care homes in the past two years. They have faced huge challenges. My personal experience is that many of them have risen to the challenge and provide high-quality care. But even before the pandemic, serious concerns were growing about the use of care home visitor bans to punish relatives for complaining about standards of care. Indeed, as far back as 2016, the “Victoria Derbyshire” programme reported that hundreds of care homes were guilty of this method of what it described as institutional abuse. In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case per week and warned the problem was increasing.
One woman found her mother dressed in other people’s clothes, left in her own urine and with her hair unwashed for weeks. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the daughter’s complaint, reporting that after raising her concerns with the care home, she and a doctor were prevented from seeing her mother when they tried to visit. The care home later told the ombudsman the ban was because of a previous incident reported to the police of the daughter and her partner’s behaviour, but could not provide any evidence that an incident had occurred or was reported to the police.
As visiting restrictions are, hopefully, going to be relaxed in the weeks ahead, I am afraid we have the prospect of seeing more residents’ families being victimised in this way. Helen Wildbore, director of the Relatives & Residents Association, has found from its helpline calls that relatives and friends play a vital role in spotting potential human rights violations, particularly around abuse and neglect. When they are locked out by bans, people in care lose crucial support: their advocate and confidante—they might be the only person they tell about their concerns. Sometimes residents are even threatened with eviction or actually evicted in reprisal for complaints about their care. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was told about a family whose mother was threatened with eviction after they merely asked to discuss concerns with the head office of a care home.
These are the kinds of abuses my amendment seeks to tackle and get over the problem that regulations are not sufficient. These regulations may specify the standards of care against which care providers are regulated by the CQC through its inspection process, but the CQC is not going to pick up individual complaints, so there is a gap. There is a strong case for a statutory duty of care sitting alongside CQC regulations to require care providers to facilitate such contact with families as is reasonably practical and to prohibit evictions where non-vexatious and non-repetitive complaints are in progress. In my amendment, I am not proposing that. All I am asking for is a review; an independent review charged with examining these options. I hope that the Government will agree that there needs to be some reflection on what has happened and how we can prevent this kind of abuse in the future.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I should like to speak to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Hodgson.
From the age of five, I was a child of general practice; it was my world. I accompanied my father on home visits, patients came to our house and the telephone rang constantly—my mother was the secretary and took all calls. My father loved his patients and they loved him. He knew them inside and out, and their families as well. He attended road traffic accidents, of which I have to say there were plenty, and he delivered babies at home—he never lost one. I remember him telling me one day when he came back from a birth that it had been a very difficult birth, but the mother praised my father for having helped her to produce a very healthy little boy. “Doctor”, she said, “we will call the baby after you. What is your name?” My father replied, “Lambert”. “Right”, said the father, “we will call our son Tom.” I mention this only because maternity has been the love of my life, and in this area relationships are critical to a safe and good experience. In my youth, maternity was part of general practice.
After being appointed much more recently to chair the maternity review for England by Simon Stevens—as he was then; now, of course. the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham—I was determined to introduce relationship care, sometimes called “continuity of carer”, where the final “R” stands for relationship. We have much respected and credible research from the Cochrane Collaboration in Oxford which shows that women who receive relationship care are less likely to have a preterm birth, less likely to lose their baby before 24 weeks and less likely to lose their baby overall.
We now have in the NHS 371 relationship teams with 2,355 midwives in place where the midwife provides all three elements of midwifery care: prenatal, birth and postnatal care, which is sometimes called follow-up care. In the James Paget Hospital, 90% of maternity care is provided through continuity and it has a waiting list for midwives to join the hospital. Through this initiative, we are transforming maternity care. The women and their families value hugely the relationship with their known midwife, and the midwives who are providing this care absolutely know that what they are doing is the right way to work. They would leave their hospital and go to one that provided such care if their hospital gave it up.
Listening to my noble friend Lady Hodgson, is not this what she seeks for general medical practice? Her amendment is well drafted and reflects an interesting report produced by the Royal College of General Practitioners, entitled The Power of Relationships: What is Relationship-based Care and Why is it Important? and published in June last year. In his foreword, Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the college, writes:
“COVID-19 has radically changed the face of general practice. We have moved from a predominantly face-to-face service to one in which most consultations are delivered remotely, either by telephone or video call … Remote consultations are certainly here to stay. For many patients, they enable quicker and more convenient access to a GP appointment, which of course is hugely important.”
But then he asks the following questions:
“But should speed and ease of access be our primary measures of effectiveness? They are certainly easier to quantify. But what about the quality of care? What about the relationship between doctor and patients which, to me, is the essence of general practice?”
He goes on to say that
“The evidence for the benefits of a trusting relationship is compelling—better patient experience; better adherence to medical advice, fewer prescriptions, better health outcomes, better job satisfaction for doctors and even fewer deaths.”
Indeed, he says that the relationship between the patient and their GP is as important as the scalpel is to a surgeon:
“If relationships were a drug, NICE would mandate their use.”
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I understand that I have overrun so I will say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that we should value general practice. We should build with the best. We should learn from the best. I know that there are hundreds of general practices; it is up to us to applaud them and cherish them and ensure that we see another era of general practice which is different but which values patients and relationship care.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, to which I have added my name. I shall speak briefly, given that that I am only an irregular participant on this Bill. This amendment is particularly important. I come to an understanding of general practice from a very different perspective from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as somebody who has only either received the care of a doctor or seen my parents receive or not receive that care.
When I was a young baby, I was extremely ill. I realise in these days where people talk about conspiracy theories about vaccines that this might be something that should not go into Hansard, but I had a reaction to the smallpox vaccine and my mother went to the public telephone box and called the doctor. The family doctor who came was equally concerned and brought a consultant from the local children’s hospital to our home to see me. That would be the sort of gold standard that we could only dream of now. However, it is the sort of care that we need to be looking to in terms of having a family doctor or a doctor in the community who actually knows individuals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, this is particularly so for the over-65s, when a range of issues might be beginning to affect them.
The situation today is so very different. The Minister in answer to an Oral Question a few weeks ago repeatedly said that everyone has the right to see a doctor in person and the doctor must give a clinical reason for refusing to have an in-person consultation. I assure him that this very rarely happens, because ordinary patients cannot simply ring up and speak to the doctor and say, “I need to see you”. They will get to a receptionist who will triage them and decide whether they feel that it is appropriate for this person to see the doctor, or to have a telephone conversation or maybe some other virtual consultation.
There is a real need, particularly for older people, to have the opportunity to know that there is a doctor who understands their medical situation and can join up the dots. Somebody who seems now to have low blood pressure might have that because of the previous set of medication that another doctor has prescribed for them. If somebody rings up and gets a telephone consultation or is sent a prescription without proper assessment, the danger is that the whole picture is lost and individuals’ lives can be blighted because they are not getting the medical care they need.
This is not the fault of any individual practice or of any individual general practitioner. However, we have ended up with a system where that traditional idea of a family doctor who knows their patients has disappeared, and somehow we need to get an element of that back. The other three amendments in this group in many ways fit as part of a suite because, if your GP knows that maybe you have early onset dementia or another sort of dementia and you need different types of therapies, they will know what to recommend.
Furthermore, if your GP knows that you have gone into a care home, visits you and thinks, “That person has lost a stone and a half in weight in the last six weeks”, a GP who knows the individual will be able to respond. Somebody who randomly sees a patient will not. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the other amendments in this group.
Finally, I note that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, comes immediately after the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. If anyone were minded to support assisted dying, they should certainly support the following Amendment 297A, because how on earth could any doctor reasonably say that we can sign somebody off when they have no idea who that individual is?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I would like to use one example to illustrate the importance of Amendment 291 in the name of my noble friend Lady Greengross, and her call for a dementia care plan. It relates to the second point: that the plan must recognise the different types of dementia and their specific care. It is also true that it needs to recognise the different groups of patients affected by dementia and their needs.
I am thinking from personal experience of people with Down’s syndrome. Noble Lords may know that something like 50% of people with Down’s syndrome who reach the age of 60 also have Alzheimer’s; there is some genetic connection between the two. However, the field of dementia has not really caught up with this yet. This is a developing field. The real importance of the plan that my noble friend advocates is that it constantly develops as knowledge develops about particular groups of patients and how they are affected.
The truth today is that patients such as the person I am thinking of are too often let down by the system, because too few clinicians understand the links between the two diseases and the particular needs of people with Down’s syndrome who also have Alzheimer’s.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the majority of these amendments, but I want to reflect on something that my noble friend Lady Greengross said about the lack of treatment for people with dementia. In fact, there are emerging treatments, and having had the benefit more than 40 years ago of working at a second referral unit at the Maudsley Hospital, I know that people who present with dementia so often also have quite severe depression at the beginning of recognising that they are losing some of their cognitive function. That can be treated very effectively and people can be enabled to live much happier lives for the first part of their care.
I want to give one other example. As a clinical nurse, I was called to help a unit that had severe problems. I do not think there was any maltreatment, but there was certainly a lack of competence in care in the place that I visited. There was a gentleman who was tall and extremely thin who, they told me, had two people with him all the time because he was so agitated. They could not get him to sit down to eat and his relatives did not want him to have any medication.
I am pleased to tell noble Lords that I got involved and we got a consultant psychiatrist in. The family were persuaded that a small amount of anti-psychotic medication might improve the quality of this man’s life. It did; his agitation significantly reduced and he was able to sit to eat. He lived for only another nine months, but those nine months were much happier than they would have been without that medication.
Although I firmly believe in all the social prescribing that we are talking about, we do not necessarily need a dementia care plan; we need a dementia care and treatment plan with an associated workforce development plan. Will the Minister seriously consider those issues?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 297A and 297D. I will be brief, because we have already had a very lengthy and wide-ranging debate. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, is important, and she has set out the case for a named GP very well. As people become older, they tend to develop a more complicated and interrelated set of healthcare needs, and a GP who has that overview and can liaise with the family is extremely important.
I will add two quick points that have not come up in the debate so far. First, it might sound like a statement of the blindingly obvious, but for this very desirable amendment to happen, there need to be enough GPs in the system. Frankly, I am concerned that, despite commitments from the Government to increase the number of GPs by 6,000 by 2025, there is no current plan for how this will be achieved. The number of qualified full-time equivalent GPs is smaller today than it was in 2015.
Secondly, in relation to health inequalities, it is matter of real concern that GP practices serving more deprived populations receive less funding and often serve much larger numbers of patients than GPs in more affluent areas. I looked at the figures, which I will not repeat, and there are huge disparities in the size of the lists that they serve. I feel that passing an amendment of this sort on continuity of care would most likely benefit patients in the most deprived areas. With this debate, and if this amendment were accepted, I hope that there would be more pressure on the system to relieve that very unhelpful trend.
Amendment 297D is an extremely important amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for raising it. I do not want to repeat what he said, save to say that I would see this review as a first step towards strengthening the rights of care home residents and their relatives to visit, to keep in touch and to spot the signs of abuse. We all understand how hard the pandemic has been. Most care homes have done their level best, despite a lack of access to PPE and testing in the early days. None the less, many of the visiting restrictions that have been imposed have far too often been blanket restrictions, rather than restrictions that took individual cases and individual needs into account.
We had the repeat Statement from the Minister last week on vaccinations, and we were told that there is now no limit on the number of visitors allowed in care homes. I can tell noble Lords that I have not been able to visit my mother inside her care home since before Christmas, because there have been continuous outbreaks of Covid. Often it affects only two people, but that is enough to shut the care home down. This is why there needs to be a more proportionate and individually judged approach to these things.
Finally, if we had a review of this sort and could strengthen rights, I would hope that we could also strengthen the human rights of care home residents, including self-funded residents who currently have no recourse to the Human Rights Act, which is fundamentally unfair.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I attached my name to Amendment 290 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, but I support all these amendments. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, on Amendment 291 were particularly important as an improvement, but it is still crucial that this is all looked at holistically.
I will confine my remarks to Amendment 290, which is about social prescribing for dementia, focusing in particular on music and the arts. We have discussed social prescribing extensively and I will not go back over that ground. However, I will note how much the Alzheimer’s Society website stresses the importance of music and the arts for the quality of life and care of Alzheimer’s patients, and dementia patients more broadly.
I want to join up a couple of dots. The amendment talks about ensuring that health professionals are aware of the benefits, but I would like to word it much more strongly to ensure that this is regarded as an essential part of care, not a luxury add-on extra—“If we can find the money we’ll do this nice thing”—which all too often is how it is regarded. On that point, I link back to my Amendments 237 to 239, which were debated in a previous Committee session, on ownership of care homes and the flow of funds into care homes, and the fact that 16% to 20% of money in the average care bed is going into financial instruments. If we took two-thirds of that money and put it into more traditional medical, social-type care, and put in some more money for carers to be paid a little better, we would still have some money left for this kind of social prescribing. If we look at that in this context, we see how we join all this up. We really need to stress that social prescribing is an essential part of care, not some luxury add-on extra.
In one more effort to join up the dots, I will make the point that often in your Lordships’ House different people work on different areas and things are not joined up. We have some noble Lords, particularly on the Cross Benches, who do a lot of work in the creative industries, which, financially, are suffering enormously through the Covid pandemic. There is something to be done here in joining up with government-funded projects that help people in the creative sector do some training and get some skills, to enable them to take their skills, knowledge, enthusiasm and energy into social care—thereby spreading economic prosperity and improving people’s quality of life. Let us try to join these things up a bit more and not look at them in silos.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I am very reluctant to intervene in this long debate, but I have travelled down from Manchester specifically for this group of amendments. I have not been involved with this Bill previously, partly because of my own ill health, and also because of my teaching outside London, but I will make a short intervention here.
My noble friend Lord Hunt has raised the very important issue of the nature of interaction between human beings, which is absolutely essential in considering some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others. I am not going to advocate music therapy, dance therapy, exercise therapy or art therapy here, because, speaking as an academic, one of the problems here is that we simply do not understand the truth of the interaction that makes these things work. One of the big problems is that really good randomised controlled trials are still very much lacking.
I am reminded, for example, of a very good randomised controlled trial, by Dr Nair in Australia, of quite a large number of demented people in a care home to whom he played music. From his results, there was no question but that the music, which was extremely tranquil baroque music from sixteen different composers, actually made them more disturbed, more sleepless, more angry, less able to eat their food and more likely to come into conflict with the nursing staff.
So it is very unclear what is actually happening in the brain. During the debate today we have heard claims made about changes in brain structure, but the truth is that we have not done sufficient research to really be clear about this. The research is very expensive, and one of the problems is that it involves very complex things such as time on scanning machines, for example—functional MRI. There is simply not enough research going on into the dementias—whatever they are—to fully understand the nature of what we are talking about.
I am not suggesting that we do not do music therapy but, speaking with my interest as an ex-chairman of the Royal College of Music, I say that we have seen that some of the things we do simply do not work or, if they do, it is not understood how. One of the things with music therapy, for example, is that you see individual patients interacting with somebody else, and it may be that the interaction is more important than the actual music. For example, watching musicians play in person may be better than watching them on a screen or just listening to music. There is a lot of work that needs to be done here before we can make big claims.
These are important amendments that are well made and well put, but we need to be really clear in debating this legislation that, until we understand the mechanisms—the phenotype—of what we are discussing, we have to recognise also that much more money is required for research into the dementias. That is really critical and there is a risk here of making legislation that will not fundamentally change the real problem that we are facing.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to say that Amendment 297A is obviously very desirable. But, as an economist, I have to say: if we implement this, who will be deprived? GPs’ time is limited and GPs’ numbers are limited, as we all know. Through much of my life in the NHS, all that the GP did for me was prescribe what I needed. It took about five minutes, and the GP did not even have to talk to me; they could look at the computer to find out who I was and what I was doing. It is, quite rightly, only people over 65 who need a caring GP, so we have to devise a system for those who do not need extensive consultation and familiarity with the GP but can be dealt with in a summary fashion. Perhaps we could have junior and senior GPs, so that we could release the senior GPs for this sort of work and have other people for prescriptions and simple tasks.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I was going to speak for two minutes but now I am going to speak for only half a minute. I have one question for the Minister. I know that his department has a small team developing the National Dementia Strategy. Can he can tell us whether any additional capacity is being planned to add to that small team doing this important work? Frankly, without a national strategy, the new ICSs will not be able to measure their performance in their dementia care plans against a national standard. The matter is urgent, because the position of people living with dementia has worsened during the Covid-19 pandemic and, while we are trying to tackle the backlog of treatments for patients with physical health needs, we must not forget those with dementia.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for tabling her amendments, which ensure that we consider dementia care in respect of this Bill and return to recognising the impact that the social prescribing of music and arts can make to dementia sufferers, particularly for patients at the onset of symptoms—although I also heard what my noble friend Lord Winston said about the research needed on this issue. Noble Lords have on many occasions stressed their strong support for Music for Dementia and Singing for the Brain, and it would be good to hear from the Minister what progress is being made. We have also had extensive debates on the importance of social prescribing, and of the arts across health and social care settings, so, again, I think we do not need to repeat what has been said.
On Amendment 291, the key thing is the call for the duty to be placed on each local authority and integrated care system to implement the National Dementia Strategy for their own areas. It is a timely reminder of the need for the promised National Dementia Strategy: can the Minister provide a publication date for it, and update the House on its progress and on the increased funding that the Government have promised will be provided for the implementation of the dementia care plan?
My noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 297D is a stark reminder of the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ concerns over the visiting bans operated in some care homes before the pandemic, following relatives’ complaints about their loved ones’ treatment and standards of care. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, stressed, we know that during the pandemic itself the ban on outside visits of relatives and friends caused huge anxiety and suffering among residents and their families alike, and it is very welcome that visiting rules have now been eased, although the need for maintaining PPE, testing and infection control routines and constant vigilance continues.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a long debate but it has touched on a number of different and important subjects. I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and her work.
I turn first to Amendments 290 and 291. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are absolutely committed to the rollout of social prescribing across the NHS. We exceeded the targets in our manifesto and the NHS Long Term Plan of 1,000 new link workers by 2020-21 and are aiming for at least 900,000 people to be referred to social prescribing by 2023-24.
NHS England, the National Academy for Social Prescribing and Music for Dementia have produced guidance for social prescribing link workers to expand music prescriptions for those with dementia. The department has also published two resource guides for social workers on embedding music in personalised social care plans for people living with dementia and their carers.
While the Government are committed to promoting the benefits of social prescribing of music and arts for people living with dementia, it would be inappropriate to focus in the Bill on one form of therapy. Instead, we rightly provide scope in the Bill for the NHS to undertake a range of social prescribing.
Turning to Amendment 291 and the need for a dementia strategy, I reassure the noble Baroness and others that the Government are committed to publishing a new strategy this year. As part of this, we will be looking at arts and music-based interventions. More broadly, the strategy will focus on the specific health and care needs of people living with dementia and their carers, including looking at dementia diagnosis, risk reduction and prevention, and—importantly, as noble Lords have mentioned—research. Our priority is for the strategy to be credible and shaped by a range of experts, including people living with dementia and their carers. At the end of last year, we established a stakeholder-led task and finish group to help develop the strategy and deliver it in a timely way.
Moving on to Amendment 297D, we fully agree that visits from loved ones are of vital importance to care home residents’ health and well-being. DHSC guidance emphasises that visits to care homes should be facilitated, based on individualised risk assessments. Care home residents should also be supported to nominate an essential caregiver, who may visit in most circumstances, including if the care home has been closed to visiting for any reason.
There is an existing process in place if a resident or their family are concerned that guidance is not being followed. We encourage anyone with concerns to raise them. That can be done both with the care home, which has a legal obligation to operate a complaints procedure, and with the CQC. The CQC will follow up on concerns and take regulatory action if needed. It has provided mechanisms for people to feed back on concerns over care. The CQC responds to all concerns passed to it, and can receive concerns anonymously via representative groups, such as Rights for Residents. Where those concerns have named the provider or service in question, the CQC has followed up the cases. Some 54 concerns regarding care home visiting arrangements have been raised during the pandemic. The CQC gained reassurance in all cases that visiting is now in line with guidance. In 12 cases the CQC secured this assurance by inspecting the service.
My department has not seen any data or reports on evictions of residents following complaints against care homes. If a care home were taking such action, it would be in breach of guidance. A complaint should not lead to a resident being asked to move to a different home, and the terms of evictions and processes followed should comply with consumer law, as per the CMA guidance. People should feel confident that complaining will not cause problems for them.
I recognise this has been a difficult time for care home residents. However, the existing powers in legislation are robust and give protection to those who need it. We therefore do not feel at this time that an independent review is necessary.
I turn to Amendment 297A. Continuity and oversight of care is crucial in meeting the needs of all patients, including those aged over 65. That is why, since 2015, all practices have been required to assign their registered patients a named, accountable GP. This GP must lead in ensuring that any GP services that they are contracted to provide, and are necessary to meet the patient’s needs, are co-ordinated and delivered to that patient. Practices must take reasonable efforts to accommodate patients’ requests to be assigned a particular accountable GP and must endeavour to comply with all reasonable requests to see a particular practitioner. Practices are also required to take steps each year to identify any registered patient over 65 who is living with moderate to severe frailty. The practice must undertake a clinical review of any such patient and provide them with any other clinically appropriate interventions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is right that delivering on this is linked to the number of GPs in the system. I assure her and others that the Government remain committed to growing the number of doctors. There were 1,841 more full-time equivalent doctors in general practice in September 2021 compared to September 2019. In 2021-22, a record-breaking number of doctors started training as GPs. I therefore consider that existing regulations already address the welcome intention of my noble friend Lady Hodgson, and I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendment for that reason.
I hope I have given noble Lords and noble Baronesses some reassurance on the amendments in this group and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to an extraordinary range of speeches and addresses. People have spoken from the bottom of their hearts. I am very moved myself by what I have heard. I thank all colleagues and Ministers who have spoken today. I will look very carefully at the record of today and come back, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Public health condition for investment in research into vaccines and other health technologies
(1) Any relevant research or development funded or part-funded by public finances is subject to the public health condition.(2) The Secretary of State, UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Intellectual Property Office and all public authorities must ensure that the public health condition is fulfilled in respect of such research or development and any material benefit derived from it.(3) The public health condition is that—(a) a proportionate share of any intellectual property resulting from the public funding (including intellectual property in all research, pre-clinical and clinical data, safety and efficacy information and manufacturing capability) is subject to Crown ownership and openly licensed,(b) a proportionate share of any private profit resulting from the public funding is re-invested in further public health-related research, and(c) any proportion of public funding is published and taken into account in relation to the setting of reasonable prices for the public procurement of medicines domestically and internationally.(4) In addition, the Secretary of State must utilise, and actively support other countries to utilise, the full range of flexibilities within the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) for the purposes of public health. (5) In the event of the World Health Organization declaring a pandemic, the Secretary of State must immediately—(a) waive UK-registered patents, industrial designs, other intellectual property rights, and protections relating to undisclosed information relating to—(i) vaccines,(ii) medicines,(iii) diagnostics and their associated technologies, and(iv) materials,necessary for combatting a pandemic internationally, (b) issue relevant emergency compulsory directions to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products, and(c) support and implement any proposal to temporarily waive elements of the TRIPS Agreement at the World Trade Organization to assist wider global manufacturing of and access to health technologies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause ensures public benefits in exchange for public financing of research and development. It would require the Secretary of State to support public health flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement and, in the event of a pandemic, domestic and international knowledge-sharing to combat the emergency.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 292 is in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and Lord Boateng, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I thank noble Lords from across the Committee and the People’s Vaccine Alliance—Saoirse Fitzpatrick of STOPAIDS, in particular—for their advice.
Last year, the Prime Minister lauded the successes of the UK’s vaccination programme as a result of “greed and capitalism”, but the virus-busting vaccines, treatments and tests were in no small part funded by taxpayers, supporting the work of scientists at universities, research institutions and small-scale biotech companies across the world. Over €93 billion of public money has gone into developing vaccines and therapeutics. The AstraZeneca vaccine developed at Oxford University was over 97% publicly funded.
Public investment at the beginning of the research process assumes the biggest risk at the point when there is no certainty that a product will be successful. It is only when effectiveness is clearer that big pharma swoops in and uses exclusive intellectual property rights to hold a monopoly over that product in the market. The risk is socialised but rewards are privatised and, crucially, monopolised. The NHS is paying twice for medicines: once for research and again through procurement.
Some estimates show the public paying for up to two-thirds of drug development, including research and clinical trials. Drugs are getting only more expensive, with estimates that the NHS procurement bill increased by nearly 10% over the last couple of years, to £20.9 billion. Yet there is still no guarantee of production at the volumes required to meet demand or that patients will be able to access health technologies at affordable prices, nor that scientists will be able to make use of the data, knowledge and technologies generated in the research process to develop improved follow-on products. Due to the opaqueness of the pharmaceutical industry, it is very difficult to track public funding. The terms of agreement, actual costs and prices charged—all these are kept behind closed doors.
The amendment seeks to change that for health technologies developed with public funding, as well as to define emergency procedures to expedite a sharing of research, data and intellectual property in the case of a pandemic. By adhering to the “public health condition”, the Secretary of State and all public authorities would ensure that
“a proportionate share of any intellectual property resulting from the public funding … is subject to Crown ownership and openly licensed … a proportionate share of any private profit from public funding is re-invested in further public health-related research, and … public funding is published and taken into account in … the setting of reasonable prices for the public procurement of medicines domestically and internationally.”
Open licensing would allow production in a competitive generic market, bringing down the price of medicines. A study published in the BMJ showed how the price of oncology drugs could decrease by between 75% and 90%. We saw this with ARVs for HIV/AIDS, and how crucial that was in fighting that pandemic by reducing costs from over $10,000 per person per year to under $100. Reinvesting a proportion of profits could ensure that they go towards health priorities rather than financialised practices or the development of me-too drugs—sufficiently different to obtain patent protection but without added therapeutic value, compared with existing products.
There is recent precedent for more transparency and conditionality around public funding in Italy and France, while the European Union is looking at how to track public funding and measure societal impact. Even our Government are beginning to think about public interest conditions for future pandemic tools to ensure access in low- and middle-income countries. This is a recommendation of the UK’s pandemic preparedness partnership’s 100 Days Mission report, published during the UK’s G7 presidency.
There are also circumstances where there has been no public funding but the price or volume restrictions of a product are preventing widespread access. In that case, the amendment calls for a recommitment to the use of pre-existing public health safeguards within the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—TRIPS—Agreement. These flexibilities include the use of compulsory licences when intellectual property monopolies prevent access to a medicine. They enable a Government to license another manufacturer to produce a generic or biosimilar version of a patented health technology at a much lower price. These can be used at any time by any WTO member; they have already been implemented more than 100 times between 2011 and 2016.
The need to use flexibilities has never been greater, with ever more drugs coming to market with a price tag of over £1 million per dose. For example, the NHS is currently paying a list price of £1.795 million for a single dose of Zolgensma to treat spinal muscular atrophy—SMA. It is the most expensive drug in the world, despite public and philanthropic funding. A Crown-use licence would permit the Government to allow a third-party manufacturer to make a biosimilar version at a discounted price.
We must also stand with other countries in the face of huge and unconscionable pressure from big pharma when TRIPS flexibilities are used. In 2007, we supported the Thai Government when they applied for a compulsory licence to produce a more affordable antiretroviral drug to treat HIV and were met with a threat from the pharmaceutical company AbbVie that they would lose access to all its other products. We could show leadership and solidarity again. Multinational corporations, whether tech, pharma or other corporations that noble Lords have considered in your Lordships’ House in recent times, warrant international democratic governance, regulation and restraint. Hence the last part of the amendment.
In future pandemics, we must not remake the continuing mistakes of this one. Monopolies which profiteer from poverty and sickness are bad enough at the best of times. But in a global emergency, when so many ordinary citizens, health workers and ethical businesses have sacrificed so much by way of livelihoods, liberties and lives, such conduct is totally amoral. Pharmaceutical companies’ refusal to share manufacturing know-how has led to grotesque vaccine inequity. Only 10% of people in low-income countries have received a single jab. So the amendment stipulates immediate action as soon as the World Health Organization declares a pandemic. The temporary—I stress, temporary —waiver of UK registered patents, industrial designs and other intellectual property rights relating to undisclosed information necessary for combating a pandemic, and emergency compulsory directions to enable domestic manufacturing, would mean that any company within the UK with the capacity could be making these products. It would allow products to be shipped internationally and allow companies across the world access to the critical data and rights to produce pandemic tools at scale for their own people.
The Indian and South African proposal to temporarily waive the TRIPS agreement is supported by more than 100 countries. It is only opposed by the European Union, Switzerland and our own Government. The waiver could allow the 100-plus potential mRNA producers across Latin America, Asia and Africa access to critical clinical data and manufacturing know-how required to make mRNA vaccines, without fear of litigation in the worldwide race to beat variants of the virus.
New treatments are in high demand, and high-income countries have already brought up the lion’s share. We will be facing a treatment apartheid on top of a vaccine one if the United Kingdom and others do not shift their position urgently. Just last week, it was reported that the director-general of the WTO, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was hopeful of a breakthrough in the long-standing waiver discussions. However, it is incredibly important that any compromise is not overly restrictive geographically or in terms of products or types of intellectual property.
The UK Government must stop saying that a waiver will take too long to implement while simultaneously blocking its agreement. They should end their group hug with the EU, Switzerland and big pharma and start embracing and empowering the global south and wider world. The line that temporarily waiving TRIPS will stifle future innovation ignores the public money that funded the riskiest parts of developing vaccines and treatments, and how innovation works. Sharing research data and clinical trials results with great minds around the world creates the conditions for competitive collaboration, vying to have the best results but also sharing lessons learned and supporting each other. This is how we have made great leaps in the past, as with the human genome project, where public funding supported a global collaboration which has changed modern science.
This is about improving access to affordable, life-saving health technologies for our NHS and the world to combat pandemics and improve health. It is about ensuring that we get the best from our biomedical innovation, especially when we are investing so much money and expertise and putting human beings through clinical trials. In a global health emergency, not sharing life-saving knowledge is as wicked as blocking access to emergency exits from a crowded building in a raging fire. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a former trustee of UNICEF UK and, before that, Christian Blind Mission, a global disability charity. I have seen first hand the two-tier system of access to global vaccines and medications. It is a pleasure to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, set out how, through her Amendment 292, the UK can fulfil its global public health responsibilities for investment in research into vaccines and other health technologies and how, in an emergency, companies developing these goods would also be required to help. She has introduced it in her usual effective and persuasive way. I suspect I am not alone in valuing her contributions to your Lordships’ House.
Throughout this pandemic, the Government have rightly congratulated themselves on their investment in research on the range of vaccines developed in rapid time and also the extensive, rapid clinical trials assuring their safety prior to approval. However, less satisfactory has been the UK Government’s view about their international moral responsibilities as a member of the OECD and one of the high-income countries with access to much-respected vaccination and pharmaceutical research. The World Health Organization has said right from the start of the pandemic that no country is safe until all are safe, but low and middle-income countries have not just not had the advantage we have; we have reneged on our promises to them over the last two years.
The UK Government repeatedly tell us that they have donated cash to Gavi and COVAX, but the reality is that we need to help those countries now to become able to manufacture their own medicines and vaccines in the light of emergencies such as future pandemics. The old adage of “Give a child a fish, feed them for a day. Teach a child to fish, feed him for ever” is so true. Here, the fishing rod is the skills to manufacture and sell medications in a future pandemic.
The TRIPS waiver, or intellectual property waiver, is supported by the World Health Organization and many large charities and countries, including the USA and others. However, as we have heard, the EU, the UK and Switzerland are not in that bracket. Its intention is to increase vaccine production in developing countries by sharing intellectual property for vaccines publicly for the period of that pandemic. It is needed because the data for November 2021, nearly a year from the first vaccine being delivered, showed that just 4.2% of people in low-income countries had received their first Covid vaccine. Across Africa, 6.3% are now fully vaccinated. COVAX has shipped just one-third of what it had expected would be available by the end of October—those expectations were based on promises from high-income countries. Export bans, manufacturing delays and bets on vaccines that have not received regulatory approval have also held up deliveries. Worse, we know that in this country we have thrown away vaccines rather than redirect them if we chose not to use them at a particular time.
It is time that the UK took a leading role in fulfilling the World Health Organization’s call. Now is the time to make all countries safe, not just for Covid but in preparation for whatever future pandemics may occur, and make sure every country is safe in the future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak narrowly to subsection (5) of Amendment 292, where it refers to the waiving of intellectual property rights and the protection of undisclosed information, and also where it refers to the waiving of agreements, all in an effort to assist global manufacturing. It provides a peg for me on which to hang the holy question of inadequate vaccine supply arrangements for third-world countries and, in particular, the need for greater manufacturing capacity, which would be assisted under a system of global waivers.
Two weeks ago, there was an interesting contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, where, in reply to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, he said,
“there is no evidence that waiving intellectual property protections would advance these objectives,”
those objectives being
“help with vaccine production and distribution.”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 8.]
I simply do not understand the Minister’s logic. As I see it, it is perfectly possible to manage such manufacturing requirements under directly monitored, subcontracted, licensee production arrangements.
In the same exchange, my noble friend and I went on to call for the 100 potential manufacturers in Africa—indeed, my noble friend has done it again today—identified by a number of charitable organisations to be encouraged to produce a Covid vaccine in approved plants under the subcontracting arrangements I have referred to. The Minister in reply, quite rightly, appeared preoccupied by ensuring companies were able to continue with “innovation.” I totally agree on that. That is a laudable objective that we all support. However, what evidence is there to suggest that in an entrepreneurial world, production under the carefully constructed management arrangements I have suggested deters innovation?
My suggestion in my original contribution was that it is perfectly possible to produce a vaccine and its subsequent product variants in dedicated production areas in approved plants and specialist facilities under the quality control of personnel seconded from advanced-nation producers. That is what I am asking for in the questions I have been asking repeatedly. What is the problem? How can that possibly destroy innovation as Ministers are suggesting? On the contrary, it raises greater challenges. It is a spur to increased innovation and, additionally, profit-taking, which I recognise is an important factor in funding research and development.
With less than 10% of the population in the world’s poorest countries being vaccinated under current vaccination production arrangements, we are prolonging the pandemic by leaving the door open to new variants. New variants will inevitably appear in under-vaccinated populations or, more specifically, in under-vaccinated ethnic groups which, often through a lack of available, detailed knowledge and under peer pressure, remain unconvinced of the need for vaccination.
I simply cannot understand the commercial, political or moral logic behind a failure to sponsor vaccination production under the arrangements I have outlined. We in the UK could be leading the world through this crisis if my suggestion was followed. We have spent billions on support schemes, much of it, sadly, wasted and lost in fraud. We could have spent much of that on vaccine initiatives. I think we are missing a trick, but it is not too late, as these pandemics are here to stay in one form or another. I appeal to the Minister to free up the market and pursue the strategy that I, and others far more significant than I, have been suggesting in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment raises major issues which warrant full debate outside the confines of the Health and Care Bill, but I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for providing us with this opportunity to consider them. I support the principle of the public health condition, as articulated in the amendment and as she described it.
The inflexible application of the intellectual property regime during the pandemic has been unconscionable. Huge numbers of people have died unnecessarily in low-income countries. Rich countries not only pre-empted and hoarded supplies beyond their reasonable needs but refused to relax the intellectual property regime to enable free manufacture of vaccines in low-income countries. South Africa and India led the appeal, on behalf of low-income countries, to the World Trade Organization to waive IP protections—patents, copyright, trade secrets. That appeal was rejected contemptuously and cruelly. The UK is among the culprits; the US and France support the waiver, but we do not.
The statement by the United Kingdom Government to the TRIPS council on 16 October 2020 is a piece of Mandarin cant: amoral, inhuman and disconnected from the realities of life and death for billions of people. Let me quote from it:
“Beyond hypotheticals, we have not identified clear ways in which IP has acted as a barrier to accessing vaccines, treatments, or technologies in the global response to COVID-19.”
The Covid crisis is not hypothetical. The refusal to support the free production of vaccines in low-income countries has had catastrophic consequences, yet still government Ministers repeat this theme.
The Government also said in their statement:
“A waiver to the IP rights set out in the TRIPS Agreement is an extreme measure to address an unproven problem.”
The pandemic is an extreme situation and the problem is staring at us—howling at us. At least 350 million cases of Covid have been confirmed globally, and estimates of the number of deaths from Covid range from 5.75 million to much higher figures.
The Government stated that:
“Multiple factors need to be considered … These include increasing manufacturing and distribution capacity”.
Indeed. But the response to this challenge by our Government was to cut aid funding massively, from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5% of a declining GDP.
The Government then said:
“The world urgently needs access for all to … vaccines … which is why a strong and robust … IP system … is vital.”
That is a non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.
The last quote I will give from the Government’s statement to the TRIPS council is this:
“The UK has played a leading role in … ensuring no-one is left behind”.
Do the Government really believe that? It seems to me to be beyond satire.
If we refer to Our World in Data, a website from the University of Oxford, for up-to-date figures, we find that in low-income countries 10% of people have had at least one dose of vaccine, while in high-income countries the figure is 78%. Africa has been most wretchedly left behind: on the continent of Africa 15.2% of people have had one dose and only 28% are fully vaccinated, whereas in the United Kingdom 78% of people have had one dose and 73% are fully vaccinated. It is not surprising that African leaders have complained bitterly of vaccine apartheid. How does the Minister refute that charge?
I feel profound shame at the behaviour of our Government; not only have they been morally purblind but they have been recklessly imprudent. Consider the economic consequences. The IMF has downgraded African economic prospects. Do we gain from the impoverishment of Africa? Think only of the implications for migration. Consider the diplomatic consequences. Africa has turned to China. How does our vaccine nationalism assist post-Brexit Britain to develop relationships around the world? Consider the health and economic consequences for ourselves. If we do not tackle Covid globally, we risk continuing damage to our economy, and our physical and mental health, as we reel in and out of lockdowns and restrictions. Consider the consequences for the world. Professor Sarah Gilbert has warned that the biggest threat is Covid spreading and mutating uninhibited in unvaccinated countries. No one is safe until we are all safe. Dr Hans Kluge, the World Health Organization regional director for Europe, last week demanded a drastic and uncompromising increase in vaccine sharing across borders. He stated:
“We cannot accept vaccine inequity for one more day—vaccines must be for everyone”.
The United Kingdom has not paid its fair share of funding to the WHO accelerator programme. The UK committed to donating 100 million doses through COVAX, but what we have actually done falls far short of that; at the end of 2021, the figure was 30 million doses. Does the Minister accept that our Government have acted appallingly? Will he accept Amendment 292 and will the Government incorporate its principles, wherever relevant, in policy and legislation?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 292 and specifically proposed new subsection (5)(c) on the TRIPS waiver.
I was going to make a few points of context but the last two speeches—indeed all the speeches so far—have set the context extraordinarily well. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has just said, Our World in Data tells us that, as of an hour ago, 66% of the world overall has had one dose but only 10% of those are in low-income countries.
When this discussion has been raised before—for example, during Questions on Monday in your Lordships’ House—the Government responded that there were practical problems with the proposal. Indeed, there are practical problems and it is not a magic bullet, but it is a first-class starting point. It is also a point that we then need to follow up with political will. I do not understand why the UK and Europe—with the exception of France, which has just said no to the proposal—have not put forward a counterproposal starting from this point. Why have they not done what some other noble Lords have talked about—something similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has suggested? Why not use this proposal as a starting point to do something for three big reasons?
The first of those reasons is the end game here. The end game is not about intellectual property but about dealing with the next pandemic, and the one after that. It is about having the ability to manufacture and make vaccines available around the world, quickly and rapidly, whenever there is a need for that to happen. That is what we are looking at.
Secondly, the point has already been made that the UK could play a much bigger role here and in the direct interests of the UK population. We are a global power in biomedical science and technology. We have produced some help; I note, for example, during our G7 presidency, the ability to offer some scope to other countries for sequencing variants. However, much more that is being done in this country could be expanded on. I think, for example, of the global pathological analytical service being developed in Oxford, which is basically a database for the sequencing of variants around the world, and is making the data accessible to everyone, free of charge; anyone in the world can send their data to it for analysis to be provided. So there are many things that the UK could be doing and offering as part of the development of a sensible plan for the future that responds to what low and middle-income countries are asking us to do.
The other big point here is that if the UK does not respond, others will. We have already seen the process of vaccine diplomacy during the pandemic, and the positioning of China and Russia in how they have been seeking to make friends and influence people through the use of vaccines. We can also see that countries will start helping themselves, and they in turn will break away from the consensus.
I am reminded of the very different epidemic of HIV/AIDS, more than 20 years ago. It is a very different disease, and the circumstances were very different. However, some of the responses were the same. To quote Dr Peter Mugyenyi, who was head of the HIV/AIDS response in Uganda in 2000,
“despite opposition by branded drugs manufacturers, and threats of punitive reaction, we took a decision to import and use low-cost generic ARVs from … India to save the lives of our patients”.
In a way, that says it all. Countries have that responsibility to their people, and they will go and do things.
Dr Mugyenyi goes on to say in the same article that at that point, the drugs were relatively expensive for Africa, but USAID, the US development agency, would not support their use in Africa because, it said, there was no ability to provide them to the population without the necessary supply chains. In an extraordinarily insulting and racist statement, the head of USAID said in 2001 that Africans could not use ARVs because they told the time by the sun. Two years later, President Bush moved that on, and President Clinton also intervened, with the result that antiretrovirals became cheaper. There is a process that will take place, whether we are a part of it or not. We do not know where this will end, but other countries will take their action.
The really important thing here is that the UK properly engages with this proposal, and puts in the counterproposal, whatever it is. It must be about working together, something along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about: licensing it, working with people, learning from each other and building that infrastructure around the world, which, frankly, we need for the people of the UK as well as the people of the world.
I hope that in responding to this the Minister will talk about how he sees that development happening in the longer term and how the UK will have an impact on what we all see as a shameful position where we in our richer countries have been vaccinated if we have chosen to be, but in low-income countries people have not had that opportunity.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It has been mentioned in your Lordships’ House numerous times that no one is safe until we all are safe. We have heard it many times in today’s debate.
I have voiced my concerns many times about the monopolies upheld by high-income countries that have chosen to retain scientific innovation and expansion by withholding the IP of the Covid vaccine. Low-income countries are in the position where they can manufacture their own vaccines, as there are more than 100 potential mRNA manufacturers across these countries ready to develop a vaccine, if they had access to the IP and the manufacturing know-how.
Too often the agendas of pharmaceutical companies are not aligned with positive public health outcomes. The public health condition aspect of Amendment 292 will help guide the Government to tighter stewardship around public funding to ensure that at the end of the development process, health treatments are both affordable and accessible to all concerned. I stand by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for this very reason, as its primary objective is to address the barriers that prevent poorer nations having adequate access to medicines at an affordable rate. We have heard many of your Lordships in the Committee today seeking to make the Government understand what is happening in lower-income countries and to support them and to ensure that action is taken when we say that no one is safe until all of us are safe.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow everyone who has spoken in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for so powerfully and clearly introducing this amendment, to which I was pleased to attach my name. The case has been overwhelmingly made, so I will not go over the same ground but will add a couple of points and draw some things together.
It is interesting that we started the day with the ARIA Bill. Concern was expressed from several quarters of your Lordships’ House about public money going into ARIA and whether we would see public returns from that money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, what we have seen so often is the socialisation of costs and the privatisation of profits in so many areas of research and knowledge.
I draw to the attention of any noble Lord who has not seen it a very useful briefing on this amendment prepared jointly by Just Treatment, STOPAIDS, Global Justice Now and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. That brings out two points, and it is worth looking at the national and the international. We have tended to focus on the international. Nationally there are some fascinating figures. The NHS pays more than £1 billion a year for medicines, but two-thirds of the upfront costs of producing those medicines come from public funding.
That is the national side. Looking at the international side, we have talked about and focused very much on Covid, but we really need to think about the fact that we are now in the age of shocks, in a world that is environmentally extremely disturbed. That is certainly a factor in the appearance of Covid; we have seen SARS and MERS, and there is Ebola out there. We need to build resilience into our world. We are talking about changing so many different things, and whether it is supply chains, medical supply chains specifically, or anything else, we really need to think about preparing for that different world, with the focus on resilience, rather than on private profits as it has been.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, asked an interesting question: why do we see the UK, the EU and Switzerland lining up against the rest of the world? The answer is there in profits, in an ideology that says, “We have to organise everything for private profits and somehow the benefits will trickle down.” It is interesting that today Michael Gove has gone on the record as saying that trickle-down has not worked; it is a failed ideology. Of course, there is also the impact of those profits being fed into our political system and the influence that that money and that lobbying have.
I will finish with this final thought. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said—and I think this reflects what other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said—that we have been utterly wicked in our behaviour towards the global south in the Covid pandemic in failing to ensure that it has crucial vaccines. We have also, as has become obvious with omicron, spectacularly shot ourselves in the foot. I say to those who will not accept moral arguments for this amendment: please look at the practical self-interest. No one is safe until everyone is safe.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for raising the crucial matter of countries and peoples left behind in terms of the opportunity to have a necessary vaccination programme available to them. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke of the importance of supporting innovation, which is one of the ways in which we can ensure that, while my noble friend Lord Howarth rightly said that the subject requires exploration outside of the Health and Care Bill—something also commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, who emphasised, as do I, the need for the political will to make progress.
There is no doubt, as we have heard today, about the gravity of the issues at stake and the need to resolve them. It is the case that where public funding is provided there must be conditionality, although of course that may be complex to refine into legislation. There are of course additional issues when funding is also coming from the private sector along with a need to ensure a balance of interests. It would certainly be helpful to have a stipulation that avoided placing undue bureaucracy and restraint on smaller developments and small-scale research. We do not want to see the pace of research slowed down with researchers tied up in lengthy proposal writing, contract negotiations and legal agreements.
As my noble friend Lady Lawrence has said, we know that the pandemic is not over until it is over everywhere, so the amendment raises the opportunity to explore whether the immediate waiver of intellectual property rights would mean an end to the pandemic everywhere. It is relevant to assess what contribution or otherwise intellectual property rights make to the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology. There is an advantage for producers and users of technological knowledge and the consideration of rights and obligations, and that needs to be considered in the round.
In respect of the response and actions to a pandemic declared by the World Health Organization, while I understand the intention behind the amendment, in order to be consistent I would comment with some caution about the Secretary of State being compelled to immediately take actions, particularly without any form of oversight—something that we will return to later in Committee.
However, I hope that today we can obtain some reassurances from the Minister about the Government’s intentions and plans in order that we can find a way forward so that low-income countries and their peoples have access to vaccines both now and in future.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for bringing this debate before the Committee today and for the heartfelt speech that she gave. The noble Baroness will be aware of the view of this Government following her recent Question in the House on the subject of patient waivers. As my noble friend Lord Grimstone set out, the Government remain open to all initiatives that would have a demonstrably positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. However, we believe that waiving intellectual property rights would have the opposite effect. Doing so would dismantle the very framework that helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen. It would risk undermining the continued innovation in vaccines and technological health products that is required to tackle a virus, especially as it mutates and evolves, so we believe that doing so would be a mistake.
Instead, the success of the Covid-19 vaccine rollout vindicates the value of public and private co-operation. While university research departments are great at research, large-scale manufacturing and global distribution are not their function, so we recognise the importance of their working with partners with expertise in this area.
The intellectual property framework is key to those efforts. It has incentivised the research and development that has led to the development of Covid-19 vaccines. It has given innovators the confidence to form more than 300 partnerships, an unprecedented number, and has contributed to the production and dissemination of vaccines and other health products and technologies across the world, with global Covid vaccine production now at nearly 1.5 billion doses per month.
I share the noble Baroness’s intention that research funded through taxpayer finances should benefit the taxpayer, but we do not consider that that is best achieved through particular constraints in primary legislation. Research contracts afford greater flexibility and more powerful levers than the amendment, through provisions such as those requiring the dissemination of intellectual property for patient benefit, revenue sharing with the Government of commercialised intellectual property, and requirements around access to medicines in the developing world. Contractual protection mechanisms in funding arrangements can also ensure that intellectual property funded by taxpayers results in the creation of taxpayer benefit.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 1st March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-II Second marshalled list for Report - (1 Mar 2022)
19:30 - Division on Amendment 9 - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 161 - Amendment 9 agreed.
19:44 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 12 agreed.
Baroness Penn
“the Armed Forces Act 2006, section 343AA (as inserted by section 8(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2021);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 1 of the Bill which renames the National Health Service Commissioning Board “NHS England”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will speak to the other government amendments in this group in his name.
Amendments 1, 76 and 77 are consequential amendments to two pieces of legislation that have been before Parliament during this Session. These amendments relate to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Armed Forces Act 2021, and replace references to clinical commissioning groups with references to integrated care boards, and references to the NHS Commissioning Board with references to NHS England. Amendments 110 and 126 are purely minor and technical in nature to correct small drafting points in Clause 79 and Schedule 16.
I turn now to capital expenditure. The Government have listened carefully to the debate on Clause 54, and Amendments 88 to 91 will ensure that the powers in Clause 54, alongside our commitments to publish further operational guidance, are in line with the agreement between NHS Providers and NHS England in 2019. These amendments limit the powers to set capital expenditure limits for NHS foundation trusts, so that they cannot apply for periods longer than a financial year.
NHS England will continue to work with NHS trusts and foundation trusts to ensure sustainable use of capital expenditure, and it is our intention that a capital limit would be imposed only if other ways of resolution have been unsuccessful. A limit would be set only where usual financial reporting returns identify a likely breach of system expenditure limits. We therefore expect that the vast majority of capital limits will be set either in-year or shortly before the beginning of a financial year.
I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring that these powers are used only as a last resort, as NHS England agreed with NHS Providers. I am grateful to both NHS Providers and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for their constructive work in ensuring that these powers reflect that intention.
I hope noble Lords will therefore be supportive of these amendments. I beg to move Amendment 1.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the government amendments. I particularly welcome Amendments 88 to 91, because the Bill will now reflect the agreement made with the NHS foundation trusts in a much closer manner than in its original drafting. They are very welcome.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I echo that statement and say how much I appreciate both the way in which the discussion was held and the end point whereby these amendments have now been placed in front of us.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and congratulate the Minister on a concise and accurate proposal of these amendments. Long may this continue.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been a welcome, consensual and short start to Report stage, which I am sure we will continue through future groups. I am not sure there is much to add, so therefore I ask that these amendments be agreed.
Lord Kamall
“Spending on mental health
(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 12E insert—“12F Expected mental health spending(1) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each financial year, publish and lay before Parliament a document—(a) stating, by comparison with the previous financial year—(i) whether the Secretary of State expects there to be an increase in the amount of expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards (taken together) in relation to mental health, and (ii) whether the Secretary of State expects there to be an increase in the proportion of the expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards (taken together) that relates to mental health, and(b) explaining why.(2) The Secretary of State must publish and lay the document before the financial year to which it relates.”(3) In section 13U (annual report), after subsection (2A) (inserted by section 29 of this Act) insert—“(2B) The annual report must include—(a) a statement of the amount of expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards during the year (taken together) in relation to mental health,(b) a calculation of the proportion of the expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards during the year (taken together) that relates to mental health, and(c) an explanation of the statement and calculation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish any governmental expectations as to increases in mental health spending by NHS England and integrated care boards, and requires NHS England to include in its annual report information about such spending.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will speak to Amendments 57, 78 and 109 in my name. We have heard impassioned and compelling arguments here and in the other place for the need for greater emphasis on mental health in the Bill. We have listened and, as a result, have taken action. The result is the package of amendments brought before the House today. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many noble Lords across the House who have contributed to the development of these amendments and the advice we have received.
Let us first turn to defining health. I assure your Lordships’ House that this Government remain fully committed to delivering parity of esteem between physical and mental health. We want to support everyone’s mental health and well-being. We are very aware of the impact that the pandemic has had on a number of individuals and communities, particularly the impact on mental health and mental health services.
Amendment 109 removes any potential confusion as to whether references to health within the NHS Act 2006 include mental health. We have made it absolutely clear with our amendment that references to health includes mental health as well as physical health. I know noble Lords will acknowledge that it was our view that the current references to health in the Act would have included mental health, but this amendment is important because it sends a strong signal that health must not just be associated with physical health. Mental and physical health are equally important, and our legislation reflects that fully.
On the transparency and accountability of mental health funding, the Government remain committed to our ambitions in the NHS Long Term Plan to transform mental health services in England. The NHS Long Term Plan committed to increase spending on mental health services in real terms by at least £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24. For each year of the current spending review period, the spend on mental health will increase as a share of the NHS budget. This is in line with the Government’s ongoing commitment to grow investment in mental health services faster than the overall NHS budget. Our amendment seeks to bring added transparency to this commitment and will better enable Parliament, stakeholders and the public to hold the Government to account for meeting this commitment.
The Secretary of State will be required to publish and lay before Parliament, before the start of each financial year, a document setting out the Government’s expectation on mental health spending for the year ahead. This document, a Written Ministerial Statement, will set out whether the Secretary of State expects there to be an increase in the amount and proportion of expenditure incurred by NHS England and integrated care boards, taken together, in relation to mental health, with a supporting explanation. There will also be requirements for NHS England and ICBs to include in their respective annual reports information about such spending to clearly demonstrate performance against expectation.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Merron and Lady Tyler of Enfield, for supporting amendments related to transparency and accountability of mental health funding in Committee, and for their constructive engagement since. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this Government are committed to delivering parity of esteem between physical and mental health. I hope that our amendments address the issues and concerns previously raised and that the House will pass them today. I beg to move Amendment 2.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, continuing the outbreak of consensus, a large number of mental health stakeholders welcome the fact that the Government have accepted these amendments, which draw heavily on amendments a number of noble Lords brought forward in Committee. I think I said at that point that they would represent a spine-stiffener for the Government in their commitment to ensure that mental health sees a growing share of the growing NHS budget and an accountability booster for the NHS. I think they do that.
However, before the Minister concludes on this item, will he say whether, when setting the mandate for NHS England for the financial year ahead—the mandate that will therefore be laid at some point within the next 30 days—the Government might set the mental health waiting time standards, the very welcome consultation on which concluded last week, in a way that other amendments in this group would look to advance? None of that should detract from the fact that these amendments have wide support outside this place and will make a real difference to mental health in the years to come.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 184, tabled in my name. I shall first respond briefly to the government amendment introduced as a result of the discussions in Committee, which set the context for my amendment. I welcome the government amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish his expectations about increases in the amount and proportion of mental health spending by NHS England and ICBs. I also welcome amendments requiring NHS England and ICBs to include information about spending relating to mental health in their annual reports.
However, it is stating the obvious to point out that their ability to do so is ultimately reliant on the Government—that includes the Treasury—prioritising sustained growth and investment in mental health. This is critical to avoid a widening care deficit in mental health and inequity between physical and mental health care standards. When I say “a care deficit” I want to explain briefly that the healthcare system is still operating in the context of a mental healthcare deficit, where not all those who need help and treatment will seek it or be able to access it and it is estimated that 1.7 million people are waiting to access mental health services.
That is the context of my Amendment 148. It is designed to build on the welcome government amendments and to provide what I call the critical third pillar of reform, which is service access standards. I welcome the measures that the Government have already taken in relation to access standards as part of the NHS long-term plan, but I believe we need to go a bit further and give them more teeth. Waiting time standards can play a critical role in making progress towards our shared ambition of achieving parity of esteem, particularly in service response times. Standards are a driver to secure the resources needed for services to be able to meet demand in an effective and timely way.
Key to the successful implementation of the service access standards will be two things: first, the funding to develop services in a way that means they can meet these standards without leading to unintended consequences, such as transfer of delays from accessing the system to further down the care pathway; and secondly, a clear expectation that these standards must be matched with a sufficient workforce so that the standards are delivering better care and not shifting problems further down the line.
Having these service access and waiting time standards underpinned by legislation would be a very effective lever for improvement by helping to identify where additional resources are needed. I have looked very carefully at the two points in the response published last week to the consultation on NHS access standards. I think the key points were clear: new targets cannot be introduced without additional funding to support them; respondents were generally strongly supportive of new targets in mental health; quality as well as speed of response is important; and expanding the range of the targets to include preventive and early intervention services would be beneficial.
I took heart from the news release that accompanied the publication of that response. I saw that the Minister for Mental Health, Gillian Keegan MP, said:
“Improving access to mental health services is a top priority. These new standards would help patients get support faster—including having a face-to-face assessment within one hour of being referred from A&E. I know there is more to do and that’s why we’re transforming mental health services in England with an extra £2.3 billion a year and will soon be launching a national conversation to inform a new long term Mental Health Strategy later this year”.
That is all very welcome. With such an endorsement from the Minister in the other place, I hope that the Minister will feel able to support my amendment, which provides that critical third pillar of funding, workforce and waiting time standards to ensure that all those aspirations become a reality.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I welcome all the amendments in this group. The importance of parity between mental and physical health is key, and I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that is the intention behind the Government’s amendments. The explanatory component of the amendment is important, but a question remains over what precisely constitutes mental health spending. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify this. For example, will the report on the expected change and expenditure by NHS England and the ICBs, and the comparison with the previous year, include other aspects of mental health investment not covered by the mental health investment standard, including dementia and learning disabilities? Will the Minister consider identifying in the report whether each ICB has increased the proportion of spending on children and young persons’ mental health, with details of any failure to increase spend?
Turning to Amendment 184, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, to which I also added my name, Dr Adrian James, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:
“These new standards will help patients get the treatment they need when they need it by setting more rigorous standards and generating vital data, helping to put mental health on a more equal footing with physical health. The standards will only have this impact if matched with similarly ambitious investment and action on the workforce crisis to ensure that no-one has to wait too long for the treatment they need. It’s vital the government provides further clarity on how it will support the implementation of these standards as part of the broader recovery from COVID-19.”
I would add that the range of treatments available in all localities needs to be thought about very carefully by ICBs, just as in surgical teams the right specialist expertise is required for each condition, with reasonable adjustments being made for people who have difficulties in accessing specialist services. I include here, of course, people with learning disabilities. It would be unfortunate if waiting times simply led to an increase in medication clinics, rather than the development of a gold standard treatment in mental health, which would include appropriate skills and psychotherapeutic help alongside appropriate social prescribing.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I want to reiterate a couple of points on this issue that I made at earlier stages of the Bill. I welcome all these amendments, and I am glad about the movement from the Government and that they have recognised the issues raised. Obviously, the key issue here is funding, and a move to better funding for mental health services within the health service is clearly important. It is also important that mental health is referred to in the legislation, and good that the standards have some statutory backing.
I have to express one concern: waiting times and access are important in and of themselves, but they are not a direct reflection of the standard of care. We need to do more work to understand how we can measure the standard of care being delivered by our mental health services. I have mentioned the issue of the differential mortality. I am sure that there are other issues, but mortality is something that I know a little bit about; those other issues could be brought in so that we directly assess the output as well as the input.
These amendments are important and will address the way in which mental health services suffer because of a lack of esteem. However, they are only treating the symptoms of this lack of esteem. We need to understand a lot more about why mental health, in all sorts of subjective ways, has not achieved a parity of esteem within medical culture as a whole. It is a deep-seated problem which needs to be addressed. The money and standards are important, but we need to understand a lot more about this differential level of esteem and how it can be addressed at its heart—not just by addressing the symptoms.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments and all that has been said already.
I will put a slight tone of reality on the size of the mountain which has to be climbed to get to the point we want to reach. I do not know how many people last night watched the Channel 4 documentary, “Emergency”, about four trauma centres. It is well worth watching if noble Lords want to see what the NHS is like now under pressure. I happen to know that, on one day last week in one of those major trauma centres, there were seven mental health acute patients in the emergency department but only one mental health nurse was present for all of them. One-to-one care should have been provided. There was nowhere for these patients to go; a further 20 acute patients also needed admission and there were no beds available in the hospital.
This illustrates that the intention behind all this is excellent and laudable—we are finally getting there. However, we have not got to the end of the road; we are just at the beginning. I hope that no one in the public, or in the service, has unrealistic expectations, because it will take a lot of work on everyone’s part to reach the goals we want to reach.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening very carefully to what noble Lords from across the House have been saying about the need to recognise the parity of esteem between physical and mental health, and for giving us some reassurance that the funding for mental health will increase in the future. A lot of mental distress has been caused by the fact that many patients suffering from mental ill health have not been able to reach the threshold for access to services. The reason for that has been a shortage of resources and a properly trained workforce which can deliver the therapies required. At the end of the debate, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that those resources will be made available.
My noble friend commented that she hoped that the new standards would not have the unintended consequences of transferring delays from the initial diagnosis to further down the treatment pathway. That is a very important consideration. We will talk about the importance of increasing the NHS workforce later in our debates. However, will the Minister consider how focusing increased resources on early intervention and prevention will save both money in the end and a lot of distress, as dealing with it early will save patients having to go into more intensive therapies further down the track? It is very important that any increased resources—or, at least, much of them—are focused on early intervention and prevention. I hope the Minister can reassure us of this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, if the role of your Lordships’ House is to improve the Bill, I feel that this set of amendments will achieve this. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for responding to the points which were made so powerfully in Committee and in meetings outside this Chamber. The range of amendments will take us further.
The Minister talked about the introduction of transparency and accountability, which are key in the efforts to improve the provision of mental health services. However, of course, improving transparency and accountability is not an end in itself; it is purely a way of getting us to the right place. What will be important is what this delivers. A step along the way to improving mental health services is definitely being made, but there is an awful lot more to do. For example, the Centre for Mental Health estimates that some 10 million additional people, and that includes 1.5 million children and young people, will need mental health care as a result of the pandemic. It would of interest to understand a little more about how the Government intend to make progress on this once the Bill receives Royal Assent. Will we see a recovery plan in the area of mental health services, backed by a long-term workforce plan, something which we will return to later?
On the policy to bring practice into line with aspiration, and on the funding for and redoubling of effort towards achieving parity, while we are talking about this on a national level, it would also be helpful for the Minister to clarify that it applies to all areas of the Bill’s implementation and that the new bodies set up by the Bill will be expected to treat mental health equally from the outset. For example, it would mean ensuring that the decisions about resource allocation, capital spending, waiting times and priorities were all taken on the basis that mental health must be valued equally with physical health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, was right to point out that we do not start in a neutral position, because we know that waiting times are considerable, standards of services need massively to be improved and the workforce needs to be strengthened in order to deliver those services. It is therefore extremely important that the Minister in putting forward these amendments undertakes to see the job through, so that we do not just have transparency and accountability for their own sake but we deliver for the many millions who will rely on those services.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank not only noble Lords who spoke in this debate but those who engaged with us throughout the process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, if the role of this House is to improve the Bill, we have learned much. As a relatively new Health Minister, I have learned so much from the various meetings that I have had with noble Lords, not only on this issue but on many others across the health and care spectrum.
I thank noble Lords who have engaged with me personally but also with my officials to make sure that we closed the gaps as much as we could. I am pleased to hear support from your Lordships for the package of amendments that I have brought forward, and I am grateful.
I stress that this package of amendments should be considered alongside the amendment placing a duty on ICBs to have an appropriate skill mix and experience necessary to deliver all their functions—I hope that noble Lords will look at those in that context—as we expect skills pertaining to the delivery of mental health services to be considered when meeting this duty at the ICB level as well as below that at place level. Many noble Lords have discussed the importance of place.
Amendment 184 would require the Government to report on our plans to improve mental health standards. Access to services is at the heart of the mental health commitments in the NHS long-term plan. The department, NHS England and NHS Improvement regularly report performance against existing waiting time standards in mental health, including improving access to psychological therapies services, children and young people’s eating disorder services and people experiencing a first episode of psychosis.
As noble Lords have acknowledged, last week NHS England and NHS Improvement took another step to strengthen mental health standards, publishing a consultation response following the mental health clinically led review of standards consultation. As noble Lords will know, this sought views on the proposed introduction of new measures, including five new waiting time standards, to support our ambitions to ensure that patients have timely access to community mental health care.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very detailed and comprehensive response to my amendment. While in an ideal world I would like to see an amendment or measure in the Bill on waiting time standards to complement the other work, I accept that there is an awful lot going on that the Government are committed to. I think we will need to monitor very carefully how effective that is, but I will not press my amendment when the time comes.
“Duties as to reducing inequalities
In section 13G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (NHS England’s duties in relation to the reduction of inequalities)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “patients” substitute “persons”;(b) in paragraph (b), after “services” insert “(including the outcomes described in section 13E(3))”.” Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment extends NHS England’s duty in relation to the reduction of inequalities in access to health services to cover people before they are patients. It also makes it explicit that the duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in outcomes for patients covers outcomes such as the quality of experience undergone by patients.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I will speak also to the other government amendments in this group, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall. Of the many critical topics we discussed in Committee, our debate on health inequalities stands out as one that prompted unanimous and emphatic agreement from all Benches on the need for us to recognise in the Bill the centrality of the inequalities issue. My noble friend Lord Kamall and I took it as our mission to respond to the compelling points raised by noble Lords by bringing forward government amendments on Report, which I now do. These are issues and points of principle about which the Government—not least my noble friend the Minister—feel very strongly.
As the House will know, we think it important to empower local health and care leaders to pursue new and innovative ways to tackle disparities in the most appropriate way for their area. However, we should not miss the opportunity to ensure that this Bill reinforces those intentions in other ways. The amendments are designed to ensure that the Bill fully reflects the strength of the Government’s ambition to address disparities by levelling up every area of the country.
First, we will put beyond doubt that tackling disparities should be an integral factor when making decisions across the NHS. This was something that NHS England’s four purposes for ICSs made clear. The triple aim duty was always intended to support achieving those purposes, and these amendments strengthen the duty on NHS England, NHS trusts and ICBs so that, when decisions are made by NHS bodies, consideration will always be given to the effect of those decisions on disparities. What does that mean? It means that NHS bodies should consider the wider effects of their decisions on the inequalities that exist between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being and the quality of the services that they receive.
We are also going further by strengthening the more specific duties that complement the triple aim. Disparities are not limited just to health outcomes or access; they relate also to the experience of the care that is received. For example, the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities reported that Asian patients are more likely to report being less satisfied with GP services than their white, black African and black Caribbean counterparts. These amendments seek to strengthen existing duties as to reducing health inequalities on NHS England and ICBs by explicitly including patients’ experience of care, the safety of services and the effectiveness of services to create a more holistic duty that addresses how disparities manifest themselves in health and care.
When it comes to inequalities in access to health services, we can go further. The duties currently focus only on people who are already using or accessing health services. This fails to address those who do not or cannot access health services—and, as we powerfully heard in Committee, these include many socially excluded and marginalised persons, who are more likely to have preventable health conditions. The point is fully taken, and we have therefore tabled an amendment to ensure that the duties placed on NHS England and integrated care boards as regards reducing health inequalities require the consideration of inequalities in access for “persons”, rather than simply “patients”. The intention here is to improve outreach, as well as access by socially excluded and marginalised groups.
Lastly, we recognise the crucial importance of information on which to base targeted action. The Covid vaccination campaign was unprecedented in the way that it focused activity on every community across the nation, especially where there were disparities in the uptake of the vaccine. Fundamental to that success was the ability to collect and analyse data from across the system so as to target resources in the most effective way.
Our amendment will require NHS England to publish a statement describing certain NHS bodies’ powers to collect, analyse and publish information relating to disparities in health, together with NHS England’s view on how these powers should be exercised. Those bodies will be required annually to review and publish the extent of their compliance with that view. We hope and believe that this will power the evidence-based drive to reduce disparities in health across the country.
I hope that, together, these amendments provide the reassurances that noble Lords sought from their various amendments tabled in Committee. In conjunction, these changes will strengthen the ability and the resolve of the health and care system to take meaningful and impactful action. I commend them to the House and beg to move.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for having introduced so thoughtfully and elegantly this important suite of government amendments that address the question of inequalities, I would like to pass to the Minister and the Front-Bench team the thanks of my noble friend Lord Patel, who regrettably is unwell, recovering from Covid-19, but who of course spoke with great insight and passion in Committee on this matter, and indeed has engaged actively with the Front-Bench team subsequently in ongoing discussions.
The noble Earl has done something quite remarkable and absolutely essential. There is no need to rehearse the very strong arguments that were made in Committee around the necessity at this particular time to ensure that every element of the National Health Service is able not only to focus its resource and thought quite clearly at the elements of the triple aim but to ensure that, in a tension with those important pan-NHS objectives, the system is never allowed to forget the importance of addressing the inequalities and disparities that regrettably continue to be an abject failure of the delivery of the healthcare system.
Her Majesty’s Government, in proposing these amendments, deal not only with questions of access and outcomes but ensure that data is appropriately collected and all NHS organisations are obliged to pay attention to those data and to act accordingly; that is a very powerful statement and a powerful act of leadership. But beyond that, in ensuring that the patient’s voice and the public’s voice is heard in these matters, this will set a new tone and new direction for the delivery of healthcare in our country, and Her Majesty’s Government are to be strongly congratulated.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise; when there are so many amendments in one group I can never work out just when people who are moving subsequent ones further down the line, as it were, ought to rise.
I will speak to Amendments 63, 65 and 67, and begin with an apology that I was not able to be here to speak to those in Committee. I too had a positive test, although I have to say that I had no symptoms. None the less, I was self-isolating, and therefore was not able to be present in the Chamber.
I welcome the amendments tabled by the Government. I chair the Public Services Committee in this House. In our first report, we looked at public services through the mirror of Covid. We noted and reported, and indeed debated in this Chamber, the significant uncovering or rediscovery of the extent to which inequalities in our society affect people’s health. I am pleased that the Government are responding with some of their own amendments.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
As gently as I can, I must point out to the noble Baroness that this not the occasion to move her amendments; we will come to that later. She has correctly spoken to her amendments in this group but we will come to them sequentially later.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, now that we are on Report, I must remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I rise to speak to Amendments 63, 65 and 67 in this group, to which I am a signatory along with the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top. I will not repeat the points made in Committee and this afternoon unnecessarily because I am confident that the Government are listening to what has been said and wish to see progress towards levelling up health outcomes and tackling health inequalities. It is the right thing to do.
I lend my support to three policy solutions in particular. The first is the significant opportunity presented by the forthcoming health disparities White Paper. The Government should not miss the opportunity that this presents because it can clearly set out how exactly they propose to lead on tackling the poor health outcomes of inclusion health populations. I hope that the Minister will work closely with the voluntary and inclusion health sectors to shape what the White Paper will say. Secondly, I support the idea of creating a task force from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to help drive forward the Government’s work to reduce health inequalities for the most marginalised. Thirdly, I urge the Government to take this opportunity to update guidance to specify explicitly that the NHS does not exist in a vacuum and that secure, safe housing is critical to an individual’s health and well-being. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that statutory guidance and the White Paper will reflect all these matters.
Having said that, these three amendments—Amendments 63, 65 and 67—are still important. I welcome yesterday’s letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, explaining the package of government amendments now also proposed. I am pleased that that letter confirmed the Government’s commitment to tackling health inequalities. It is very positive to see the reference to “persons”, not just “patients”, in Amendment 3 as an important statement of principle both for inclusion health and to improve outreach, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said earlier.
Progress has been made following Committee but I still seek reassurance from the Minister that the Government will dedicate the necessary time and resource to tackling the poor health outcomes of inclusion health populations, who can all too easily fall through the gaps in provision.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments. I declare my interest as chair of Look Ahead, a housing association that specialises in working with people with complex needs. I am delighted by the Government’s new amendments in this area—I believe that they go a long way—but I am disappointed that housing appears to have been omitted from the government amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for too long, as there is an awful lot of business to think about on Report. However, as I put my name to Amendments 63, 65 and 67, tabled by the noble Baroness, I want to press the Minister on the question of data.
I am advised, as I am sure others are, by really experienced charities, which say that one of the real challenges here, which will be a challenge for the ICSs when they are trying to do a great job in terms of compliance on disparities, is that the data on inclusion health populations is very incomplete. While there have been efforts to collect data on housing status, for example, that has been relatively incomplete and unsuccessful. So what I want to hear from the Minister is how we can be sure that through the development of this commitment to tackling health inequalities with an evidence-based approach, populations such as the inclusion health population are not invisible because the data is so difficult to collect. Is this something that the forthcoming White Paper could pick up? Will it focus on how the health system leaders will get the tools that they need to do a really great job for these populations, who have such complex needs and who really draw on the health service, A&E, et cetera, in a very intense way? There is such potential to make real progress, whether it is in the interests of people coming out of care, sex workers who are really challenged, or homeless people. We are all only a few steps away from that, are we not? So I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that drive to collect comprehensive data to inform this work can be channelled in some way through a forthcoming policy initiative.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister and the whole Front-Bench team for the way they have engaged with the House on the issue of doing something really serious about addressing health inequalities.
Many of us put down amendments in Committee: dealing with inequalities was dotted all over the Bill. We even suggested that perhaps we needed a quadruple aim—an additional aim. The Government have taken a different but none the less effective approach, and I really welcome the fact that dealing with health inequalities has been made integral to the first two aims of the triple aim.
The Government have done two things that I particularly welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned the engagement of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, with the Bill team on making sure that data can be collected. Without collecting the data, you cannot analyse or take action on addressing health inequalities.
The second thing, which the Minister mentioned in his introduction, is government Amendment 21, which is about the experience of people in the health service. He mentioned that the experience of people from an Asian background can sometimes be poor. I can give him an example of where that has been the case. My daughter has a friend, an Asian gentleman, who had a very painful physical injury. Very unusually, although his physical problems have now healed, he has been left with a mental scar because of his experience with the health service. This is very unusual, but he was not treated with compassion or respect. Indeed, it was more like discrimination—so I really welcomed what the Minister said about the importance of the experience of people from all demographics and ethnic backgrounds in the health service. It is vital.
I turn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. Like all noble Lords, I have been watching the television recently, looking at the pain that the poor people of Ukraine are going through and seeing children, mothers and whole families huddled in cold, damp cellars. Some of them are taking several days to drive to the border to go to a country that will welcome them, perhaps with even more open arms than we do. It occurred to me that those people, when all this is over—and let us hope it will be over very soon—will probably be suffering from mental and physical illness. It also then occurred to me that there are people in this country who have poor-quality housing, insecure housing or no housing at all. When you put those things together, it is not surprising to realise that such people will be suffering from more serious and more frequent physical and mental ill-health than the rest of us who are in good-quality, secure housing. So the noble Baroness has hit on some very important issues about health inclusion communities and about the importance of housing to making health, and we support what she has to say.
I end by sincerely thanking all three Ministers and the Bill team for the way they have addressed this issue of health inequalities, and I really look forward to it making a real difference in future.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, expressed that very well indeed. From these Benches, I say how much we welcome these amendments and thank the Minister for introducing them. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in regretting the fact that our friend Naren Patel—the noble Lord, Lord Patel—is not with us today. His speech on this in Committee was outstanding, as his speeches always are. In fact, the whole debate was the House at its very best in expressing its view.
We welcome these amendments, and I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 3 on behalf of these Benches. I was not as energetic as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who put his name to all of them, but that was a symbol of the fact that we supported all these amendments.
We support them because, as people have mentioned, they recognise the importance of addressing inequalities from the top to the bottom of the National Health Service, and of monitoring, counting and research—not a tick-box exercise to say that you are tackling inequalities. As I have mentioned before, I am a non-executive member of a hospital in London. In fact, I have just completed three days of its workforce race equality training. That was three days out of my life during the course of this Bill, but it was definitely worth while. It absolutely was not always comfortable, and nor should it have been. It did indeed raise issues, many of which were raised in research published on 14 February by the NHS Race & Health Observatory. It basically says that the NHS has a very large mountain to climb in tackling race inequalities and inequalities across the board. It is a worthwhile report, which I am sure the noble Earl will be paying attention to in due course.
I also want to say how much I support my noble friend in bringing forward her amendments on the homeless. Coming from Bradford, I am particularly fond of a GP surgery called Bevan Healthcare, named after the founder of the National Health Service. It was started by my local doctor in Bradford, who spent his spare time providing GP services on the street to the homeless. From that, the NHS was commissioned to provide a GP surgery specifically directed to the needs of people who are itinerant and homeless, working girls and so on. It is still there, and it is a brilliant example of how to deliver the service, and of the money it saves the NHS at the end of the day. As I think my noble friend Lady Armstrong said, if you get this right then people do not end up in emergency care or worse.
We hope that the Minister will respond positively to these amendments. I thank him, his team and the Bill team, who addressed this issue thoroughly and with a great deal of success.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very fruitful discussion and I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I especially thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Thornton and Lady Hollins, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in his absence, the King’s Fund and the Health Foundation for their contributions, both inside and outside this Chamber, in shaping this debate and the amendments before us.
Without wishing to repeat what I said earlier, I commend the government amendments to the House as they will strengthen the ability and resolve of the health and care system to take meaningful action on tackling health disparities. I next thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lady Morgan of Drefelin, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling their three amendments and for the focus they bring to the issues of housing and homelessness. I found the account of the experience in government of the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, and the work of Professor Aidan Halligan, whom I too remember with great respect, compelling. I agreed with so much of what she said.
Let me say straight away that the Government are committed to improving the health outcomes of inclusion health groups, as they are known. That is precisely why we tabled the amendment to expand the inequalities duty placed on NHS England and ICBs beyond simply patients to incorporate people who struggle to access health services such as inclusion health groups, but there is much more to say on this.
Lord Kamall
“Duties in respect of research: business plan and annual report etc
(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section 13L (duty in respect of research), after “functions,” insert “facilitate or otherwise”.(3) In section 13T (business plan), in subsection (2)(a), after “13G” insert “, 13L”.(4) In section 13U (annual report), in subsection (2)(c) (as amended by section 69(4) of this Act), at the appropriate place insert—“section 13L;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that NHS England’s duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research. NHS England is also required to explain in its business plan and annual report how it proposes to discharge or has discharged its duty to facilitate or otherwise promote research etc.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendments 4, I shall also speak to Amendments 23, 58 and 79 in my name. Before I start, I really should acknowledge the contribution and engagement of a few noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Patel, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh and Lady Blackwood for their constructive engagement with me and my officials.
We have seen the power of research as we have made our way through the pandemic, and research will continue to be essential. I agree that research needs to be embedded in the very DNA of the NHS. Earlier this week, I chaired a round table with a number of research charities and other stakeholders, and we all talked about the importance of embedding research into the NHS. A bit like the challenge I had when I was in academia, when you wanted more time for research but at the same time were told to get on with your day job of teaching students, likewise many clinicians are under the same pressures in terms of the day-to-day delivery of healthcare while wanting time for research.
We know that informed research helps to improve healthcare and health outcomes. It brings benefits to patients, staff, the NHS and the wider economy. We believe that integrated care boards will play a leading role facilitating and enabling research and fostering a culture and environment for research to flourish. To this end, the Bill currently places a duty on each ICB that it
“must, in the exercise of its functions, promote … research on matters relevant to the health service, and … the use in the health service of evidence obtained from research.”
I have, however, heard clearly from noble Lords that they want to see a step change in research. That is a request, or a plea, that I agree with, so rather than directly funding or conducting research, ICBs will primarily facilitate and enable it. However, ICBs will also have the power to conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research. This could include hosting or being a collaborating partner in research infrastructure.
I also heard from noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that it is not clear what a duty to promote research should involve. To that end, I have tabled Amendments 4, 23 and 79 to clarify that the meaning of “promote” includes “facilitate”. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his engagement. This highlights that facilitation is a subset of the range of activities meant by promoting research while retaining the breadth of a duty to promote research.
The duty is broad and could be met in a number of ways. For example, when exercising its commissioning functions, an ICB may select providers which have a proven track record of being research-active or can demonstrate the intention and capability to participate in research. The provision is also flexible so that bodies can develop the processes and structures that work most effectively, but we anticipate that ICBs would have dedicated research offices or teams to support their role in research and to encourage the conduct of research.
To ensure that research is fully embedded in local systems, we expect ICBs to consider research when preparing, with the responsible local authority, a joint strategic needs assessment articulating local research needs where they identify them. We would also expect ICBs to ensure that the joint local health and well-being strategy sets out how research needs can be met by the ICB. We have tabled Amendment 35, which is to be debated in the next group, to ensure that the research duty, along with other duties, is given particular consideration during ICBs’ planning of their strategies. We have also tabled a package of amendments to provide increased transparency, accountability and oversight of the research duties.
During the debate in Committee, my noble friend Lady Harding remarked that
“what gets measured gets done”.—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 47.]
We agree. Amendment 4 requires NHS England’s business plan to explain how it proposes to discharge its research duty and requires its annual report to contain an assessment of how effectively it discharged this duty. We have tabled similar amendments for ICBs. Amendment 55, also to be debated in the next group, would require that ICB annual reports must explain how the ICB has discharged its research duty. Amendment 58 would require that the NHS England’s performance assessment of each ICB includes an assessment of how well it discharged its research duty. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for listening and acting in the terms set out in the amendments in this group, which I support on research as far as they go. I have to express my disappointment that my noble friend has not seen fit to extend his bonhomie to NICE. I have therefore tabled Amendment 29, and I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel. As set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, our thoughts are with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who is unable to be with us today, and we wish him the speediest possible recovery. It is a great shame that he cannot be here today because we would all wish to pay tribute to his work historically as the forerunner of NICE. We are grateful to him for it. It is a great disappointment to me that he is not able to be here in person.
I also support Amendments 171 and 178 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I shall leave the noble Lord to set them out.
My noble friend has set out that the government amendments set a responsibility on integrated care boards to respond annually and to measure the research work that they have done. Quite frankly, I am a little concerned and gobsmacked as to why my noble friend is not insisting that integrated care boards do the same as regards NICE. The key provision of my Amendment 29 is:
“Within 28 days of any medicine or device receiving market authorisation from NICE, an integrated care board must update its formulary to include that medicine or device.”
I have set out other provisions, but the other one to which I draw attention is in proposed new subsection (3), which says that every year an individual ICB must report
“in a publicly accessible format”—
to me that would mean it being accessible on its website—
“all medicines and devices that have been added and removed from their formulary over the previous year and maintain an active list of all medicines and devices available on their formulary.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution on Report, I declare my interests as a member of the GMC board and president of GS1, the British Fluoridation Society, the HCA and HCSA.
I welcome what the Minister said about research and its importance, and some of the tensions between practical work as a clinician and the crucial importance of clinicians engaged in research. The amendments that he introduced are very welcome, but like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I am disappointed that he has not brought similar amendments forward in relation to NICE. One suspects that it is something to do with money; he thinks that giving away amendments on research is cost-free, whereas there might be a resource implication when it comes to NICE. That is a pity.
The noble Baroness has talked about a postcode lottery in this country on the outcome of NICE judgments, but we also have a European postcode lottery. The fact is that NHS patients have much less access to modern new medicines and devices than those in many other countries. Stats that I have seen on medicines suggest that, for every hundred European patients who can access new medicines in the first year they are available, just 15 UK patients have the same access. We know that even when NICE has given its blessing to new medicines and treatments, take-up in the NHS still lags behind that in other countries.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I were somewhat puzzled by the ministerial response in Committee in this area. We know that the NHS uses all sorts of rationing devices to prevent those new medicines and devices being allocated generally throughout the NHS, notwithstanding what NICE has to say—that is why I support the noble Baroness’s amendments. Essentially, my two amendments seek to build on the principles that she has referred to.
Amendment 171 relates to three issues which I think remain from Committee. The first relates to the links between licensing and reimbursement processes. Happily, the MHRA has established two new licensing pathways, ILAP— the Innovative Licensing and Access Pathway—and Project Orbis, for cancer medicines. This is very welcome; it is designed to speed up access.
However, the challenge with faster licensing decisions is that NHS reimbursement decisions need to speed up too, otherwise medicines can be placed on the market but cannot be made available to patients on the NHS. To its credit, the MHRA has designed this into ILAP, because NICE is directly involved in ILAP, and licensing and reimbursement decisions can be joined up. However, in respect of Project Orbis, there has been no such effort. Late last year, breast cancer patients faced the worrying situation where a drug, Trodelvy, which offered them hope, was licensed through Orbis but was not then available on the NHS. My amendment would therefore ensure that NICE acted to issue guidance on Project Orbis medicines as close to licensing as possible, as it does for ILAP.
Secondly, the amendment would clarify that NICE alone is responsible for determining its methods, as an independent body should be. In its recent methods and processes review, it concluded that
“there is an evidence-based case for changing the reference-case discount rate to 1.5% for costs and health effects. However, because of the wider policy and fiscal implications and interdependencies that are beyond the reach of this review, no change to the reference-case discount rate”
could be made. It further stated:
“Reducing the discount rate will make most technologies appear to be more cost effective.”
We are therefore in a situation where NICE wants to make a change to its methods, which would result in more medicines being made available to patients but is being stopped from doing so. That is not acceptable. NICE should be free to determine its methods, including the discount rate.
The final effect of the amendment would be to clarify the role that the current voluntary scheme, VPAS, and the statutory scheme play in reimbursement decisions. These schemes essentially cap the NHS’s expenditure on drugs, meaning the exposure of the taxpayer to spending on drugs is limited. The problem is that the health service then adds a whole host of other mechanisms to restrict access to medicines as well. My own view is that once we have VPAS and the statutory scheme in place, we do not need those other mechanisms.
Amendment 178 builds on this. I have already referred to the Project Orbis scheme. It has great potential, but unfortunately, as Gilead has pointed out, there is a lack of alignment across the system between government, the MHRA, NICE and NHS England, which has an impact on timelines for approval. This is particularly concerning in light of moves by other countries such as France to legislate to enable early access to innovative therapies prior to a cost-effectiveness assessment, with any difference in the final agreed price rebated by the company. We need an integrated access and funding pathway for medicines licensed by Orbis, prior to NICE approval, modelled on the French system, whereby companies rebate any difference in price following the decision by NICE.
The final point I will make is that we also need to deal with NICE capacity issues. In January 2022, NICE highlighted in its board papers that approximately 20 evaluations were paused in 2021-22 due to capacity constraints because of vacancies. This is despite increased industry fees paid for health technology assessments. While NICE’s vacancy rate has reduced, the same board papers note that:
“Organisational capacity continues to be the key risk for NICE ... strategy, and gaps in hard to fill specialist roles in a competitive global market.”
I would like the Minister to respond to this.
More generally, I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that he and other Ministers recognise that all these initiatives to speed up access, excellent though they are, will come to very little unless they can sort out the NHS side of things and get rid of some of these rationing mechanisms which have been put in place.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, I have added my name to the government amendments in this group. These amendments directly address the criticisms which we made in Committee that, as things stood, a duty to promote research lacked any real force. Since we made these criticisms, we have met with the Minister and his officials to try to strengthen this research duty and make it more meaningful and concrete. These amendments, and the others in the next group, are the result of our discussions.
The Minister has explained, and given some examples, how they would help. The importance lies on what new things the amendments put in place. They require the NHS to explain, in its business plans and annual report, how it proposes to discharge, or has discharged, its research obligations. They also require a performance assessment of ICBs, which includes how well they have discharged their research duty and their duty to facilitate and promote the use of evidence in research. I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement on the question of research in the NHS. I am pleased that we have strengthened the research duties of the Secretary of State and the ICBs. I am particularly pleased that progress will now be formally reported and assessed.
I should also mention that, in his letter of yesterday, the Minister listed a number of non-legislative measures either being taken or developed for facilitating or fostering a culture of research within the NHS, and for holding to account the people responsible for delivering this.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has asked me to say how sorry he is that he cannot be here today. He wanted the House to know that he supports the Government’s research amendments and is grateful for their co-operation in generating more research in the NHS. As the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has said, he is at home recovering from Covid, and I am sure that the House wishes him a speedy recovery.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my own declarations of interests made in Committee: I am chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research, chairman of the King’s Fund and chairman of King’s Health Partners. In so doing, I make particular reference to the King’s Fund, since the Minister, in closing the last group of amendments, indicated the contribution to discussion which the fund has made with regard to the questions of inequalities.
I strongly support the amendments on the question of research that have been put by Her Majesty’s Government, and so ably and thoughtfully presented and introduced to your Lordships’ House by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has summarised why this is so very important. Ultimately, a research culture needs to be promoted at the heart of the NHS, and these amendments go a long way to achieving that clear objective.
There is so much by way of other initiatives that Her Majesty’s Government promote on the funding of research and support to bring together different parties to drive the broader life sciences agenda. However, ultimately, this all depends upon an NHS which is strongly supportive of, and facilitated to deliver, that research. Without this commitment, there was a very real risk that, with the other priorities that the NHS is inevitably required to pay attention to, the need to promote and facilitate research would be lost.
In facilitating research, NHS organisations, the Secretary of State, the NHS board and integrated care boards will have to pay attention to not only the facilities provided but the attendant workforce questions, ensuring that a workforce is properly prepared and able to engage in the research agenda, that progress in that regard is properly reported and that the full benefits of a research culture and the output of research are available to patients throughout our country.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I support Amendments 171 and 178 in this group, spoken to so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do so as a former pharmaceuticals Minister and a former NICE Minister. The rather boring thing about all this is that the postcode lottery issue was alive and well when I stopped being a Minister, 15 years ago. It has continued to flourish throughout that time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does not exaggerate in any way how the NHS is quite creative at finding ways around implementing speedily some of the drugs and medicines recommended by NICE.
For a long time, part of the problem has been—Amendment 178 starts to make a move in the direction that I think has been lacking—that we simply do not monitor enough what has happened to NICE recommendations and the take-up of new medicines. It is not really built into the regulatory system. If we are serious about inequalities—I have listened to many of the debates on inequalities today and previously—and levelling up, access to new medicines is pretty important. I have a terrible suspicion that, if we looked around very carefully, we would find that the same parts of the country, year in and year out, are not taking up the medicines as speedily as others. The reason I say this is that we know from the regulator’s evidence that the financial and clinical underperformers are, much of the time, the same places, year after year. I suspect that these are many of the places we need to look at if we want to tackle the postcode lottery of NICE recommendations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I join the debate briefly to add my thanks to the Government for the amendments on research that they have brought forward in this group. It is extremely helpful, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, to entrench the concept of a research culture inside the NHS. In our various ways and guises, we have all encountered some of the difficulties of diffusing innovation and the take-up of new medicines in the NHS.
The point was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, but he did not say why the NHS does not adopt new medicines as rapidly as some other European systems have. I do not think we have more conservative clinicians than other countries, but we do not have a third-party payments system. We do not have a system whereby the patient can ask “What about this?”—these days, increasingly, they do—and the clinician can say yes, and pass the bill to somebody else. Instead, our system centrally determines the extent to which new medicines will be available. We have a particular requirement in the National Health Service for a system which looks for areas where there is value in innovation, disseminates it, takes it up and makes it available to patients.
I make two other points. One is to say thank you, as I am not sure I will get another opportunity to do so. We had substantive discussions about rare diseases; the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in particular spoke very well and fully about the needs involved, and the Government published their England Rare Diseases Action Plan yesterday. On orphan drugs, that will give significant additional impetus to the availability of treatments for those with rare diseases. I very much welcome that.
Secondly, Amendment 178 in particular is interesting. I do not necessarily advocate that we adopt it, but it asks the Government do something that they generally have not done and ought to do, which is to come back to the issue of access to medicines and treatments—and, I would add, to medical devices—and ask how well we are doing at the process of bringing that into effect and how well our Accelerated Access Collaborative, which is supposed to look at all these things and make them work together, is making that happen.
The beauty of Amendment 178, on which I will add just a little, is that we ought to have a very clear timetable for how we move the system forward. I hope the Government will adopt this. In January 2024, we will have the next voluntary pharmaceutical pricing and access scheme. The industry will be looking, rightly, to arrive at a position where all the initiatives mentioned give patients access to medicines in this country as soon as in any other healthcare system. On that basis, the industry will be prepared to understand that not just the NHS but the Government will look to get some pretty cost-effective prices out of it.
Now I do not happen to think that it is NICE’s job to make that relationship happen. I happen to think that NHS England is increasingly equipped to be a central player in this process. It should sit alongside NICE when it carries out health technology assessments in what is effectively a trialogue with the industry and say, “Well, how can we ensure that the patient has access to this medicine, and at what price? Can NICE act as the referee to establish whether the price and the incremental benefit are reconciled to be cost effective for the NHS?”
We should build that into the system over the next 18 months so that, when we start the new scheme in January 2024, the system is understood to work. It should not depend on large-scale transfers of money, with overpriced new branded medicines on the one hand being recycled back to the NHS to go into the innovative medicines fund on the other. This tracking of money around the system is not the best way to make it happen. We should aim for the industry to be paid what the health technology assessments and the NHS budget requirements mean is a fair price for the medicines it is providing—and that is what the industry should expect.
Everybody should be working to arrive at a position where, when a medicine obtains authorisation—in other words, when it is deemed safe, clinically effective and of good quality—and a clinician recommends it for a patient, the patient should have access to that medicine through the NHS. That is what we are aiming for. It has not always been true, but it ought to be in the future. We need a system that people, including clinicians in the NHS, understand and that supports their ability to prescribe medicines in that way.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to speak about this for very long, because I feel that I am the least well-equipped person in the whole Chamber to do so—possibly with the exception of the Minister, which is often the way and is how I felt when I was a Minister; I would stand up to speak about research and other huge subjects and everybody else in the Chamber who had spoken certainly knew a lot more than I did, and that is the case here.
Noble Lords may recall that the starting point at Second Reading and in Committee was that there was no place for research in the Bill at all—so I congratulate noble Lords who picked this up and ran with it, and, indeed, the Minister and the Bill team on taking it on board and producing these amendments. That is helpful; as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, said, it is about the future and it is exactly the right thing to do.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Hunt in their disappointment on the issue of NICE. They are quite right about the access and availability of medicine and devices to healthcare practitioners and that the system is still uneven; also, of course, nobody is asking how we are doing and whether it is working. It is a shame that these aspects have not been included in the Bill, but I suspect that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will probably live to fight another day.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken thus far in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for expressing her confidence in my ability to understand these issues; I fear that she may be right.
Turning first to Amendment 29, it is firstly important to note that it is the MHRA, not NICE, that licenses these medicines in the UK. NICE makes recommendations on whether the price that the NHS pays for treatments represents value for money. Access to effective new treatments for NHS patients is a priority for the Government. That is why we have committed to maintain the funding requirement for NICE appraisal of recommended treatments.
The standard contract also stipulates that providers must ensure that formularies include all NICE appraisal-recommended treatments. NICE’s guidance on developing and updating local formularies also clearly states:
“When a NICE technology appraisal recommends a medicine, adopt the medicine into the local formulary automatically, if clinically appropriate and relevant to the services provided by the organisation. This process should take place within 3 months.”
I believe that this represents a robust legal framework for ensuring compliance with NICE’s appraisal decisions. A stronger legislative requirement to include all NICE-recommended treatments on formularies within 28 days of a NICE decision would remove any flexibility both to vary the timescale where there are barriers to implementation, or where a product was not relevant to a particular organisation.
Turning to Amendment 171, NICE rightly operates independently from the Government, and key to this is setting its own procedures for developing guidance and recommendations. This includes setting its own discount rate, taking into account the wider policy and fiscal implications. NICE recently carried out a comprehensive review of its methods and processes for making appraisal recommendations, and the changes that NICE is introducing will ensure that its processes are fairer, faster and more consistent. I assure noble Lords that NICE already aims, wherever possible, to make timely recommendations on new medicines with draft guidance around the time of licensing, and final guidance within three months of licensing. However, NICE’s ability to issue guidance depends on an evidence submission from the manufacturer. It would not therefore be appropriate to place a requirement in legislation for a specified timeframe when that is dependent on other organisations.
This amendment would also require NICE to take account of a company’s membership of the Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing and Access, or the statutory scheme, in making its recommendations on medicines. These schemes have a very different purpose from NICE appraisals, which ensure that new medicines are clinically and cost effective, and they are time-limited, so would create significant disparities between medicines launched at different times.
I turn now to Amendment 178. I hope I can assure the noble Lord that arrangements are already in place to regularly review and monitor delivery against priorities and objectives, including through accountability meetings, engagement with external partners and public board meetings. The Government believe that regular monitoring through existing arrangements is the right approach and do not consider that a requirement to carry out a review is necessary. I assure the noble Lord that the changes recently introduced by NICE will make its methods and processes fairer, faster and more consistent, will ensure that they are suited to new and emerging types of technology, and will provide more equitable access for those with severe diseases. The vast majority of cancer medicines covered by the previous end of life flexibilities would also be covered by the severity modifier.
Placing requirements on NICE through primary legislation to use specified processes would fetter its independence to determine its own methods and processes, and it would be unfair to operate two different approaches at the same time. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord could also impact negatively on cancer medicines that were not eligible for the end-of-life flexibilities in their first appraisal but may be eligible for the severity modifier.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 13NA of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 13NA of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
Lord Kamall
“NHS England: duties in relation to climate change etc
After section 13NB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 5 of this Act) insert—“13NC Duties as to climate change etc(1) NHS England must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with—(i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) In discharging the duty under this section, NHS England must have regard to guidance published by it under section 13ND. 13ND Guidance about discharge of duty under section 13NC etcNHS England may publish guidance about the discharge of—(a) the duty imposed on it by section 13NC;(b) the duty imposed on integrated care boards by section 14Z43A;(c) the duty imposed on NHS trusts by section 26B;(d) the duty imposed on NHS foundation trusts by section 63B.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause would require NHS England, in exercising its functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I will speak to the other government amendments in his name.
We had a passionate debate on climate change in Committee. There is no doubting the profound relevance of environmental issues to the NHS; indeed, it is already leading the way as a health system in tackling climate change. These amendments will ensure that the NHS can continue in that vital work with the confidence needed to deliver. They place a duty on NHS trusts, foundation trusts, ICBs and NHS England to have regard to the Government’s key ambitions on climate change and the natural environment in everything they do. This could mean preparing thousands of NHS buildings to adapt to climate impacts, protecting and enhancing biodiversity across 25 million square metres of trust estate, or decarbonising the millions of kilowatts of energy used by trusts every year. I must emphasise to noble Lords that this includes decisions about the NHS’s procurement of goods and services. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, was quite right to underline in Committee that, according to NHS England’s data, the NHS supply chain accounts for some 62% of its emissions footprint. It is clear that the NHS will need to take urgent action to decarbonise procurement.
These clauses will give vital legislative grounding and confidence to the Greener NHS programme and further strengthen the commitments made by the UK through the COP26 Health Programme: namely, to develop climate-resilient, low-carbon health systems. Importantly, Amendment 7 includes a power for NHS England to issue statutory guidance on environmental issues to the system. As discussed in Committee, NHS England already has some targeted net-zero guidance in place for current ICSs, but the system currently lacks that critical statutory guidance that sets the direction for the whole NHS. We expect this guidance, in the first instance, to be issued within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
In developing these amendments, we have had to consider the excellent work NHS England has already undertaken on these issues and gain clarity over what value a legislative solution could add. This has included working across government with BEIS and Defra, while also looking closely at the individual amendments proposed by noble Lords in Committee. I believe the amendments tabled in my noble friend’s name achieve these aims, adding the right value in the right way, to the benefit of our natural environment, the NHS and the people who depend on it. I pay tribute to the work of noble Lords in helping us reach this position. I beg to move.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for supporting these amendments, which reflect the substance of amendments that my noble friend Lady Hayman, I and others brought forward in Committee. That debate rehearsed the health case for action very clearly, as we have just heard, so I will not detain the House by repeating that.
However, I think the events of the last 24 hours have underlined two other reasons why these amendments are so important. In addition to the health case, there is clearly a financial case and we also now clearly see the security and humanitarian case for action. The financial case was underlined by yesterday’s IPCC report:
“The financial value of health benefits from improved air quality alone is projected to be greater than the costs of meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
In respect of the security and humanitarian consequences, yesterday, the Government welcomed Shell’s decision to sever its relationship with Gazprom, yet Ministers may have seen an important story in the Health Service Journal suggesting that, over the last two years, at least 17 NHS trusts have continued to rely on gas sourced from Gazprom, which has confirmed today that it continues to get its gas supplies through Ukraine. Decarbonising the health sector will take pound notes out of the hands of dictatorial regimes that are engaged in acts of aggression. For all these reasons, the clarity that these government amendments provide, putting on a sound statutory basis the ability to take fundamental action across the NHS, is most welcome.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet and apologise to the House that I did not declare that interest in my enthusiasm to get involved in a Question earlier today. I added my name to Amendments 7, 28, 87 and 94 and obviously welcome the way in which the Government Front Bench has responded to the debate we had and the amendments we proposed in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Stevens said, there is no point in all of us going through the arguments, although I think he added a new dimension in his remarks today; that interplay between health and climate is an important one that we should not neglect.
The Government have done very well in providing a comprehensive suite of amendments that make sure that the considerations of not just the net-zero targets but the targets in the Environment Act and the needs for adaptation, which will be extremely significant in the healthcare field, will be considered at all the correct levels within the new infrastructure that the Bill brings into place. The assurances that the Minister gave on the guidance that will be published and on making sure that procurement, which is such a large spend by the NHS, will also be governed by these considerations are extremely important.
I welcome these amendments across the board. They weave considerations of climate and the environment throughout the ecology of the NHS, and it is an excellent result. The next challenge is to persuade the Government to take the initiative on these issues and to embed these considerations throughout their policies and legislation, which would save a lot of time in the House. But I do not wish to be churlish, and I end by simply reiterating my thanks for the way in which the Government have responded to these amendments.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness may wish not to be churlish, but I would regret it if I could not be a little churlish. I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust and vice-president of a range of environmental and conservation organisations. I thank the Government and the Minister for the assurances given. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, for his shuttle diplomacy between the churlish and the less churlish in achieving these very welcome amendments.
I will press the Minister a little further on what she said, just to make sure that we are completely clear. The guidance will be crucial, and I am glad to see that it will be issued initially within 12 months of Royal Assent. I just want the Minister to clarify that the guidance on procurement will cover the need not just to reduce emissions through the NHS supply chain but to secure the other environmental targets, such as those set by the Environment Act. The preamble says that, but I want to make sure there is clarity in Hansard that the guidance will ask for procurement to do not just the climate change job but the other job.
Although the duties on the trusts, ICBs and NHS England include climate change, adaptation to climate change and improving the natural environment, most of the examples the Minister gave revert back just to climate change. The proposed new section in the amendment is headed up:
“Duties as to climate change etc”.
It is the “etc” that I am rather interested in. I think we should spell out more clearly what that is.
Can the Minister assure the House that the guidance will include performance in all three areas—climate change, adaptation and the wider environmental objectives set by the Environment Act and in other places? Because of the massive threat that climate change represents, it is very easy—we all fall into this trap—to squeeze out focus on the other, equally vital environmental areas. We have to remember that if we want to defeat climate change, we also have to defeat biodiversity decline and a range of other environmental factors. I hope the Minister can give these assurances to the more churlish among us.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my speech follows rather neatly from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I will begin not by being churlish but by turning this around the other way and declaring my position as a member of Peers for the Planet and paying great tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who has so led the Government in the right direction on this Bill—as on the Financial Services Act, to think of a recent one before this. I would like to think that maybe it has got a little easier this time than it was on the Financial Services Act, so maybe we are progressing to the point where a Bill will arrive in your Lordships’ House with climate and environment already there, and we can just focus on trying to strengthen and improve it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I rise for the first time on Report and declare my interests as laid out in the register, particularly as a non-executive director of Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Trust and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches welcome this suite of amendments, with a caveat of clarification that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, raised, to do with not just the climate but the implications for the environment.
The reason we welcome this suite of amendments is that it is vital that there is mandatory guidance from the centre to all parts of the system in the NHS. The only thing I seek to push the Minister on is that she said the guidance would be out within 12 months. I ask that, as we are in a crisis and this is important, it is done as soon as possible. The reason for this—I have experience of it from Chesterfield—is that some of the procurement or building decisions made today will not come around for maybe three or four years, but the design and implications that start today have life cycle implications for both the climate and environment over a long period. So, I strongly push the Minister to ask that the guidance is out as fast as possible, and we do not wait for the whole 12 months.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am a member of Peers for the Planet and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on their engagement with the Government and thank them for taking their concerns on board.
I have previously raised the fact that a big way in which the NHS can reduce its emissions is by having energy-efficient buildings, and I should like reassurance that any new buildings and refurbishment of the NHS estate will involve highly insulated and low-energy buildings. There are so many things that the NHS can do by using low-energy lighting, reducing microplastics, using compostable single-use plastic or not using plastic at all and using microwaves to deal with clinical waste, because they are much more energy efficient. How will all this be reviewed after the Bill has passed? Will there be any reporting back on how well the NHS has been able to respond to this challenge?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and welcome these government amendments in response to the key concerns raised in Committee about the crucial importance of including the NHS’s duties on climate change and working towards net-zero emissions in the Bill, and the excellent supportive speeches today.
The amendments take on particular significance in the light of the stark warning in today’s UN report that climate breakdown is accelerating rapidly and there is only a brief and closing window of opportunity to minimise its catastrophic impacts. The duties rightly go across the roles of NHS England, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts in relation to the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, and address the need for those bodies to have regard to the need to contribute towards compliance with government climate change and environment targets. Of particular importance is the duty of each body to adapt to current or predicted impacts of climate change and, in Amendment 7, recognition of the importance of NHS England guidance on how the climate change responsibilities are to be discharged within the promised 12 months of Royal Assent.
My noble friend Lady Young sought reassurance that the guidance on procurement will cover not just the need for the NHS supply chain to reduce emissions but also include the key environmental targets. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure her on that.
Strengthening the law to integrate an active response to climate change through every layer of the NHS has been welcomed by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, representing more than 900,000 healthcare professionals. Noble Lords made clear in Committee that omitting sustainability requirements from the Bill would have been a missed opportunity to enshrine and enforce the NHS’s historic commitment to reaching net-zero targets by 2040, and we are pleased the Government have recognised that.
As we heard from all speakers, the NHS has made huge progress, but this is just the start and there is much more to do. The amendments reinforce the importance of action in those areas, particularly for the new bodies and processes the Bill creates, and that progress will need to be managed, delivered, tracked and reported at every level.
My noble friend Lady Young’s point, reinforcing that guidance on duties across NHS bodies must include not just climate change but also the improvement of the natural environment, is well made. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
In relation to reporting, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I understand from the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in Committee that progress is being made. He referred to NHS England’s green plans, and we are told that every NHS trust and interim care system is expected to have prepared a green plan and had it endorsed by its governing body. For trusts, the deadline for submission to ICSs was 14 January, so it would be good to know how they have done so far and how many trusts have submitted such plans. The next stage is for ICSs to develop “consolidated system-wide plans” by the end of the month, which will be
“peer reviewed regionally and published”.
Are we confident that ICSs will meet that deadline, and what is the expected assessment and timescale for ICSs to report back to NHS England and, subsequently, more widely on this vital issue?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their welcome for the government amendments, and for setting the challenge for the Government that there is always more to do.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on the additional points that he set out about the importance of decarbonisation, not just for the climate but for health, security and humanitarian reasons. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, that I did not say that decarbonisation was there to exclude other issues; it is just that that particular point related to that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is a pleasure to work with her on these issues when we look at Bills, including the Financial Services Bill as it went through, but I have noted her and other Peers’ points about the reactive or proactive nature of the Government’s approach to these issues in legislation.
I can provide the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others, with the reassurance that they seek that the NHS will have to have regard to wider environmental objectives in developing the guidance, and this includes, for example, biodiversity. That applies to procurement and any other guidance NHS England issues to the system using the new power. In my examples, I mentioned enhancing biodiversity and adapting to climate impacts, so I hope I was not inadvertently too narrow in how I spoke to the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is right that decisions are being made all the time that will have a longer-term impact, so although I cannot go further than the 12-month commitment, I am sure that the NHS will want to work as fast as it can to bring out the guidance within that.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Wheeler, asked about reporting, both on how the NHS will fulfil its obligations under these duties, and specifically under the green plan. NHS England will report on carbon emissions and progress against its wider objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me a number of more specific questions; if I have not addressed them, and those asked by other noble Lords, I will seek to write after today.
Lord Kamall
“Information about inequalities
(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 13S insert—“13SA Information about inequalities(1) NHS England must publish a statement setting out—(a) a description of the powers available to relevant NHS bodies to collect, analyse and publish information relating to—(i) inequalities between persons with respect to their ability to access health services;(ii) inequalities between persons with respect to the outcomes achieved for them by the provision of health services (including the outcomes described in section 13E(3)); and(b) the views of NHS England about how those powers should be exercised in connection with such information.(2) NHS England may from time to time publish a revised statement under subsection (1).(3) In this section “relevant NHS bodies” means—(a) integrated care boards,(b) NHS trusts established under section 25, and(c) NHS foundation trusts.”(3) In Schedule 4 (NHS trusts: constitution etc), in paragraph 12, after sub-paragraph (1A) (inserted by Schedule 4 to this Act) insert—“(1B) The annual report must, in particular, review the extent to which the NHS trust has exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views set out in the latest statement published under section 13SA(1) (views about how functions relating to inequalities information should be exercised).” (4) In Schedule 7 (constitution of public benefit corporations), in paragraph 26, after sub-paragraph (1A) (inserted by Schedule 4 to this Act) insert—“(1B) The reports must, in particular, review the extent to which the public benefit corporation has exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views set out in the latest statement published under section 13SA(1) (views about how functions relating to inequalities information should be exercised).””Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause requires NHS England to describe the powers of certain NHS bodies to process information relating to inequalities and to express its view on how those powers should be exercised. The annual reports for the bodies will need to state how far the functions have been exercised consistently with those views.
Baroness Thornton
“(4) Each integrated care board must set out in its constitution—(a) the arrangements for managing conflicts and potential conflicts of interest in such a way as to ensure that they do not, and do not appear to, affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes,(b) the process by which any appointment of a member to the integrated care board or any appointment to any committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board that has a commissioning function must be made so as to avoid the appointment of anyone who would be perceived to have a conflict or potential conflict of interest, and(c) the arrangements for ensuring that no member of any committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board who has a conflict or potential conflict of interest obtains access to information that might be perceived to favour the interest or potential interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This intends to ensure conflict of interest rules that apply to an ICB also apply to commissioning sub-committees.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group of amendments where the wonderful harmony that has so far filled the House, with all the fantastic concessions and discussions, comes to a bit of an end. It concerns the make-up of the ICBs. I am very grateful to the Minister and the officials for the range of discussions that we have had and, it has to be said, for the consensus that there was and the brilliant initiative by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which led to Amendment 31. I commend the noble Baroness and the Minister for that amendment, which very successfully looks to the future of how ICBs might work in terms of an audit of the qualities, skills and so on that you need on an ICB. This group, however, reflects the fact that the House is concerned about who serves on ICBs now; they are being formulated and appointments made right now, and the Bill is the only opportunity we shall get to influence who serves on them and how that works.
This group of amendments addresses that issue in various different ways. I feel particularly strongly in my support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bradley, for example. We have had a suite of amendments that have addressed the issue of mental health, but his particularly addresses the issue of ICBs. However, I will allow him to speak to that in due course.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, of her Amendment 9, which I signed. It is the first of a group on the structure and membership of integrated care boards—including the Commons amendments to which she referred. We agree with the noble Baroness and have concerns about the possible loophole of sub-committees. Before I go into that, I will add my thanks and congratulations to my noble friend Lady Walmsley on her excellent proposals for a skills audit and thank Ministers for agreeing to them. I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of the other amendments in this group that seek to ensure core representation from certain key groups within the NHS.
In Committee we had a lengthy debate on the roles and responsibilities of those who may have current or past connections with private sector providers. A key element of that debate revolved around the duties of board members and sub-committee members of the ICB to have its duties at the heart of all they do as they commission using public money. In his response to that debate, the Minister said that
“each ICB must make arrangements on managing the conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest, such that they do not and do not appear to affect the integrity of the board’s decision-making processes. Furthermore, each appointee to the ICB is expected to act in the interests of the ICB.”—[Official Report, 13/1/22; col. 1308.]
Amendment 9 seeks to clarify exactly what is meant by “each ICB” by looking at the structures for those that make decisions—which includes sub-committees. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, described the difficulties in the example of Virgin Care that demonstrate the loophole she spoke of.
I want to go back a step to the principles behind conflicts of interest. In 1995, the then Conservative Government adopted the seven Nolan principles of public life, which are applied to all who hold public office. Members will know very well that these key principles of personal and corporate behaviour are a golden thread running through the public service that any officeholder delivers, and health bodies are specifically included in the rubric of Nolan. All seven principles are absolutely intrinsic to how an ICB and its members will operate, whether at board or sub-committee level. To pick just two, they must have integrity, including not to
“act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits”,
and they must
“act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner”.
Amendment 9 expresses exactly the type of arrangement that a public-facing body, even a sub-committee that commissions public services, should have in place. I ask the Minister: would any Government not want conflicts of interest in respect of sub-committees of ICBs to be clear, unambiguous and strong? Is he really arguing that each board should not have that wall of protection in ensuring the integrity of its decision-making processes, as set out in proposed new subsection (4)(a)? Does he think that it is appropriate not to have an appointment process that avoids the appointment of anyone who would be perceived to have a conflict of interest, as in proposed new subsection (4)(b)? Does he also not agree that anyone who has a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest should not have information that
“might be perceived to favour the interest or the potential interest”,
as set out in proposed new subsection (4)(c)? If the Minister cannot answer those questions, I fear that some noble Lords might be concerned that the Government have abandoned the Nolan principles for some people on sub-committees who will make decisions on commissioning many millions of pounds of public funds. I look forward to his response.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful for me to speak early in this debate, since we believe that government Amendment 31 addresses some of the concerns raised by noble Lords. I shall, of course, listen carefully to the rest of the debate and respond in full at the end.
In speaking to Amendment 31, I thank noble Lords from across the House for the wide-ranging discussions in the Chamber on membership of ICBs. We are grateful for the discussions. Many noble Lords have offered their gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the suggestion on the skills mix. We accept the spirit of these amendments and agree that it is important that ICBs are populated by members with the appropriate range of skills and expertise. I know that noble Lords have heard this many times, but it is also important that we do not over-prescribe, as ICBs should have the flexibility to design their boards to meet their needs, while also ensuring they have the skills and experience necessary to properly discharge their functions.
We have listened, and I hope that the amendments we have brought forward, which require ICBs to consider these skills, knowledge and experience, address those concerns while also ensuring balanced, workable boards. When the amendments refer to the necessary skills, knowledge and experience, that is in relation to the discharge of all the ICBs’ functions, including those related to mental health, children’s health, public health, public and patient involvement, engagement with the voluntary, charity and social enterprise sector, and digital innovation and integration. Therefore, these amendments would help to ensure confidence that ICBs have the necessary skills and expertise to discharge these functions, while allowing them to retain discretion in how they deliver this. This approach has been welcomed by stakeholders, including the Allied Health Professionals Federation, which represents 12 professional bodies representing allied health professionals.
The second, connected amendment would ensure that an ICB reports on how it has discharged this new duty in its publicly available annual report. This will allow public scrutiny of ICBs and create confidence that they are drawing on an appropriate range of skills, expertise and knowledge. This is in addition to governance of ICBs being clearly set out in their constitutions, which will also be published and signed off by NHS England. As I have said, I shall listen carefully to the rest of the debate, but at this stage, for these reasons, I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments, but particularly to move at the appropriate time my Amendment 12. Again, I declare my health interests in the register, especially as a trustee of the Centre for Mental Health and an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
As we have heard, we had considerable discussion about membership of ICBs in Committee. I argued in an amendment that membership of ICBs should include a representative of a mental health trust. I also supported amendments stating that allied health professionals—who make up about a third of the health and social care workforce, within which speech and language therapists are a crucial service—should also have membership on the board. However, as we heard, the Government rejected the arguments, principally on the grounds that they made membership too prescriptive and inflexible.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 9, 10, 14 and 32 and will speak to my Amendment 11, which follows on quite nicely from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. It refers to mental health, public health and secondary care services as vital to be represented on ICBs.
As drafted, the Bill leaves the membership of ICBs very much up to local decision-making. The Minister’s Amendment 31 does not change that; it leaves it up to the ICB to decide what it should look like. My concern is that ICBs may be dominated by managers from a range of organisations, perhaps including private sector health bodies. If such ICBs are established—they are being created as we speak—the Minister’s amendment simply enables them to reproduce themselves over time. There will be a degree of transparency over time, but the amendment ignores key sectors and the need for significant clinical inputs to these boards.
Amendment 31 usefully provides an opportunity for statutory guidance to achieve important objectives. In his letter, the Minister made it clear that statutory guidance will clarify that the ICB’s annual report will cover ICB duties in relation to child safeguarding. I very strongly welcome that. Can he include mental health and public health alongside child safeguarding as very particular services that are too often neglected and really need to be represented on ICBs? If he can agree to include those key services in the statutory guidance, as he has included child safeguarding, I would be very content.
Why are these services so important? As I said in Committee, having chaired a mental health trust for nine years, I am acutely conscious of the importance of high-quality and available child mental health services in particular. Across the country at present, the scarcity of such services means that vast numbers of children with quite severe mental health problems simply never get a psychiatric service at all while they are children. These untreated children will have severe problems for the rest of their lives because of that lack of treatment. It is therefore crucial to have a psychiatrist, who will be very conscious of this, on these ICBs—any psychiatrist will be aware that you have to intervene early if children display mental health problems. That is why I feel so strongly about that; I have watched it happen over years.
Another highly significant field being neglected as ICBs are being formed is public health. As many noble Lords know, I am conscious of the huge impact that effective public health responses could have on drug addiction. Police services are increasingly aware of this and are diverting addicted young people to treatment and away from the criminal justice system. However, this approach assumes that treatment services are available in every urban area, but they are not—they have been dropped or cut. Having a public health consultant on every ICB is crucial if these difficult matters are to be properly dealt with and treatment centres are not just closed because they are inconvenient, or whatever the case may be.
The Government hope to control the growth in knife crime through punitive, serious violence reduction orders. We know from all the research in the field that they simply will not work. The Durham, West Midlands and other police services are way ahead of the game, and more and more police services are following them in showing how best to ensure that violent young people caught up in county lines gangs can be diverted into education and work and away from the criminal justice system. However, that assumes that there are treatment facilities available; otherwise it simply cannot happen. Again, please can the Minister include a public health professional consultant on the ICBs as a recommendation in the statutory guidance, as he has done for child safeguarding. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14 and 32 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Watkins. I want to give an example from my experience; I declare an interest here as independent chair of an oversight panel, reviewing for the Department of Health and Social Care the use of long-term segregation for children and adults with learning disability and/or autism detained under the Mental Health Act. I have seen the impact of very poor and unaccountable commissioning for this group, with very costly mistakes—costly in money and in terms of lives lost and lives destroyed—because of a failure of commissioning appropriate health and social care in the community.
Some commissioners, frankly, do not have the competencies to do their commissioning job safely. I make this point because—while I appreciate the value of Amendment 31 and its requirement that ICBs would have skills, knowledge and experience, keep them under review and take action if they consider that members are failing in some way—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, put it, it is rather looking backwards, or marking their own homework, as I might put it, when they do not know what they do not know. This is the problem and why these amendments propose going a little further.
I welcome the Minister’s statement that ICBs will be required or expected to have the appropriate skill mix and experience necessary to deliver all their functions. I understand that the Government will issue regulations regarding fit and proper person tests, which will apply to ICBs when established, including adherence to the Nolan principles, Without the inclusion of the specific skills and expertise required, however, there will be little oversight or accountability of commissioning competence.
I would like the Minister to think again, and to commit to regulations and guidance that set out the criteria and standards that members of ICBs must possess, recognising the responsibilities that they will have and the impact of their decisions on the health and well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Commissioners take decisions of extraordinary influence; they spend large sums of public money. Civil service appointments are made in accordance with a competency framework. There is no reason why commissioners should be exempt from meeting specific eligibility criteria—and not just in the clinical sphere but in the commissioning sphere, for which there is currently no professional competency laid out.
To give another example, later this month I will be sponsoring the Second Reading of the Down Syndrome Bill, the Private Member’s Bill from the other place that will require relevant authorities, including the NHS, to take account of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. During the Committee stage of the Down Syndrome Bill, the Minister committed to
“having a named lead on integrated care boards who will be responsible for the implementation of the guidance in practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/22; col. 642.]
Thus, representation of learning disabilities and autism interests on ICBs would be within the context of the duty of ICBs to ensure that they have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. Much will depend on the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under that Bill, which would fulfil similar obligations, I hope, to those of the autism strategy and the Autism Act 2009.
I reassure the Minister that I and other noble Lords recognise the challenge that the Government have in seeking to ensure that the new ICBs comprise people with the correct skills to enable the board to carry out its functions, but these amendments ask for a slightly stronger approach. I ask the Minister to assure the Chamber that guidance and regulations will address the requirement for criteria to be specified.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this rich and important debate, and particularly to speak to Amendments 10 and 13 in my name.
Commenting on the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, about the importance of public health, I would stretch that much more broadly than the examples that she gave. It really ties to the previous group, where we were talking about how climate change and the nature of the environment are related to health. A public health approach really is talking about ensuring that we have a healthy environment, that we prevent illness and malfunction. If we do not have that approach in the ICBs, that is a real problem.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, that government Amendment 31 is useful but not sufficient to deal with the issues that are raised by this group of amendments. The Green group very much agrees with Amendments 9 and 12 and will support them should we get to that point.
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC, which may be relevant here. In speaking to Amendments 10 and 13, I declare exactly where I come from. It was the Royal College of Nursing that persuaded me that these amendments should be here. It is very much the college’s case that I now present.
To begin with a little bit of history, as part of the statutory regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, it was mandated that registered nurses would be part of the governing body of clinical commissioning groups. If we look at Regulation 11 of the National Health Service (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Regulations 2012, we see that a CCG governing body must have at least one registered nurse within its membership. This will be lost if it is not required within the leadership of the integrated care boards.
This ties to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, that sometimes there are very powerful forces in medicine. It also relates to the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, about the powerful force of private interests in medicine. Other truly important voices often get swept aside. It is worth noting that in the NHS in England, registered nurses are more than 49% of all professionally qualified clinical staff. They have a unique relationship with patients and clients which gives them a different insight to other professionals on how the service works, and in ensuring that measurement of performance reflects the interests of patients and clients.
In representative volume terms alone, the case here is very clear. Registered nurses lead, innovate, and deliver the largest proportion of care, and their leadership brings critical expertise, advice and challenge into boards. Without this clinical leadership, there is a risk that service design and delivery become a matter of financial accounting, without proper attention being given to quality and outcomes for patients and clients, or that there is a focus on the heroic interventions rather than on day-to-day care or on the importance of rehabilitation, on which we heard a lot of debate in Committee and which is an area to which our registered nurses bring particular skills.
It is not my intention to move these amendments, but I hope that the Government will listen to the case being put by what is a hugely important professional body and a hugely important body of professionals, and that we see action taken after this debate to make sure that registered nurses are represented.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and to support those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who earlier described the need to standardise the knowledge and experience of commissioners, given the potential significance of their decisions.
The Government rightly suggest that there must be some flexibility so that integrated care board membership best reflects the competences needed to commission for local populations. However, unless regulations stipulate essential criteria for members’ collective skills, knowledge and experience, we risk falling into old habits of medical paternalism. That will undermine efforts towards more integrated, holistic care and mental health needs may be given cursory regard. The voices of nurses—as so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—and other professionals will not be heard.
I would like to share with the House a well-known quote in organisational management: “Every system is perfectly designed to get the result it gets”. We now have the opportunity to safeguard the diversity of experience in each integrated care board by establishing a minimum standard, imposed either by regulation or by statutory guidance, to ensure the system gets the result that best meets commissioners’ needs for local patients and populations across the country.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as well as supporting Amendments 9 and 12 and the rest of the group, I would like briefly to add my support for Amendment 31 in my capacity as patron of the British Stammering Association. This amendment is very much welcomed by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, for all the reasons that we set out in Committee. It would do much to improve the expertise available for these damaging difficulties with the basic human need to communicate and the capacity to swallow, so I hope the Government adopt it—I am sure they will, because it is a government amendment. I am very grateful.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, speaks, I congratulate her and the Minister on Amendment 31. I also want to ask a question. It very much looks as if the integrated care board is marking its own homework, because the duty to keep the experience of members under review is placed on an integrated care board. It is then for the integrated care board itself to make a judgment as to whether it
“lacks the necessary skills, knowledge and experience”.
Quite clearly, any board that has already appointed a group of members is almost certain, in undertaking its review, to come to the conclusion that it was altogether wise in appointing the members with the balance it did. Who is going to monitor this? Who is going to check?
What if you are a local nursing body concerned that nursing issues are not being debated and reflected enough within an integrated care board? What do you do? Who do you go to? As far as I can see, apart from judicial review proceedings there is absolutely no way you can get any change. That is why—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her work on this—you need amendments like my noble friend Lord Bradley’s to make some specification in relation to those critical areas where it is essential that the board has members with the relevant experience.
My second point for the Minister is this. In introducing her Amendment 9, my noble friend Lady Thornton essentially said that the Bill already lays out constraints on integrated care boards in relation to potential conflicts of interest. All she seeks to do is to extend that to sub-committees of the integrated care board, including place-based committees, which will commission a huge amount of health service provision in future. For the life of me, I cannot see how those sub-committees can be constituted under any different principle from that of the integrated care board itself. Unless the Minister really comes up with a convincing answer on this, I think the House should make its views clear.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution on Report, I begin by declaring my interest as the recently stepped-down chair of NHS Improvement and NHS Test and Trace.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend the Minister and support Amendment 31. In Committee, we debated in considerable detail the constituent elements of the ICBs. I think it hugely important that integrated care boards have a loud, strong, forceful voice for mental health, public health and prevention in all its forms, but I also think it really important that we enable a board to be a proper board.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, questions whether a board would ever assess its own competence and members. Any really good, functioning board in the public and private sector views that as one of its primary obligations. The first line of defence to ensure that a board is performing well is whether it is actually doing an assessment every year of whether it has the appropriate skills. Yes, you should have second and third-line assessments through the CQC and NHS England, but it is the role of a board, and we should let them do that. I believe that Amendment 31 holds these boards to account to do that.
The amendments we have already debated today, enshrining the obligations around public health, health inequalities and mental health, ensure that that is the clear objective of those integrated care boards. I encourage my noble friend the Minister to hold firm and support his amendments and not the others.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have expressed their support for Amendment 31 and my role in it; it is very kind.
I go back to how this arose. It is to some extent influenced by what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said in Committee. It was quite clear that many noble Lords were very concerned that appropriate levels of skills, knowledge and experience were on an ICB so that it would be able to carry out all the functions that the Bill puts upon it; not perhaps just the list that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned, because it was not intended to be an exclusive list. The amendment actually says:
“in order for the board effectively to carry out its functions”.
I think there it means all of its functions.
It was quite clear in Committee that the Government had set their face against prescribing all the different people who should be on a board. But there had to be a way of making sure that the board had all the necessary commissioning skills, and the knowledge and experience of all the areas of health services which that board had to deliver. The board had to have the duty to make sure it could do all of those things—perhaps without prescribing everything, which the Government are determined not to accept.
The solution came to me not just because of what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said but because of what my noble friend Lord Thurso said to me in private—not on the Floor of the House. He is a very experienced board chair. He called my attention to the National Audit Office advice on best practice in this respect and a paper on NHS leadership, which recommends something very similar: that the board must have the duty to make sure it has all the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out all its functions, keep that under constant review and report on what it has done and how.
It is inconceivable to me that, if ICBs had this duty, there would not be somebody who knew everything that needed to be known about mental health and public health to effectively commission those services. The duty to report is very important, to keep this in constant review every year and to report in its annual report on how it makes sure that it has got all those skills and that experience. I think the CQC would look very carefully at whether the board had actually carried out the duty put upon it by Amendment 31. If there were any gaps in a service which the board had to carry out, and it did not have the right skills, knowledge and experience to do that, the CQC would be very critical. I commend this amendment to your Lordships.
I will also say in concluding that on these Benches we also support Amendment 9. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, had a very good point. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, which I am supporting, is retrospective because it requires that, by the end of when an annual report comes around, the board has to show what it has done in respect of providing the right people to make the right decisions. From day one, what this House has done on mental health and how important it is, with the Government’s co-operation, is right.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, one has to start with the definition of the functions of the integrated care board in the Bill. It says:
“An integrated care board … has the function of arranging for the provision of services for the purposes of the health service in England in accordance with this Act”—
that is, in accordance with all the provisions of the Act. The idea that you must identify some of them in order that the thing should be perfect strikes me as damaging to the nature of the definition. For example, we had today at Question Time a Question about experts in eating disorders. Ought it be said that we must have an expert with clinical experience of dealing with eating disorders? Is it perfect without that? This is the nature of the board that is being set up: it has a generalised responsibility for all that the Act provides in relation to its area.
So far as Amendment 9 is concerned, it seems to me that the requirement in respect of conflicts of interest is part of the construction of the board itself. Therefore, it must be a restriction, if you like, on every committee and sub-committee of the board, because they are all part of the board and therefore subject to that definition.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said at the beginning about this perhaps being the end of the harmonious start to our debates so far, I feel that this has been a helpful and constructive debate. I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing these issues before the House.
Let me start with Amendment 9, as I understand the wide interest in the membership of the committees of the board and potential conflicts of interest. We firmly agree that conflicts of interest must be handled carefully, and have included multiple references to that in the Bill. We also recognise the concern that ICBs should not allow private providers to control commissioning decisions, which is why we added the amendment relating to private providers in the other place, in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2.
Furthermore, in the helpful discussions we have had with noble Lords since then, there has been mutual recognition that we need to balance the importance of protecting the core values and public nature of the NHS while not overly restricting the membership of ICBs. I am pleased that the amendment to Schedule 2 balances on that tightrope and gives appropriate reassurance. We think that it is reasonable to allow private providers and social enterprises to sit on some committees and sub-committees of the ICB, as barring them risks blocking sensible integration and joint working.
I am also aware of the mixed reactions to this amendment from stakeholders. Many noble Lords will have seen the NHS Providers Report stage briefing, which states that
“there could be circumstances where a local private or voluntary sector provider would be well placed to join a joint committee with a focus on integrated service delivery whereby the usual arrangements to identify and manage conflicts of interest would, and should, apply.”
It goes on to say:
“It does not seem reasonable … therefore to further restrict the membership of those committees in a way which is prescriptive in law.”
Further, the NHS Confederation stated in its Report stage briefing that this amendment
“risks critically undermining integration by reinforcing a rigid, out-dated purchaser-provider split and derailing the fundamental purpose of these reforms.”
As it so eloquently put it:
“The current reforms aim to facilitate collaborative working by bringing all partners in local areas around the table to plan the most effective and the most efficient way to deliver care. This, by its nature, involves bringing providers of services, alongside commissioners, into committees and sub-committees of the ICB to plan how care is delivered”.
Potential conflicts of interest are inevitable in commissioning, especially when we are looking to increase integration and bring multiple bodies together. The ICBs will be required to manage conflicts of interest as part of their day-to-day activities. That is set out in the Bill and will be part of their constitution as well.
For all committees, the board of the ICB will have to determine what functions they exercise, their membership, and the level of oversight of their decisions. The board of the ICB cannot delegate a function and claim to be no longer responsible for how it is discharged, and will be held to account for this by NHS England.
Also, ICBs will be clear and transparent about interests, and how they are being managed. We think that transparency will prevent poor decision-making. New Section 14Z30 makes it clear that an ICB must maintain and give public access to a register of interests for members of its committees or sub-committees. There must be arrangements in place to ensure that conflicts are managed not just for ICB members but within committees. The constitution of the ICB must also include the arrangements to be made to discharge the functions under new Section 14Z30 and a statement of principles to be followed by the board in this regard. This will all be supported by guidance from NHS England. We are quite determined to tackle conflicts head on and not shy away from this issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, if NHS England is determined to tackle conflicts of interest head on, why is it building them into the whole structure of integrated care boards? Let us think about an integrated care board discussing future strategy: it would inevitably discuss where the priorities will be. That inevitably means that money will follow the priorities. At what point in those discussions do the major providers, who will be sitting round the table, have to withdraw from because of a conflict of interest? At heart, this ambiguity is built in, so it is not surprising that my noble friend wants to see consistency right through the system, including the sub-committees.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention because I was just about to come to it. I should add that new Section 14Z30 very clearly requires ICBs to manage conflicts of interest at sub-committee level.
We think that the approach we have outlined will be more appropriate and possibly more effective than simply barring individuals with a conflict of interest—which, I encourage noble Lords to note, would also include NHS Providers and local authorities— from all committees with a commissioning function. First, this approach is broader than what the noble Baronesses might have intended. Secondly, many committees will have a range of functions, and commissioning may be only a small part of their activity. This approach risks creating a series of duplicated committees with similar interests to enable commissioning decisions to be taken in line with the amendment. This risks undermining one of the very purposes of this reform: to reduce bureaucracy and increase integration.
On Amendment 10A, we are clear that chief executive pay should be value for money. The pay framework is based on our ability to attract the highest-quality candidates. ICB roles, such as the chief executive, are some of the more complex in the health system. Experienced chief executives of trusts already exceed the suggested £150,000 per annum remuneration. Therefore, we do not believe it would be realistic to expect them to take a pay cut to take up a role with such a portfolio.
I remind noble Lords that putting the salary of an ICB chief executive into the Bill would be inappropriate. Such a lack of flexibility would be extremely unusual for a senior position and risks salaries declining in value over time, precisely as ICBs take on more responsibility as they become more established. This would fundamentally weaken ICBs’ ability to recruit and retain senior management. I also warn that directly tying pay to performance is likely to make it significantly harder to recruit chief executives to more challenging ICBs—precisely the organisations that we would want to recruit the very best leaders.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the recruitment process will ensure that only the most qualified people can take up these roles. All ICB chief executive appointees across England need to demonstrate how they meet—
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. I do not think we have debated Amendment 10A; it is not in this group.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I wish my noble friend had stood up the moment I mentioned Amendment 10A. I can only apologise. I have received advice to agree with what my noble friend said. I shall very quickly move on and I thank him for his vast experience of this.
Let me move on to a couple of issues raised about mental health. We expect mental health trusts to play a critical role in ICBs and ICPs. The Bill sets out a minimum requirement. It does not specify what sort of care NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts deliver. As we said earlier in the debate, we hope that ICBs by local agreement go beyond the minimum requirements. We clearly want to see parity of esteem between mental health and physical health.
Noble Lords mentioned public health. The department and NHS Improvement publications have stated an expectation of an official role for directors of public health in ICBs and ICPs. This recognises the vital advisory and leadership roles of directors of public health in the system-wide effort across all domains of public health, which is amplified by the shift to a more preventive, collaborative and integrated systems focus on improving population health. We are working very closely with stakeholders to shape this official role in relation to ICBs.
Can I just check that we talked about Amendments 14 and 32? Yes, we did. This is a more interactive session than many noble Lords would have expected. Perhaps it will do as a sort of novelty. I believe that Amendments 14 and 32 are aligned closely with the skills mix amendment, and I hope that will go some way to satisfying concerns.
On guidance, I am able to reassure your Lordship’s House that NHS England’s regional teams are having ongoing discussions with CCGs and will deal with ICB leaders about the potential membership of the ICB board on establishment. These discussions are focused on ensuring that the board will be effective in discharging the statutory duties of the ICB. Looking beyond this, NHS England is able to issue guidance to ICBs and will engage with them—to understand what issues are emerging during the initial period of operation —and their committees and how they are working with stakeholders. In some areas, NHS England is already developing draft guidance. For example, the proposal is that each ICB will be expected to have a named lead with responsibility for commissioning for learning disability and autism.
On regulations, we think the rules as currently set out in the Bill, and with the addition of the new skills mix amendment, are sufficient and will give ICBs the space they need to develop effective systems in their area. The Bill already includes a regulation-making power that covers any provision related to ICBs’ constitutions, including ICB membership. Therefore, if we deem it necessary in future to be more specific about ICBs’ membership requirements, we retain the ability to do so through regulations. I hope I have been able to provide some assurance—sufficient assurance—to noble Lords and that they will not move their amendments when they are reached.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I do not believe that the Minister has directly addressed Amendments 10 and 13. I am aware of the time, so perhaps he will agree to write to me about them.
Lord Kamall (Con)
That is a very wise suggestion by the noble Baroness, and I will acquiesce to it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on that suggestion.
I shall be very brief. This was an excellent debate, which proved that the House still has some reservations about ICBs and, if nothing else, it should tell NHS England and the 42 existing ICBs that we want them to do extremely well and to be powerful. Amendment 31 will help ensure their future prosperity and the diversity they need to do their job.
However, I am not content with the Minister’s explanation about my Amendment 9. I regret that NHS Providers and the NHS Confederation never bothered to speak to me about this amendment. They seem to have spoken to the Minister and a few other people and have been on Twitter about it. I think that is rude and it makes me wonder where their panic has come from. I do not think they need to panic about something which just adds consistency to the rules that govern commissioning and the spending of our money. I say with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who I did not see at the beginning of this debate, that if sub-committees are commissioning and spending public money, they should have the same rules as the ICBs. That is the crux of this. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bradley
“(d) at least one member with expertise and knowledge of mental health in the integrated care board’s area.”
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 1st March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-II Second marshalled list for Report - (1 Mar 2022)
“(ga) such other services or facilities for palliative care as the board considers are appropriate as part of the health service,” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would specifically require integrated care boards to commission such services or facilities for palliative care (including specialist palliative care) as they consider appropriate for meeting the reasonable requirements of the people for whom they have responsibility.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kamall, I beg to move Amendment 16 in his name.
The passionate and emotive speeches made on palliative care in Committee left a deep impression on me, as I am sure they did on all noble Lords. Since that debate, the Government have carefully considered the compelling points made by noble Lords from across the House, which we seek to address through this amendment. In moving it, it is right for me to pay particular tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who has done so much to drive this issue forwards.
We recognise that there are variations in access to palliative care services across England. Although we are clear that clinical commissioning groups have always been required to commission appropriate palliative and end-of-life care services as part of the comprehensive health service, we recognise the value of making that clear in the Bill in relation to integrated care boards. We know how important it is that people receive high-quality, personalised palliative care that is built around their individual needs and takes account of what matters to them and those important to them.
These services often include the support of a range of health professionals. For those with more complex needs, this will include access to multi-professional specialist palliative care. These teams provide the essential education and training in the field, supporting research and rapidly disseminating what works. Advice and support need to be available at all hours, wherever patients are, working in an integrated way with other services to ensure that patients can access the support they need early to avoid unnecessary distress.
To make this clear, Amendment 16 would add palliative care services to the list of services that an integrated care board must commission. The amendment clarifies that the commissioning of palliative care is integral to the duty of integrated care boards to commission their part of the comprehensive health service. I am especially grateful for the helpful and constructive way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has worked with Ministers and officials to develop this amendment. Without wishing to anticipate her remarks in relation to her Amendment 17, may I just say that, in our view, the kind of detailed provision contained in it would be better covered in statutory guidance, where it can be more fully explained and described? I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, are taking part remotely; I invite the noble Baroness to speak first.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17, to which I have added my name, but first I thank the Ministers for listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others, and for tabling Amendment 16. I also thank Together for Short Lives for its helpful briefing.
Your Lordships’ House had a moving debate in Committee that captured the practical and economic need for the wider range of provision of palliative care, and how ICBs can properly fund and plan for it. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said that
“ICBs will be required to have regard to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in their provision of services, as CCGs currently are … NHS England will continue to support commissioners of palliative and end-of-life care services through their palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical networks. These networks support the delivery of outstanding clinical care by ensuring palliative and end-of-life care is personalised for all.”—[Official Report, 18/1/22; col. 1637.]
The noble Lord’s Amendment 16 provides the specialist services we sought, but it says only
“as the board considers … appropriate as part of the health service”.
Although I join other noble Lords in thanking the Ministers for the amendment, please can the noble Earl confirm that, although the wording of the amendment requires ICBs to commission palliative care “where appropriate”, it is his intention that all ICBs should deem it appropriate, and therefore all of them should commission palliative care services, including for seriously ill children and their families? We know that the provision of palliative care services is very patchy. Will he provide statutory guidance to supplement the amendment and support ICBs to interpret their responsibilities, including for children? When will this be available? What action will Ministers take to ensure that ICBs have the financial resources needed to fulfil the new duty? Finally, what action will the Minister take to ensure that there are enough professionals with the skills and experience needed to provide the palliative care for children that ICBs will have a duty to commission?
We covered all this in very moving stories in Committee. Can the noble Earl confirm that all I have outlined will be covered in regulations and statutory guidance?
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am embarrassed to be called to speak ahead of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I understand that the Deputy Speaker does not have discretion to make their own judgment about the sequence of speakers, but I hope this rule can be looked at. As it is, I add my thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for tabling Amendment 16. He and the noble Earl have graciously paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone by saying: so should we all. Her vision and persistence have beaten a path towards the progress we can now make.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, observed in his letter to us that it has always been a duty of the NHS to commission appropriate palliative and end-of-life care services, and that commissioning palliative care is a core function of integrated care boards, these obligations have hitherto been honoured perhaps as much in the breach as in reality. Provision has been patchy, shall we say? I think the noble Earl said that there had been “variations”; indeed there have.
I also acknowledge that the NHS does sometimes provide exemplary palliative and end-of-life care. Many noble Lords will know that my partner Patricia, Lady Hollis, died of cancer in 2018. I express my deep appreciation of the quality of palliative and end-of-life care she received at the hands of the NHS. I particularly express my profound gratitude to her NHS consultant at the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital, Nicola Holtom, and her team, and to others providing community services, because it eased Patricia’s path and made a huge difference to all of us who cared for her.
Sadly, for all too many, including cancer patients, this quality of service has not been available. Indeed, for some there has been no relevant palliative care and end-of-life service. This could therefore be a historic moment, but it is far from certain that it will be. I of course accept that Ministers are acting in good faith, but the indeterminate drafting of Amendment 16 leaves rather a lot of wriggle room. For an NHS which is always short of the resources that it needs and that is struggling to cope with its existing workload, it remains a danger that the provision of palliative care will be sparse. The language of Amendment 16,
“such other services or facilities for palliative care as the board considers are appropriate”,
does not make it clear that it will be an inescapable duty of ICBs to ensure that palliative and end-of-life care is a universal service and that there will be a duty on ICBs to provide high-quality palliative care.
The Minister indicated that he does not expect to agree to write into the legislation Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which specifies in very useful detail what the nature of an exemplary service would be. He said that it would be better to do this by way of guidance. I am encouraged at least to know that it is the department’s intention to provide guidance and to set out models of how ICBs should set about fulfilling this duty. But what measures will be in place to ensure that this happens? What monitoring does he envisage? What reporting requirements will there be?
I have another question which I think is very important: how will the system enable patients and families to know what palliative care is available for them and how to access it? As things are, so often patients and their families are bewildered. They just do not know where to turn amid the complexities of the system, and they often feel discouraged by the responses they receive. They seem to observe the buck being passed between the NHS and social services and between different entities within those services.
I know that Ministers want to do the right thing, but it is important that we do not miss this opportunity to bring about the real thing. If we can be assured that the quality of provision will be as high as that envisaged in the noble Baroness’s Amendment 17, and that the department and NHS England will have systems to ensure that that is so, this could indeed be a transformative moment—a moment after which there will be the prospect that, instead of experiencing a bleak death, as so many people do, they will have a good death, and that will be an enormous consolation to their families, for whom, in their bereavement, the passing of a loved one is the greatest suffering.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare that I am a vice-president of Marie Curie and of Hospice UK. I am most grateful for the kind and generous words that have already been said about me and the work on this amendment. I must thank both Ministers, the team and the officials for all the work they have done on this subject. I also thank the charities Marie Curie, Sue Ryder, Hospice UK, Alzheimer’s Society and Together for Short Lives, and particularly those people who have generously shared their experiences of supporting someone they love who is living with a terminal illness.
Palliative care is not an add-on or aftercare, but must be integrated as an essential part of NHS provision. As we move forward, I want to pick up the point that the provision of services for people who need palliative care must include specialist palliative care as core. Specialist care is provided by multiprofessional teams. These doctors and nurses have specialist training, usually working with allied health professionals who also have become specialised in their way. Hospice care assistants in health and social care have also been specially trained, and others, including multidenominational services and counselling and bereavement support for children and adults, are all part of the wider provision.
People need support in every setting, whether at home or in a care home, hospital, hospice or some other community setting, which includes places such as prisons. In all these settings, the specialist palliative care team works with local clinicians to provide expert advice at all times of the day, every day, supporting health and social care professionals who are providing care to the person and their family. Sadly, as has been said, palliative care is currently patchy, and it must be available wherever people are, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said in his remarks. It must be available for all ages, to reflect on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
My Amendment 17 sets out the criteria for specialist multiprofessional palliative care services, based on the World Health Organization commissioning guidance. I hope it will act as a guide to all integrated care boards in determining what they will now commission and from whom. In many areas, their local hospice services will be able to have a better contract, spelling out what is expected of them and what is available to them by better integration. In some other areas, services will need to be grown and developed over time.
The charitable hospice world is committed to working with the NHS in an integrated way, leaving the charity free to fundraise for whatever additional, non-core services should be provided to improve the quality of life of patients and their families in their area. Where there are specialist beds, usually in a local hospice, they need to be able to take patients on an urgent basis, as disease does not respect the clock or the calendar.
Specialist palliative care has an important role in supporting the education and training of the health and social care workforce in the area at all levels, as has been said, as well as supporting and participating in relevant research and disseminating evidence-based innovations for rapid rollout. As services develop and move forward, being linked to a What Works centre initiative will help ensure that there is rapid dissemination of new knowledge and skills. Integrated palliative care services can provide support to ensure the right skilled workforce, equipment and medication are available, with a point of contact for people with palliative care needs if their usual source of support is not accessible.
This is all in place in some areas already, with appropriate systems to share information with the person’s consent, to ensure that all professionals involved know about that person’s needs and what matters to them and their family. As services develop, that will be of great benefit in ensuring that the core team members, if provided through a hospice, have honorary contracts so that they can go into NHS hospitals and provide support as needed, as we saw during the peak of the pandemic. At that time, it was said that palliative care had come into its own, providing support in intensive care units, high dependency units and emergency departments, as well as in the community and on wards.
May I share with the House the fact that I have had correspondence of jubilation from colleagues in palliative care, because this recognition means that they feel they finally have equal status with other NHS services and can integrate better, whether with oncology, neurology, cardiology, surgery, anaesthetics and many other services? Such integration can ensure that patients get what they need when they need it, whether it is radiotherapy to relieve bone pain or halt a spinal cord compression or an urgent nerve block or a surgical opinion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her outstanding work in this area. I was very moved by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Howarth in tribute to the care given to Baroness Hollis, who was such a tremendous force for good in your Lordships’ Chamber over many years.
Can the noble Earl clarify the point that has already been raised? In the letter from Ministers of 26 February it was said that the amendment would add palliative care services to the list of services that an ICB must commission. On the face of it, the amendment seems rather more permissive. Proposed new subsection 3(1) in Clause 16 states:
“An integrated care board must arrange for the provision of the following to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility”.
There is then a list, which starts with “hospital accommodation”, which the ICB must arrange for—then on page 17 are a couple of provisions that seem rather more permissive.
The nub of the issue is this: we have fantastic palliative care in the mainly voluntary sector as well as in the National Health Service itself, but it is very patchy. The health service has been very reluctant to give long-term certainty to hospices and other providers of palliative care services, insisting on short-term contracts. The real question to the noble Earl is this: will this change as a result of this amendment? Where is the beef that will actually get the message across that we expect the health service to do a lot better than it has been doing in support of palliative care services?
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I join in thanking the Government for having listened in Committee. I hope that this will make a difference not just to the lives of those whose lives are shorter but also their families, so it is very welcome. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but also to my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, who put his name to Amendment 17.
As I say, I welcome this amendment. As the chair of the UK Commission on Bereavement, I have been reminded recently of the inconsistency of palliative care, which other noble Lords have spoken of this evening. It affects not only those who require palliative care but also their family and friends, and it leaves a legacy into bereavement, which we should not underestimate. I too was reassured to hear the Minister say that palliative care must be commissioned, but I share again the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. In Amendment 16, the word “appropriate” is used, and it is not quite the same thing. Could the Minister reassure the House about the Government’s expectations regarding the nature of palliative care services that the ICBs will commission? How will they ensure that that is delivered in a way that creates consistency? It is care that is rightly deserved by people in our communities, which also reflects the skill and hard work of our palliative care practitioners
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister and his officials on listening to the House and the strong representations he received in Committee on this issue.
I welcome the Government’s amendment. I add my tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as well as the many Members of this House and the campaigns of organisations such as Marie Curie in getting us to this point. It is wonderful that the symbol of Marie Curie is a daffodil, and we are here today on St David’s Day being led by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. That is very appropriate.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport—this is an historic moment and a huge step forward. It is the first time in the history of the NHS that there will be an explicit requirement to commission palliative care. I declare my interests as chair of the Scottish Government’s National Advisory Committee for Neurological Conditions and a trustee of the Neurological Alliance of Scotland. Many people with long-term, progressive conditions have not been able to access palliative care at an early enough point. Not only would this ensure better outcomes for patients, but it would also be a better use of NHS resources. I hope that the result of the Government’s amendment will ensure that these people get better care, including the palliative care they need. I also hope that ICBs will recognise the difference that they could make.
I welcome the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Howe about taking the criteria set out in Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to which I was happy to add my name. It provides a helpful set of guidance for ICBs to follow, based on standards. I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on ensuring that we have the right reporting requirements. I am grateful to hear that the Government will be developing statutory guidance to ensure that we put the necessary tools in place. However, I have been concerned to learn, in my meetings with NHS England, how—as far as I have been able to ascertain—it reports on services, rather than medicines or specific procedures. When reporting on NICE guidelines for services, NHS England seems to rely on “noise in the system” to ensure whether they know that something is happening or not. I share some noble Lords’ worry about the word “appropriate”. If we develop statutory guidance based on the criteria set out in Amendment 17, I hope that the risks that the word “appropriate” might continue to see a postcode lottery will somehow be allayed.
Finally, given that ICBs are at different stages of their development, can the Minister and the department give careful consideration to the ongoing and direct communication to ICBs regarding this duty? Will they consider writing to all ICB chairs to ensure that they are fully aware of the duty and their responsibilities?
The Government have made a very important step forward today in giving people who are facing the end of their life the reassurance they and their families need. The focus now must be on ensuring that this amendment is used to its fullest by the ICBs, so that everyone who needs palliative care will benefit.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to add my very strong support for Amendment 17, promoting the provision of specialist multiprofessional palliative care services. I also welcome, and will comment on, the Government’s Amendment 16 on the same topic. Alongside all other noble Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Finlay for her tireless work to improve palliative care services.
It is of course most welcome that the Government have tabled an amendment in this field, but their amendment leaves it to the ICB to decide what standard and extent of palliative care services are “appropriate” to meet what they deem to be the “reasonable” requirements of their populations—the Government’s words. What do these terms mean? Does the Minister accept that the amendment does not ensure that adequate specialist palliative care services will be available across the country? That is what we all desperately want to see. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can define these terms. What do the Government mean by “appropriate” palliative care services and a “reasonable” level of such services?
As I said in Committee, it is unbelievable that the NHS provides services according to need throughout our lives, until we are dying, when of course our health needs are at their greatest. At that stage, precious hospices have to raise their own money, as others have said in the past, to finance their doctors and nurses to care for the dying. Inevitably, hospital beds lie empty. Some 50% of beds in a hospice I visited recently were empty, because it simply did not have the staff to deal with patients in those beds. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will provide statutory guidance to supplement Amendment 16 and clarify what they mean by the terms “appropriate” and “reasonable”?
As things stand, I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Finlay. As we die, we should all have high-quality palliative care services. We can then expect that, when assisted dying is legalised, a reasonably small percentage of dying people will suffer unbearably, despite benefiting from top-quality services, because of course there are situations when the best possible palliative care services have done everything they possibly can and yet certain patients suffer unbearably. We need a change in the law to ensure that those patients have control over the suffering that they can reasonably tolerate.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and, as I say, hope that he will clarify the definitions of the terms used in the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, this amendment adds a new paragraph to the new Section 3(1) set out in Clause 16 and it seems clear that what Section 3(1) says refers to all that follows it:
“An integrated care board must arrange for the provision of the following to such extent as it considers necessary to meet the reasonable requirements of the people for whom it has responsibility”.
One has to look at reasonable requirements in relation to everything in that list, with the first being “hospital accommodation”. The idea that there might be some areas with no hospital access at all is absolutely ridiculous. So this is a qualification, to be fitted in as paragraph (ga).
Immediately before it is another provision, which refers to services considered
“appropriate as part of the health service”.
That seems to suggest that it is absolutely essential that the needs and reasonable requirements of people who need palliative care are met. ICBs do not need to provide palliative care for the whole community, but are required to provide it for the proportion of people expected to require it, namely those getting near the gates of death. That is a reasonable interpretation of this clause.
I believe it goes quite a long distance in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others for some years have asked for. I do not think it feasible to say that nobody in an area will require palliative care—unless its inhabitants are people who live for ever, of which there are only very few. It looks to me as though this is well constructed to ensure that palliative care must be provided where people die, in the area of the integrated care board.
I entirely welcome Amendment 17 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, but the crucial amendment is provided by the Government and is written in a way that will be very difficult for any care board to try to escape, because it is very clear.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. Having spoken on this in Committee, I simply thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward Amendment 16 to include palliative care services in the list of things required by ICBs to commission. We all agree that the end of life is one of those times when care is needed most, and I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on all her work on this, and all those who spoke in support in Committee.
This is an example of where the Government have truly listened and responded to concerns voiced on all sides of the House. They have made the most of the Bill’s unique opportunity to ensure that nobody with a terminal illness misses out on the care and support they need, both now and in the future.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, without whom this amendment would not have been laid by the Government —although I pay tribute to the Government for listening to her. As she said, it could be game-changing—I say “could be” because unless the resources are made available for these services and for training enough of the health professionals needed to carry them out and make them available everywhere, it will not be game-changing. I would like a reassurance from the Minister that adequate resources will be made available so that, as appropriate, ICBs can carry out the duty that will be put on them.
I was horrified to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mention a hospice with half its beds empty. I hope additional resources will be provided for hospices. I clearly remember somebody saying in Committee that you would not expect to have a coffee morning or a cake bake to treat a broken leg; you should not have to do the same sort of thing for services at the end of life. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the possibility that additional resources should go there.
We have heard that services are patchy across the country, and I suggest that the worst patchiness is in services for people dying at home. I know it is not easy to provide 24-hour services and advice to a family doing their best to try to care for somebody dying at home, but it must be done. I am afraid I know friends who have had a very bad experience of that. The person at the end of life had a bad experience, and the family have never forgotten it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has often told us, it is possible for everybody to have a good death if the right services are provided to them. That means a good experience too for the family, who simply want to know that they have done the best and that that has been enough.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, from these Benches I am very glad to continue our support for palliative care being part of a comprehensive health service—literally from the cradle to the grave—no matter who you are, your age or where you live. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute and giving appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her assistance and professionalism over many years. I hope that the real tribute to the efforts of the noble Baroness will be in the delivery of real change to the quality of people’s lives—and their deaths. I add my appreciation to all the charities and hospices that have also been a force for good in seeking this change.
I welcome the government amendment in this area and, in so doing, I simply say to the Minister that I hope the Government have heard the number of questions asked today. Clearly, there is concern about the words “appropriate” and “reasonable”, and I will add a few questions to those already put to explore that further. I am sure the Minister understands that noble Lords are simply trying to ensure that what is intended will actually be delivered.
Can the Minister confirm how the Government’s expectations will be conveyed to ICBs, and how they will understand what is expected of them in terms of the nature of palliative care services that they would be required to commission? It would also be helpful if he could commit to providing a definition of “specialist palliative care” services, referring to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, so that we can see a consistent standard in provision of services across the country. My final question is: can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to communicate to all ICBs that they should fulfil the true requirements of this amendment, and can he tell your Lordships’ House how this will be monitored?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and other noble Lords have made it clear that we would like the matter settled by the amendment, but it is not entirely. I hope that the Government will not lose the opportunity to really make the transformation so that we can all expect, and have, a good death, as we would want to have a good life.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important short debate, but, in particular, I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the illumination that she shed on the reality of well-functioning palliative care services from her personal perspective.
Without repeating what I said earlier, the Government recognise and understand the strength of feeling on the issue of variation among access to palliative care services. I understand the line of questioning posed by a number of noble Lords on the strength of the imperative implicit in the government amendment. The noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Meacher and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, all had questions on that theme.
The first thing for me to say is that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay: this is a game-changing amendment because it would specifically require—that is the word—integrated care boards to commission such services or facilities for palliative care, including specialist palliative care, as they consider appropriate for meeting the reasonable requirements of the people for whom they have responsibility.
Questions have been asked about the word “appropriate”. I do not think any other word could be fitted into this context; you have to talk about what is appropriate when the extent of need and the requirements of the local population inevitably vary according to the locality. It is for the board to judge what is appropriate to meet that need in the local area and what is appropriate to the nature of the palliative care provision that may exist in an area: for example, whether it is a hospital, a hospice, social care hospices or hospices at home—all the panoply of palliative care provision that noble Lords will be familiar with. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made a very helpful intervention on that issue, for which I thank him.
We therefore expect palliative care to be commissioned by every ICB. It will be for them to allocate resources to meet the needs of their population that they identify but, on funding more broadly, the House will know that there is a multifaceted funding pattern in the palliative care field. Palliative and end-of-life care services are delivered by services and staff across the NHS, social care, the voluntary and community sector and independent hospices.
We recognise the vital role that hospices and other voluntary organisations play in the delivery and funding of palliative and end-of-life care and continue to engage proactively with our stakeholders on an ongoing basis to understand the issues they face. Those are not bald words; as part of the NHS Covid response, over £400 million has been made available to hospices since the start of the pandemic to secure and increase additional NHS capacity and enable hospital discharge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked me about statutory guidance. A range of guidance is already available to commissioners about the provision of palliative and end-of-life care, including detailed, evidence-based guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We will continue to keep the guidance under review. NHS England and NHS Improvement have also made funding available to seven palliative and end-of-life care strategic clinical networks, which will support commissioners in the delivery of outstanding clinical care, with sustainability of commissioning as a guiding principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lady Fraser touched on transparency and reporting. I point to our later amendments requiring ICBs to set out how they intend to commission services and report on that in their annual reports. That will of course include palliative care. I can also give an assurance that we are not only looking at the guidance currently but will continue to keep the range of guidance available to commissioners under review.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on the Government’s expectations in this area, I can say only that our expectations as of now are set out in this amendment and in the guidance we will issue, and the assurance that we will engage with in our dealings with NHS England.
I hope I have been able to reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that people receive high-quality palliative care if and when they need it. I invite the House to support Amendment 16.
Baroness Hollins
“116C Primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilitiesNHS England must make arrangements for the assessment of the need for primary ophthalmic services by people with learning disabilities, including access to sight tests, and ensure primary ophthalmic services are commissioned to meet those needs, including in special schools.”Member’s explanatory statement
Under Schedule 3 of the Bill, NHS England retains its powers to make arrangements for the provision of primary ophthalmic services itself or direct Integrated Care Boards for such provision. This amendment seeks to improve eye care for people with learning disabilities including in special schools.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Low, who is unable to move it because of a failure of his technology. I commend my noble friend’s sustained advocacy of the issues raised by the amendment. I declare my interest as founder and chair of the charity Books Beyond Words, which has published a word-free book called Looking After My Eyes jointly with the charity SeeAbility, which briefed my noble friend and me on this amendment.
The amendment seeks to improve primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilities, including pupils in special schools. There is no system of national monitoring of the number of people with learning disabilities who have visual impairments. Some research has estimated that people with learning disabilities are 10 times more likely to have serious eye problems than the general population, and six in 10 people with learning disabilities need glasses but may not recognise that they have sight problems. They may not be able to communicate this effectively, and they certainly need reasonable adjustments to access ophthalmic services.
The prevalence of visual impairment increases with the severity of someone’s learning disability. We know that some conditions associated with a learning disability, such as Down’s Syndrome, are associated with specific causes of visual impairment such as cataracts. My noble friend commented in Committee that the charity SeeAbility had identified that “four in 10 children” in special schools
“had never had a sight test”
and that
“half of adults with learning disabilities had not had a sight test” —[Official Report, 20/1/22; col.1837.]
within the recommended period. In short, those most in need of high-quality eyecare are arguably those least likely to get it. We need targeted improvements in primary eyecare for all people with learning disabilities. I am therefore very pleased to support my noble friend’s amendment and, in his absence, I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I just want to say that I think that that is perfectly correct and reasonable.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for introducing this debate on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Low. I am the first to agree that the provision of primary ophthalmic services for people with learning disabilities is important. This is indeed why the majority of people with more severe learning disabilities are already likely to be eligible for free NHS sight tests.
However, we recognise that more needs to be done in this area to improve access to services. For that reason, the NHS Long Term Plan made a commitment to ensure that children and young people with a learning disability, autism or both in special residential schools have access to eyesight checks. NHS England commenced a proof of concept programme in 2021-22 to further pilot access to sight tests in special schools. Any future national commissioning model will be informed by an evaluation of this pilot, and I ask the noble Baroness to accept that we need to wait for its learning before pushing too far ahead. NHS England will continue to engage providers in the development of any future programme of work beyond the existing proof of concept, and I am sure that the Minister for Primary Care and my noble friend Lord Kamall would be happy to meet the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to discuss the programme further.
Finally, I remind the House that the imperative to improve access to these services is part and parcel of the duties placed on ICBs and NHS England to reduce inequalities in accessing health services and inequalities in health outcomes. The work NHS England has undertaken in this space demonstrates how seriously it takes these duties. I hope that, on the basis of the answer I have been able to give and the Government’s commitment to update noble Lords on the future development of this service, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw this amendment on behalf of her noble friend.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
I thank the Minister for her sympathetic response to the amendment. I appreciate the importance of waiting for proof of concept, as was spelled out.
One of the remaining issues, of course, is that training in how to adapt services for people with learning disabilities is also important. However, I hope that the proposed mandatory training in learning disability and autism will help to address that further. On that basis, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Farmer
“14Z32A Duty to prevent illnessEach integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to preventing the development of poor physical and mental health, including by ensuring health services are available in a community setting where possible, in order to improve access.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the prevention of ill-health was prioritised including by making health services available closer to patients’ homes to lower barriers to access.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, in reintroducing this amendment, I want to pick up on comments made by my noble friend Lord Kamall in Committee. He said that he agreed with “the spirit” of my amendment and had been reassured since becoming a Health Minister by
“the number of people in meetings who have said that they want to move towards a focus on prevention.”—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1811.]
Although the duty to improve continuously the quality of services and obtain appropriate advice includes those in connection with prevention, this in no way guarantees that it will be raised up from the current low bar relative to treatment.
I do not think it misuses the important concept of levelling up to apply it in this context. The thrust of my amendment is to level up the emphasis on addressing the precursors of illness with delivering care while it runs its course, as well as with what comes after, whether that is its sequelae, rehabilitation or palliative care. After all, the NHS is the National Health Service. Keeping people healthy and preventing ill health should be the first duty of integrated care boards, thereby fulfilling the purpose of the NHS. The chronic waiting lists and ever-increasing costs, which seem never to end, both flow from a culture that is reactive rather than proactive.
As my amendment states, a duty to prevent could mean, in many contexts, community health provision. A reverse Beeching for healthcare would help to nip in the bud any developing conditions and, when health needs have family implications, enable them to be treated alongside and integrated with early family help. Prohibitively long journeys to hospitals, in respect of which ICBs might choose to integrate health and health-related services to reduce inequality of access, will work against this prevention imperative, hence the need to give it primacy. A couple of examples will be helpful here. I will touch on how preventing, for example, childhood obesity and mental ill health will in no small part require improving family relationships, which is best done in the community.
The Leeds child healthy weight plan, established and led by Public Health England but multiagency in approach, focuses on prevention as it can be more difficult to engage families and see improvement once problems arise. Families on the plan took healthier steps in both the consumption of fruit, vegetables and sugary drinks, and physical activity, but they also reported a reduction in screen time and increased parenting confidence. Leeds has seen child obesity rates among reception-age children decline significantly as a result, particularly among the most disadvantaged children, over a period when similar cities and England have seen no change in this key area.
Secondly, in a recent major study of more than 43,000 children in children and young people’s mental health services, over half cited family difficulties, which were the biggest presenting problem. Again, community-based family support is vital for preventing mental ill-health.
In concluding—as noble Lords can see, I have not spoken for long—I want to stand back from this. The tragic events in eastern Europe indicate the need to spend more money on defence. Where will it come from if we do not cut our cloth differently? The prevention of ill health has to be a part of that. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 33, and 37 to 54. I thank the noble Lords who have added their names to those amendments.
There is a very simple point here. The purpose of these amendments is to make sure that primary care is as highly influential in the new system as, and not the poor relation of, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. It is vital for the whole success of the entire Bill moving forward that primary care is able to play its proper part in the future. It is therefore very good indeed that the Bill includes having a representative for primary care on the board of ICBs—the integrated care boards. However, I will turn to the problem, which is exemplified by the first of these amendments.
Amendment 33 refers to a passage in the Bill which says:
“Before the start of each financial year, an integrated care board and its partner NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts must prepare a plan setting out how they propose to exercise their functions in the next five years.”
There is no mention of primary care in that, which is where the amendment comes in, adding the words “and primary care”. It is worth just noting that this is an entire reversal of what is in a sense the current situation, where primary care has a big role within planning and the acute and NHS trusts more generally have a much lesser one. So this is a very big change. My first question to the Minister is that it would be helpful if he would explain why NHS trusts and foundation trusts are being treated differently from primary care. Alongside that, why and how will he make sure that primary care will be able to function as it should do in being equally influential with the other sectors?
I have already outlined the reasons for this in very broad terms, but I will pick out three or four points. First, it is so that their contribution can be made. Primary care is not just about what is happening in the out-of-hospital sector; it also has a significant role in what should be happening in the hospital sector and, of course, to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, it has a major role in prevention as well. Secondly, this is about morale. Primary care has very poor morale at the moment, and anything that seems to downgrade its role is important.
Thirdly, it is about messaging and the priority that is being given to the different parts of the system. Fourthly, there is another point here. Over the last—I guess—25 years, a number of GPs in particular have become quite adept at planning, thinking about the future and commissioning and so on. There is a great wealth of experience there, and that is experience of planning not just for primary care but for health services, and indeed prevention more generally. Then, of course, as I said at the beginning, this is about the direction of travel.
I am pleased to say that I have had some good discussions with the Minister, and indeed with officials, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will be able to say in response to this. My request, and that of the noble Lords who have added their names to the amendment, could not be simpler. Why is it intended to treat NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts differently, giving them apparently a more central role, and how will the Minister give the same level of influence to primary care as the Bill does to these other bodies?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group, but I support the thrust of the debate so far. I should declare that I am a fellow of the Royal College of General Practitioners, having previously worked as a GP.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, stressed the importance of trying to prevent ill health later on and to bring a population up to be less unwell than the current population is. We have to have a very strong primary care workforce to manage people in the community. There has been a great move to try to move people out of hospital and back into the community, but primary care is currently creaking under the load and social care services are not there to provide much of the support these people need. So primary care has to be factored in as a major contributor, the more we expect people to be looked after at home, nearer home and in the community. That can be particularly difficult in rural areas, where GPs are expected to take on much broader responsibilities. They might even be managing some of the accident services in the area, working with the ambulance services.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to which I have added my name. I think the noble Lord had to table these amendments because the Minister said when we discussed this in Committee that his challenge was to ensure that
“primary care is better represented and not dominated by acute trusts.”—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1854.]
We expected something to come back that did exactly that, because the very fact the Minister said that suggested that the Government had accepted that there was a potential imbalance with the role of primary care.
I come back to the purpose of the Bill, which I did a number of times in Committee. The purpose of the Bill is to bring about effective integration, improve health outcomes and reduce health inequalities. That is underpinned by making primary care central to healthcare planning and ideas about healthcare, following through on those plans and having primary care as an equal partner in the ICB. So we moved away from who we want on the board to asking very simply for primary care to be treated as an equal in the planning, implementation and monitoring of what will happen in health and social care in the area. It is disappointing that, despite the Minister’s suggestion that he would go away and look at this, nothing new has come back since Committee to deal with that.
What new has come back on Report which makes sure that primary care can be better represented and not dominated by acute trusts in this new system? My worry is that the Bill giving this to NHS acute trusts and foundation trusts signals which are most important within the system. If primary care does not have that equity, there will be unrealistic expectations and uninformed decisions made in planning for final decisions and tactical, not transformational, systems and services, which will not represent the full view of primary care. It is for those reasons that I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and look forward to the Minister bringing to the House’s attention what new proposals are in here on Report to do with the challenge that he set himself: to ensure that primary care has a bigger voice and is not dominated by the acute sector.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on the Minister’s offer in Committee to go back to see how the potential dominance of acute trusts could be mitigated by ensuring that the voice of primary care was heard loud and clear in the various decision-making bodies.
It is a pity that it is a very late hour, because primary care warrants a much wider debate, given the challenges it undoubtedly faces. We are all aware of the workforce issues, such as the reluctance of many GPs to take on partnerships and that so many GPs will do only part-time work, partly because of the pressures. It is because of those challenges and because primary care is so valued in this country that we need some assurances that the people running the new system being introduced through this legislation will be concerned with and listen to primary care.
It is somewhat ironic. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is not here any more, but in a sense, we are seeing a transformation from what he hoped would be a GP-led system through clinical commissioning groups to one which looks very strongly acute care-led in the integrated care boards. As someone who was spent quite a lot of my time in the health service around acute trusts, I do not particularly worry about acute trusts being listened to, because we depend on them so much. We really need assurance that integrated care boards will take primary care seriously.
Finally, whatever concerns and reservations we on this side of the House had about clinical commissioning groups, some GPs undoubtedly rose to the challenge of leadership within them. I should be very concerned if they were lost from the new arrangements. It would be good to know that the Government recognise that and will ensure that a place is found for them in the new system.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 30 and 34. On Amendment 30, I echo the widespread concern of the professional bodies and expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that rehabilitation should be a core service in the NHS. It is inseparable from healing, and healing is often impaired if rehabilitation is not there.
On Amendment 34, it will be important to know whether the proposed integrated health boards will be in contact with services outside the NHS where health can be a critical factor, such as education and criminal justice. As we said in Committee, many speech and language professionals are not NHS employees. How will they be brought into the integrated system?
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 62 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Cheltenham. I thank them, and the Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK, for their support of this amendment.
People with dementia will be one of the largest groups of people to see the benefits of the integration of health and social care services and, therefore, the benefits from the Bill. Currently, there are 900,000 people living with dementia in the UK and, without a disease-modifying treatment available after diagnosis through the NHS, they get the majority of their support through the social care system.
This amendment relates to Clause 21, which ensures that integrated care partnerships prepare an integrated care strategy. These new strategies will be a powerful way to bring together various currently disparate bodies to work towards the same aims. Topics discussed within these strategies will be given consideration across the health and social care systems, consideration that too often people living with dementia have lacked, leaving them falling through the cracks between the various systems. This amendment therefore suggests that each strategy should explicitly consider the needs of people living with dementia. There are two areas where integration could provide particular benefits, which I will touch on briefly.
The first is diagnosis. A diagnosis is incredibly important for people living with dementia, as it allows them to plan for the future, arranging their housing and care needs, putting themselves forward for clinical trials and ensuring that they have first access to the most innovative treatments, while also unlocking access to vital extra support in the short term. This does not just help the individual. By providing the right support at the right time, we can reduce pressure on the NHS. That is why NHS England rightly has a target that two-thirds of all people living with dementia will have received a diagnosis. This was consistently met from 2015 until the pandemic. As people visited their GPs less frequently, clinicians were diverted to other areas and individuals had little access to memory clinics. The rate dramatically fell from 67.6% in January 2020 to just 61% in January 2022. This has meant that, according to NHS data, an extra 35,000 people are now living in the dark about their dementia status. As we address the backlogs in elective treatment and cancer care, it is vital that we also tackle the backlog in diagnosis of dementia. To do so, we must have clear strategies in place, at local and national level.
I am proud that the UK is seen as a world leader in dementia research, as many noble Lords know very well. However, there are still barriers to us reaching our potential, including a lack of participants for research. This is not because there is low interest in participating in research among the public. According to Alzheimer’s Research UK, 69% of the public would be willing to take part in dementia research. However, 81% did not know how to volunteer. The NHS, as a single health system, has many advantages which give it great potential for data sharing between research and clinical practice, connecting those who want to take part in studies with those conducting the studies.
A valuable report recently released by the All-Party Dementia Group, Fuelling the Moonshot, recommended that all newly diagnosed patients receive a letter from the NHS within three months of diagnosis, explaining how they can take part in dementia research. Integrating dementia research with integrated care partnerships will provide other benefits. The benefits should, and would, flow in both directions. While research can benefit from better access to participants, it should also ensure that innovation, whether in treatments or models of care, can reach people living with dementia.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am not going to say very much in support, because the background has already been explained. Without a diagnosis, people living with dementia cannot access the community support they need.
I will add one specific group who experience dementia, which is people with Down’s syndrome. Some 60% of people with Down’s syndrome will develop Alzheimer’s by the age of 60. A lot of research on Alzheimer’s has been developed from an understanding of Down’s syndrome and the changes that take place in people’s brains. The manifesto pledged to double the funding for dementia research. The amount is interesting. It was a commitment of £800 million over 10 years for dementia research. To put that figure into context, the co-chair of the APPG on dementia, Debbie Abrahams, has stated that dementia currently costs our economy £34.7 billion each year. I therefore support this amendment requiring integrated care partnerships to include a strategy to improve both the diagnosis of dementia and dementia research, which has the potential to improve the lives of so many people in the UK.
I also added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay. I, too, began my medical career as a GP. I therefore support my noble friend Lord Crisp’s amendments. It also has some relevance to my later practice in psychiatry. Having worked as a general practitioner in south London, I began to understand the importance of social factors in the development of mental illness and in the ability of my patients to live with whatever long-term condition they might have. As a community psychiatrist I have extensive experience of practicing medicine that addresses people’s biological, psychological and social needs, and I have been a prominent advocate of the least restrictive practices. Best practice includes facilitating robust, multidisciplinary mental health care in the community where it is a feasible alternative to treatment in hospital and, when admission is needed, helping people to be discharged back into the community at the earliest point so that their recovery can continue in the community, close to family and friends. As a mother, I advocated for effective community rehabilitation for my daughter after she become quadriplegic, which was a much better option than the nursing home care that she was initially offered.
Robust integration between multiple disciplines within health and social care is essential to ensure the high-quality, coherent, consistent and readily accessible community rehabilitation that can promote physical and mental health and help people to thrive to their full potential within communities. I am very pleased to support my noble friend’s amendment. I should declare an interest as president of the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, a profession which has a particular contribution to make in community rehabilitation.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to my amendment I would like to put on record that I particularly support my noble friend Lord McColl’s Amendment 62, which considers the needs of those with dementia. I also support the thrust of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on better rehabilitation. Perhaps the concept of convalescence, as it used to be called, would help free acute beds and thus save money. I also support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, to ensure that integrated care boards work with primary care and, I hope, with community nursing as well.
Amendment 177 is in my name. Much of the Bill is about the architecture of the NHS, and it is important that we get it right. However, the success of the Bill will be whether it delivers for patients. As we have discussed before, healthcare needs to be patient focused. At the moment we sadly have a system where the traditional idea of a family doctor who knows their patients is too often disappearing. Why has this been allowed to happen when we know it worked so well? We need somehow to get an element of that back. I understand that today many doctors in general practice find their role far less satisfactory, with fewer people wanting to go into general practice. I am given to understand that a large element of this has to do with the fact that fewer doctors know their patients, whereas in years gone by they would know and look after the whole family and be part of the community.
With people living ever longer, looking after older people so that they can stay healthier for longer is critical, as is ensuring that they receive the care they need and have a dignified and secure old age. This amendment would introduce a new clause that lowers from 75 to 65 the age at which every patient is assigned a named GP, which would help with prevention, an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Farmer in his amendment. The amendment would also ensure that named GPs actually have to meet and have some knowledge of each patient they are responsible for, and to communicate directly with them and their family.
I will not reiterate all the facts and figures I gave in Committee. I merely remind your Lordships that studies have shown that, quite simply, being treated by a doctor who really knows you can be life-saving. Quality care by a named GP benefits patients by delivering continuity of care and therefore better healthcare, and by keeping more people out of hospital, relieving some of the burden on the NHS.
Following the debate in Committee, I have added proposed subsection (2) to enable the role of the named GP to be “delegated” to another doctor in the practice who might be chosen and preferred by the patient. But this amendment ensures that patients will have someone who actually has some knowledge of them and whom they or their relatives can turn to for help, care and advice.
I was very disappointed that, in Committee, my noble friend the Minister failed to grasp the significant difference between current regulations, guidance and what happens in practice. I have personal proof that, as things stand, some named GPs are able to choose not to know the patients they are responsible for. This amendment seeks to positively address that.
I urge the Minister to reconsider and accept these proposed changes to the Bill. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that primary healthcare is incredibly important. This whole area really needs an in-depth debate because it is breaking down in some places.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will make just a few comments. I put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which I will not say much about because he and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, have said it all.
However, I will make one point about the importance of early diagnosis. As most noble Lords will know, Alzheimer’s is a complex range of diseases, and it is very important for the patient that their doctor is able to know what sort of Alzheimer’s they have so that an appropriate set of support can be prescribed. The other very important reason is that we do not yet have a disease-modifying cure. Unless more suitable patients go forward for clinical trials, the researchers will not be able to do their research, no matter how much money the Government put forward. We know that 80% of people who put themselves forward for a dementia clinical trial have to be rejected because their disease has progressed too far. So, we really need early diagnosis so that the researchers have some chance of finding the cure that we all want.
Secondly, I will say two things about primary care. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, talked about patients having to see a doctor they have never seen before within their practice. Well, now—and I would like the Minister’s answer to this—not only are people ringing up and going to a doctor in the practice whom they have never seen before; in London, they are now being referred to a completely different practice, because something like five practices share patients. I understand that that is a temporary measure during the pandemic, but could the noble Lord confirm that that is the case? Could he also confirm that it is going to end once we believe the pandemic is over, which of course it is not yet?
I shall say a few words about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is vital, as he rightly said, that primary care has a role in planning the commissioning of services. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, a lot of expertise has been developed, and it must not be lost. It is vital because primary care services are the gateway for a patient to everything else in the health service; it is the first port of call for a patient and, without a referral from a GP, on the whole you cannot get to anything else.
I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is doing and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the reasons why primary care services do not appear to be treated equally with NHS trusts and foundation trusts.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group, so it is a shame that we are discussing it so late in the evening. It is important because it contains essential broad things that people need to stay well in their community. It is about the bread and butter of people’s health—their GPs, dentists, the physios and pharmacists, getting podiatry services and getting the proper social care that you need to be able to stay in your home. It is literally about helping people to stay local and stay well. In many ways, that is why I enjoyed the three years that I spent on a CCG so much, because I knew that it was local and that every month I was going to be visiting a GP surgery. I knew all those things, and I felt that that was an important contribution to healthcare in my area.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is particularly important. If primary healthcare and these local services do not work, the rest of the NHS falls over.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments in this debate and in Committee, but I am also grateful for the discussions that we have had between the various stages and the conversations that noble Lords have continued to have with my officials—indeed, right up to the dinner break this evening. I shall speak to Amendments 34, 35 and 55 in my name, which I hope will go far in addressing many of the concerns raised in the debate.
We have heard the calls for greater clarity about what will be expected of ICBs in their forward planning. We also understand the importance of ICBs being transparent in discharging their functions to allow for public scrutiny and accountability. We have therefore brought forward these amendments to further clarify what ICBs must include in their forward plans and annual reports. These amendments provide that the forward plan must describe what services the ICB proposes to make arrangements for in the exercise of its functions. It must also explain how the ICB proposes to discharge each of its duties under new Sections 14Z34 to 14Z44. These duties include improving the quality of services, reducing inequalities, promoting the involvement of patients and carers in decisions about treatment and promoting the integration of health and social care services.
Amendment 55 requires an ICB’s annual report to explain how it has discharged each of its duties under new Sections 14Z34 to 14Z44. This would additionally include new Section 14Z47A, which is the new duty we discussed earlier requiring the ICB to keep under review the skills, knowledge and experience that it needs to discharge its functions and, when there are gaps, to consider what steps it can take to address or mitigate them. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these amendments represent a significant step forward in making sure ICBs are held accountable by ensuring that they are transparent in how they intend to discharge their numerous duties and functions.
I turn to the amendments proposed by noble Lords, and I shall address each of them as briefly as I can. On Amendment 19, I assure my noble friend Lord Farmer that the Bill already includes the power for ICBs to commission services or facilities for the prevention of illness under new Section 3A in Clause 16. The provisions in Clause 16 also require ICBs to act consistently with the Secretary of State’s duty for the promotion of a comprehensive health service, including in the prevention of illness. Further, new Section 14Z34 places a duty on ICBs to improve the quality of services including preventive services, and new Sections 14Z36 and 14Z38 place duties on ICBs to ensure that patients and carers are fully involved in these decisions, including about prevention.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 62, spoken to so ably by my noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who in my brief time in this House thus far has really educated me about dementia and the fact that, as we are living longer physically, this will become more of an issue.
The department is currently developing a new national dementia strategy for England, which will be published later this year. This will include objectives focused on restoring the dementia diagnosis rates and improving the diagnostic experience for people living with dementia, as well as increasing the number and diversity of people participating in dementia research. I take on board the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about getting the many volunteers for clinical trials at the right time.
There is already work under way to help restore dementia diagnosis rates back to the target of 66.7% following the pandemic, supported by an additional £17 million to address dementia waiting lists and increase the number of diagnoses. Increasing participation in all types of research is a top priority and is in fact part of my portfolio. The UK has invested in a range of digital platforms, including Join Dementia Research, and we are now working to increase the scale of and interoperability between systems, improve diverse recruitment and reduce the burden and costs of clinical research delivery.
On Amendments 22 and 24, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill already contains requirements on NHS commissioning bodies to tackle health inequalities. Commissioners are also required to promote the right of patients to make choices with respect to services or treatment. This includes allowing patients to choose to be treated outside their ICB area. To support this, we expect ICBs to actively co-operate with each other. Furthermore, we have amended the duty on ICBs to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between patients, proposing by government amendment to extend this to “persons”, in respect of accessing services. This means we are capturing everyone, not just people accessing services. This duty would encompass the need to reduce inequalities with respect to geography as well.
I now turn to Amendment 30. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. First, I should thank her for the daffodil I am wearing to celebrate St David’s Day. She assures me that it is not a listening device to eavesdrop on my conversations with officials. If she had eavesdropped, she probably would have been embarrassed by the amount of praise heaped on her. We acknowledge her desire to see strong provision of community rehabilitation and it is important that this is pushed up the agenda.
Under the existing Bill provisions, every ICB will be required to provide and improve rehabilitation services as part of its duty to provide a comprehensive health service. As an added layer of scrutiny, ICBs must publish an annual review detailing how they have discharged this function. Also, NHS England is currently working on a national intermediate care framework, digital and virtual pathways and models of care, improved data recording and reports, and interventions using a wide range of community assets and levers.
I now turn to Amendments 33 and 37 to 54. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his engagement on this issue—indeed, including right up to the dinner break this evening. We would like to put on record our gratitude to the noble Lord and the Royal College of General Practitioners for pushing us on this and reminding us that, as we move to ICBs, we should make sure that primary care is not the poor relation. In moving to ICBs from CCGs, where GPs and primary medical services have played a huge role, we have to ensure that these are not dominated by a few large trusts.
We understand and continue to recognise the importance of primary care. Indeed, primary care is taking on more of the functions of what would traditionally be considered secondary care, especially with some of the primary care services and community centres appearing in our local communities. Only this week, we have seen stories and press reports of pharmacists calling for more of the functions of GPs to be delegated to them. They have helpfully suggested that they could save the NHS money and also provide better primary care services by taking on some of those functions. There is clearly a demand out there and that has to be encouraged.
Before I turn to this, I note that we hold primary care in equal esteem to any other sector—acute, community or mental health. Right from the outset, we have said that primary care must not be lost and must be at the heart of the ICB. As the Integrated Care Systems: Design Framework said:
“Through a combination of their membership, and the ways in which members engage partners, the board and its committees should ensure they take into account the perspectives and expertise of all relevant partners”,
including primary care.
I know the noble Lord is especially concerned about why primary care is not explicitly referenced in new Clause 14Z50(1). I hope I can offer him some explanation. First, we are conscious that there are 43,000 primary care providers, and it is impractical to require each to be a partner in developing the ICB forward plan. Secondly, new Clause 14Z50 ties NHS providers to the plan, and a failure to play their part could trigger NHS England’s intervention. It will also guide the financial requirements imposed under Clause 24. In contrast, primary care providers, as private contractors, are bound to the plan in a different way, primarily through contracts. Thirdly, new Clauses 14Z50 and 14Z54, on the joint capital resource plan, are intimately connected and primary care capital is provided through other routes.
However, ensuring that the primary care voice is sufficiently involved in joint forward planning in integrated care boards is our common ambition. The law requires the involvement of a primary care representative drawn from primary medical services on ICBs, just as it does for acute providers. ICBs will have to consider how they can best access skills and knowledge across primary care.
In addition, there is a duty in new Clause 14Z52 to consult
“any other persons they consider it appropriate to consult”
about forward plans. We expect that, in publishing its plan, an ICB should set out how it has met this duty and consulted primary care and other partners. I am able to inform the House that NHS England has confirmed that its guidance will be explicit in its expectation that primary care will be a crucial partner in that process. We are happy to engage with the noble Lord further as that guidance develops to ensure that we stick to that commitment to make sure that primary care is at the heart of this.
More broadly, ICBs have the discretion to appoint additional members to the ICB or exercise functions through committees. Commissioning at a local level requires the expertise of primary care, and we expect it to play a significant role as many decisions will be taken at that level under the principle of subsidiarity. Further guidance will be published on the development of place- level arrangements, including the role of primary care.
I also note the Fuller review. NHS England chief executive Amanda Pritchard has announced that Dr Claire Fuller, senior responsible officer of the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System, will lead a review on how primary care networks can be supported in integrated systems. NHS England has announced that the review will set out how ICSs and primary care networks should go about improving out-of-hospital care. The findings of the review will then be applied to ICBs, subject to the passage of this Bill. We hope this work will help all ICBs to make progress on developing general practice in this area.
I hope I have been able to assure noble Lords that we hold primary care in great esteem, and have given the noble Lord some reassurance that primary care will be involved in every level of the ICB, its functions and planning.
I now turn to Amendment 177 from my noble friend Lady Hodgson. I thank her for continuing to remind us of its importance and speaking movingly about her own experience. I remind noble Lords that all practices are already required to assign all their registered patients—including those aged 65 and over—a named, accountable GP. The GP must lead in ensuring that any GP services that they are contracted to provide, and that are necessary to meet the patient’s needs, are co-ordinated and delivered to that patient. Practices must take reasonable steps to accommodate the requests of patients to be assigned a particular GP and to see them for an appointment.
However, it is vital that practices retain clinical discretion to provide appointments, as is necessary and appropriate to meet the reasonable needs of patients—something that this amendment would remove. Through primary care networks and initiatives such as enhanced health in care homes and anticipatory care, we are supporting GP practices to improve continuity of care on the ground, including for older patients. We are committed to growing the general practice workforce and increasing access to appointments, in line with our manifesto commitments.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his fairly comprehensive reply. I also thank many noble Lords for their contributions. I think the Minister’s description of the debate being wide-ranging was correct. It was noticeable also that there was a degree of sadness and regret that it was the end of the day and that this important subject could not have a longer period for debate. The whole area of prevention and primary care, and of named GPs, which my noble friend Lady Hodgson was talking about, is an area of early activity in the health of people which needs to be more debated. This debate has shown that the Bill has not given it the proper emphasis that one would want; the equality with the acute care that we have heard about.
It is late in the day, and I certainly do not want to detain the House, but I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that the Ministers can take this away and that if to a certain extent they are behind the curve on this front bit of health need, they will muse on it and improve the Bill, as the Minister said he intends to do. I thank noble Lords again and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
An integrated care board has a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to health services for patients. The amendment extends it to cover people before they are patients.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it explicit that the duty for an integrated care board to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in outcomes for patients covers outcomes such as the quality of experience undergone by patients.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an integrated care board’s duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 14Z43 of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 14Z43 of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
Lord Kamall
“14Z43A Duties as to climate change etc(1) Each integrated care board must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with—(i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In discharging the duty under this section, integrated care boards must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under section 13ND.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require integrated care boards, in exercising their functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Lord Kamall
“14Z47A Duty to keep experience of members under review etcAn integrated care board must—(a) keep under review the skills, knowledge and experience that it considers necessary for members of the board to possess (when taken together) in order for the board effectively to carry out its functions, and(b) if it considers that the board as constituted lacks the necessary skills, knowledge and experience, take such steps as it considers necessary to address or mitigate that shortcoming.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an integrated care board to keep under review the skills, knowledge and experience that it is necessary to have on the board and take steps to address or mitigate shortcomings.
Lord Kamall
“(za) describe the health services for which the integrated care board proposes to make arrangements in the exercise of its functions by virtue of this Act;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to describe the health services that the board proposes to commission over the next five years.
“(i) sections 14Z34 to 14Z44 (general duties of integrated care boards), and (ii) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners, in particular, to explain how the board proposes to discharge its duties under sections 14Z34 to 14Z44 (rather than just some of those sections).
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 3rd March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Mar 2022)
14:49 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 119 - Amendment 80 agreed.
Lord Kamall
“(ba) set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of children and young persons under the age of 25;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the joint forward plan for an integrated care board and its partners to set out any steps that the integrated care board proposes to take to address the particular needs of children or young persons under the age of 25.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for its continued focus on addressing the needs of babies, children and young people and thank noble Lords for bringing forward amendments on this issue again today. I am also really grateful to noble Lords who have engaged with the me and my officials, and I hope that this has resulted in amendments that your Lordships’ House feels that it can support.
I start with Amendment 36, in my name. This amendment will require an integrated care board to set out any steps that it proposes to take to address the particular needs of children and young people under the age of 25 in the forward plan. In addition, the Government have committed to produce a package of bespoke guidance, which explains how the ICB and the ICP should meet the needs of babies, children, young people and families. This guidance will contain provisions for the integrated care partnership’s integrated care strategy to consider child health and well-being outcomes and the integration of children’s services, as well as providing that the integrated care partnership should consult local children’s leadership and children, young people and families themselves, on the strategy.
NHS England has also agreed that it will issue statutory guidance, expecting that one of the ICB executive leads will act as a children’s lead, with responsibility for championing the needs of babies, children and young people. I hope that noble Lords are supportive of this government amendment and its underpinning commitment to support, improve and enhance services for babies, children and young people.
I turn to Amendments 157, 185 and 186. Safeguarding children is a priority for the Government, and we share the horror and concern provoked by the awful murders of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. The Government are committed to addressing barriers to safe, timely and appropriate sharing of information to safeguard children, and we have heard clearly the strength of feeling across the House on the value of a consistent identifier for children. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and other noble Lords, for pushing us on this issue.
To this end, we are committing in this legislation to publish a report, within one year of the section coming into force, that will describe the Government’s policy on information sharing in relation to children’s health and social care and the safeguarding of children and will include an explanation of the Government’s policy on a consistent identifier for children. It will also include the Government’s approach and actions to implement the policy set out in the report. The Government agree with noble Lords that action is needed. The report will reflect a cross-government position on what actions will be taken to improve safe and appropriate information sharing.
This amendment, of necessity, is limited by reference to health and social care, reflecting the scope of the Bill. However, the report to which this amendment refers will be laid by the Secretary of State for Education, who intends that it will cover improved information sharing between all safeguarding partners, including the NHS, local authorities and the police, as well as education settings. The Department for Education has already started its work, which will look at the feasibility of a common child identifier. I hope these amendments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to safeguarding children and improving services for babies, children and young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the National Children’s Bureau, the Disabled Children’s Partnership and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for their support with this amendment and for their constructive engagement with the Department of Health and Social Care. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for adding her name to this amendment.
I welcome the amendments that the Minister has laid relating to the needs of babies, children and young people but, despite the good progress made, this amendment seeks to go further by requiring NHS England to conduct a performance assessment of each ICB in meeting the needs of babies, children and young people in each financial year. This includes its duties concerning the improvement in quality of services and reducing inequalities and the extent of its public involvement and consultation.
There are significant challenges in meeting the health and care needs of children and young people, including their mental health needs, which are different and arguably more complex than for adults. This is particularly the case for disabled children and young people and those with special educational needs. A recent survey by the Disabled Children’s Partnership and the parent campaign group, Let Us Learn Too, found that 40% of families with disabled children have seen their savings wiped out by fighting and paying for support.
I shall give one brief example from the West Midlands. Joanne, whose autistic son also has pathological demand avoidance and communication difficulties, explained that the local authority refused to do an occupational therapy assessment, so she paid for one privately. Eventually, she took the local authority to tribunal at considerable expense in legal fees. Despite winning, it is one year on and still no support is being provided by the local authority.
One in three families with disabled children said they needed publicly unprovided essential therapies for their disabled child, but could not afford them. Some 60% of families with disabled children have sought NHS mental health support for a family member due to the stress of fighting for basic services. The Disabled Children’s Partnership cites individuals feeling a sense of societal resentment toward disabled people, says that carers are persistently undervalued and underrepresented in policy and details the enormous physical, emotional and financial burden they endure in caring for their disabled family member without adequate support from the health and care sectors. Joanne said, furthermore, that the local authority blamed her for her son’s disability and put a child protection plan in place rather than supporting her, although thankfully it was removed shortly afterwards.
Integrated care boards have a crucial role in commissioning primary and community healthcare services directly for babies, children and young people. They will play a key role in the joint commissioning of services for disabled children and those with special educational needs, as well as contributing to education, health and care plans and in the commissioning of joined-up services in the first 1,000 days of life, in which the Government are, importantly, investing. Crucially, ICBs will be jointly responsible for the leadership of local child safeguarding partnerships, together with the police and local authorities.
Yet support for children and young people varies geographically. Local systems find themselves pulled in different directions by different government initiatives and separate pots of funding, which creates a profound risk of destabilising what are relatively new local safeguarding partnerships. The Wood report, published in May 2021, reviewed the new multi-agency safeguarding arrangements put in place by the Children and Social Work Act 2017. It revealed just how stretched the resources are in protecting children, as well as the need for a more effective culture of joined-up working and a more consistent and detailed understanding of the role of the three statutory safeguarding partners—the local authority, the CCG and the chief officer of police. The Wood report also emphasised the importance of accountability regarding the quality of these services and the need for inspectorates and regulators to develop a model to analyse performance against what is deemed to be best practice, something that this amendment goes a long way to trying to achieve.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I support and very much welcome government Amendments 36, 157 and 185 in response to the powerful debates in Committee on children’s health, safeguarding, data-sharing and particularly the case for a unique identifier for children, on which I put forward an amendment in Committee. I thank the Minister for engaging so fully and positively on these issues and for the various meetings which led to these amendments being tabled. It is also very welcome that Amendment 36 includes children in the Bill, which so many of us have argued for.
On the unique identifier as a means of identifying children in touch with multiple services, aiding safeguarding and promoting joined-up support, I strongly support the government amendment to lay a report before Parliament on information sharing and on a single unique identifier for children. That is a real step forward, and it is clear that the Government acknowledge that there are serious and distinct challenges with sharing relevant information across not just children and social care sectors but others too, including schools and the police.
There is always more to do, so I will never be 100% satisfied and I note that the amendment as tabled does not actually commit the Government to any specific timed action beyond publishing the report. Therefore, it was good to hear the further assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, gave at the Dispatch Box. I think I heard him say clearly and unequivocally that the Government are committed to developing plans not just to look at the case for but to adopt a single unique identifier for children. I think I also heard a commitment to developing a set of cross-government proposals for implementing that, and then, I hope, acting on the findings of this report within a defined timescale. If the Minister could reiterate those commitments, I would be extremely grateful. I would also welcome a commitment to involving those organisations representing children and young people, who have been so much a part of our discussions and debates, as part of the production of that Bill.
I support Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I signed, requiring NHS England to assess annually how well each ICB is doing in meeting the needs of children and young people; it provides much-needed accountability and transparency, particularly in relation to the new and crucial safeguarding responsibilities that ICBs are taking on. I welcome the statutory guidance, which I know the Government intend to produce, on having a children’s lead on the board of every ICB. That is really important.
I support the suite of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. I will leave him to set out the case for them, but I agree that family hubs play a really important role in improving early intervention services, helping integration and data sharing among public services and involving the voluntary sector. Importantly, and germane to this Bill, that includes children’s health services, which are often better delivered in community settings with other family support services. I particularly support Amendment 75, which calls for each local authority to provide a family hub. That is central to a national rollout of family hubs. which I would like to see at the very core of a national strategy on child vulnerability.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her support; it is very much appreciated. She has been a doughty warrior accompanying us along this path for many years.
I will speak to my Amendments 64, 66, 68 and 75 and I thank the Minister for the meetings I have had with him and the Bill team to hear his concerns, particularly around being overprescriptive.
Amendment 64 simply replaces “may” with “must” and thereby requires integrated care partnership strategies to lay out how health-related services can be more closely integrated with health and social care. In Committee, I said that “may” made that aspect of integration voluntaristic, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why, as I am genuinely mystified, the ICP is at present only invited to do that.
Amendment 66 has been revised after the discussions mentioned earlier. I propose adding new subsection (5A) to Clause 116ZB to specifically invite ICPs to consider how family help services, including those accessed through family hubs, could be more closely integrated with arrangements for the provision of health services and social care services in that area. I avoid using “must” in that case, because it could place an overly prescriptive requirement on ICPs. I also avoid mandating the use of family hubs. They are simply mentioned as an important potential access point.
I recognise and applaud the many ways that the Government have improved the Bill with respect to children’s health. However, I explained in Committee that many children’s health needs are psychosocial: they need practical, not just medical, solutions and addressing them needs a whole-family approach. That is also particularly important when parents experience drug and alcohol problems, which can affect their children almost or as much as the parents themselves.
Early family help commissioned by local authorities therefore needs to be integrated with health as well as many other departments of government. Family hubs are mentioned in my amendment, not prescriptively but as the model that could enable that to happen. In Committee, I described how DWP’s Reducing Parental Conflict programme, DLUHC’s Supporting Families and the MOJ’s private family law pilots all looked to family hubs as an access point for those who need this support. The Bill could and should help to make that model proliferate to benefit families. As it operates according to principles, not an overly prescribed framework, it can be tailored to local need, including by drawing in the bespoke work of the local voluntary and community sector. Historically and currently, health services have had a poor track record in integrating with local government and wider partners. The Children’s Centre movement frequently lamented the lack of engagement with health. The opportunity the Bill provides to avoid that pattern being repeated should not be missed.
My Amendment 66 gives meaning to the phrase “family help” and points towards an amended Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 to explain what is meant by “family hubs”. In Committee, I explained that
“services which improve children’s lives through supporting the family unit and strengthening family relationships to enable children to thrive and keep families together”
is the independent care review’s working definition of “family help”. This is not a concept to be set in concrete in the lead reviewer’s final report, but simply one that is qualitatively different from “family support” in local authority usage. The latter leans towards late-stage statutory child protection, which ideally prevents children entering care and is far from the early help so many parents need.
Finally, my Amendment 75 necessarily changes how the Children Act 1989 refers to family help infrastructure to reflect more closely the way it has developed. It has also been adjusted since Committee to avoid mandating local authorities to provide family hubs, which would have significant cost implications, ultimately for the Treasury. As a result of my amendment, new Schedule 2(9) to the Children Act would state:
“Every local authority shall provide such family hubs as they consider appropriate with regard to local needs in relation to children and families within their area.”
“Family hubs” means an access point where children, their parents, relatives and carers can access advice, guidance, counselling or paediatric health services as well as occupational, social, cultural or recreational activities. This removes the anachronistic reference to and description of “family centres”. These were never consistently implemented in the way probably envisaged by the draftsmen of the 1989 Act, although children’s centres did emerge to fulfil many of their purposes in response to research on the importance of children’s early years.
To address the Minister’s concerns that putting family hubs into legislation would introduce unhelpful rigidity and prescription, I end by making an analogy with the Supporting Families programme. This does have a legislative underpinning, but the early troubled families programme from which it evolved provided principles for a tried, tested and consistent way of working, illustrated these with case studies and supported local authorities to develop their own bespoke approaches to that way of working. The DfE is taking a similar non-prescriptive approach in its family hubs framework, which emphasises principles—namely, access, connection and relationships—and avoids determining how local authorities implement these. Just as the Supporting Families programme has developed but is still recognisably the same way of working launched as “troubled families” 10 years ago, I and others anticipate the same continuous improvement trajectory for the family hubs model or way of working.
Family hubs are now official government policy, backed by a £130 million commitment, a major evaluation programme and decades of supportive research. The model is not prescriptive but enabling and supported by many local authorities and those designing health systems. I would be grateful, in conclusion, if the Minister would explain, after these assurances, why this important social infrastructure, the fruit of 30 years of reform, which builds on and extends Labour’s legacy of Sure Start centres, has no place in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on his efforts to keep the issue of prevention and early intervention before us: it is vital. I also thank the Minister for the government amendments and the way he has engaged with us over this issue. I was particularly pleased to hear him use the word “action” at least two or three times in his introduction to the amendments. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lady Tyler, on all they have done but in particular for pointing out, in their Amendment 59, that there could be a bit of a gap here. We have the CQC, which will inspect individual healthcare settings and, under the Bill, it will also have to see how the new integrated care system is working, but there is no guarantee that it will see it as part of its duty to see how that system is working for children. This is something that the NHS could do through the report called for in Amendment 59.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend the Minister for Amendments 36 and 157. I shall also speak in support of Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. Before I do so, I hope your Lordships’ House will allow me to take this opportunity to thank the healthcare professionals at Guy’s and St Thomas’s, who recently looked after me so well following major surgery. Some noble Lords may have noticed my absence. I have had half my leg rebuilt and am now the proud, if involuntary, owner of a Meccano set inserted by my excellent surgeon, Marcus Bankes, and his registrar, Christian Smith. I apologise in advance if any noble Lord seeks to intervene and I dare not sit down to take their intervention as I am not sure I would be able to get back up again.
Although the pain was excruciating and the morphine, which I am weaning myself off, very welcome, it saddens me to say that that pain was compounded by the way in which I received no support from your Lordships’ House. I might as well have been dead. It reminded me that this wonderful institution remains a place whose rules and modus operandi were designed by and for rich, non-disabled men. I will say no more on the matter now, but it is clear to me that this needs to change if we are to become a stronger, more diverse, more representative House. If we do not want to be consigned to the past, we must stop living in the past. The appalling way we treat Members whose disability enforces temporary absence from your Lordships’ House is indefensible and cannot continue.
Returning to the substance of the amendments under discussion, I am hugely grateful that the Government have listened to concerns I raised at Second Reading and others raised, in my absence, in Committee. All credit goes to noble Lords for the strength and the passion with which they did this, and to the Minister for so obviously listening and taking their concerns on board. Taken together, Amendments 36 and 157 should make a real difference to the lives of all babies, children and young people in this country, particularly those with speech, language and communication needs. I should declare at this point my interest as a vice-president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. I know the Minister and his colleagues across government, not just in the Department of Health and Social Care but also in the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, share my ambition and the ambition of other noble Lords in wanting children and young people with communication needs and their families to have the best possible level of support so they can realise their potential.
To help deliver that ambition, I ask my noble friend to reflect on four things. First, I would be so grateful if he would look kindly on Amendment 59, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. This would help to close any potential accountability gap and considerably strengthen the provisions of Amendment 36.
Secondly, will the Minister pledge to ensure that all the guidance to the Bill specifically references children’s speech, language and communication needs? The statutory guidance and accountability lead for SEND is a very positive development, but it is not sufficient. The vast majority of children with communication needs do not have an education, health and care plan. This includes children with developmental language disorder—over 7% of all children—those who stammer, and those with speech-sound disorders. The guidance must, therefore, ensure that the needs of those children are supported. A model that the Government have already established for this is the statutory guidance to the Domestic Abuse Act, where speech, language and communication are listed as a specific intersectionality.
Thirdly, will the Minister agree to meet the chief executive of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists to discuss how the guidance on the Bill can best capture those issues? Fourthly, on Amendment 157, can the Minister reassure the House that the report will include commitments to act to improve information-sharing? Finally, may I reiterate my huge thanks to my noble friend the Minister, and say how pleased I am to be able to do so in person, in your Lordships’ House? It is good to be back.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend back and commend him for his bravery. We came into the House at the same time, and he is a source of constant inspiration to us all; I have endless admiration for him. I apologise to the House for having omitted to declare my interests when I spoke for the first time on Report on Tuesday. I refer to my entry in the register of interests, and in particular to the fact that I work with the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I am also a patron of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and a co-chair of the All-Party Group on Child Contact Centres and Services.
I again commend my noble friend the Minister for summing up and assessing the mood of the House and tabling the amendments today; I am grateful to him for that. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and her Amendment 59, which is very appropriate. I hope my noble friend will look favourably on it, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness. One of her remarks earlier on Report which struck a chord with me was about the shortage of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, particularly for those in the age group affected by these amendments.
I endorse and support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Farmer. He refers in particular to the family hubs, and I make a plea to the Minister to recognise, as part of a family hub, a child contact centre. Centres are usually manned by volunteers, and they do fantastic work—not necessarily in keeping families together, because, unfortunately, their role largely comes into play when families have broken, but they play a fantastic role in maintaining contact with the absent parent.
Obviously, in these constrained times, the budgets of all organisations come under increasing scrutiny and pressure, so I urge the Minister to use his good offices to speak to those in the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education to ensure that the budget for child contact centres will be renewed not only for two years but for three years—the period promised earlier. Those centres do fantastic work, under great constraint, and I am proud to be associated with them. I wanted to use this opportunity to support the amendments and to urge my noble friend the Minister to use his good offices in this regard.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the government amendments—bur first I wish the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, all the best for a speedy recovery from his hospitalisation; I am sure everyone will join me in that. I welcome the government amendments to ensure that the Bill recognises how important sharing information on children’s health and social care across government departments and public authorities is to safeguarding and protecting them and to promoting their welfare. The commitment in Amendment 157 to reporting to Parliament within a year on implementation, and explaining where the use of the consistent identifier for each child would facilitate information-sharing, is a significant step forward, as is the emphasis on overcoming the barriers that stop services being joined up, which have a serious—and, sadly, all too often fatal—impact on keeping children safe and well.
We also support government Amendment 36 to Clause 20, which leads this group, on how ICBs’ joint forward plans will address the needs of children and young people. Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, complements this in relation to performance assessments, and says how they should address the matter, particularly the duties relating to disabled children and children with special needs. I hope the Government will respond positively to this and will consult widely with stakeholders, after the promise in the Minister’s recent letter of a package of “bespoke” statutory guidance from NHS England explaining how ICPs and ICBs will meet the needs of babies, children, young people and families, and be accountable for integrating services. The Minister’s letter, and his introduction today, provide a number of assurances on important issues, such as having children’s leads on ICB executives. We will see how it all works through in practice in the structures of the new bodies.
As noble Lords have stressed, the whole issue of sharing information across multiagencies will be difficult and challenging. Two of the major barriers for previous efforts were the clash between the value of sharing electronic information and fears about it getting into the wrong hands. That is why we need a clear status picture of where we are starting from, to be able to analyse what needs to be done, how progress can be made, assessed and monitored, and the priority areas for identification of consistent identifiers.
The Minister has promised that the report will cover all safeguarding partners including the NHS, local authorities, education and the police. Will he write to noble Lords on the categories of information currently shared between those bodies, so that we can see where we are starting from?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has again spoken strongly on his amendments about family hubs, which we supported in Committee on the Bill and on other occasions. I look forward to the Minister's updated response. We do, however, always—today is no exception—make the very obvious point that if the Government had not shut down the excellent Sure Start centres up and down the country, many of the provisions that the noble Lord is calling for in support of children, mothers and families would all be in place now.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have raised important points in this debate; I also thank them for accepting some of the amendments that we have tabled in response to their engagement. That engagement was very constructive, and I hope that as they look to hold the Government to account we will continue to have engagement on these issues.
First, I shall deal with a couple of specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, again asked about the identifier. As I have made clear, the report will include an explanation of the Government’s policy on a consistent identifier for children. It will also include our approach and actions to implement the recommendations in the report.
We all agree that the principle of a consistent identifier is right, but there are complex issues in applying that consistent identifier in safeguarding children. This is why we want to investigate all the issues thoroughly in a report that will be laid before Parliament a year after commencement. There is one issue in which I am personally interested—I am sure noble Lords will remember that I geeked out on this one. I think there are some technical solutions, but I can also see some technical unintended consequences. I myself will look very closely at the report, especially at the technical solutions.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; it is good to see him back. I thank him for engaging with me—almost from his hospital bed, I think, which demonstrates his commitment to these issues. He talked about speech and language therapy, and the Government recognise the importance of communications needs, and the important part that they play in children’s development. We will work with stakeholders on the development of guidance, and ensure that we engage with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Before my noble Lord sits down, does “children” in this amendment include children in care?
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the annual report for an integrated care board to explain, in particular, how it has discharged its duties under sections 14Z34 to 14Z44 and 14Z47A (rather than just some of those sections).
“(ba) review the extent to which the board has exercised its functions consistently with NHS England’s views set out in the latest statement published under section 13SA(1) (views about how functions relating to inequalities information should be exercised),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the annual report for an integrated care board to state how far it has exercised its functions consistently with views expressed by NHS England in the latest statement published under new section 13SA.
“(3A) An annual report must include—(a) a statement of the amount of expenditure incurred by the integrated care board during the financial year in relation to mental health,(b) a calculation of the proportion of the expenditure incurred by the integrated care board during the financial year that relates to mental health, and(c) an explanation of the statement and calculation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires an integrated care board to include in its annual report information about spending that relates to mental health.
“(ca) section 14Z40 (duty in respect of research),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a performance assessment in respect of an integrated care board to include, in particular, an assessment of how well the board has discharged its duty to promote research and the use of evidence obtained from research. Another amendment provides that the duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research.
Baroness Brinton
“(3) This section however does not authorise—(a) the disclosure of patient information, or(b) the disclosure of personal information obtained from a specified authority which is a health or social care body.(4) For the purposes of this section a “health or social care body” means a public body which exercises functions in connection with the provision of health services or of adult social care in England.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent ICBs from disclosing patient information or certain personal information.
Baroness Brinton (LD)[V]
My Lords, I thank Ministers, officials and other Peers, including my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the discussions that we have had since Committee. I am particularly grateful for the letter from the Minister late yesterday and the meeting this morning.
I have laid Amendment 60, and I support Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which try to protect only the lawful disclosure of personal patient data. For the purposes of the debate on this group, can we accept that this is shorthand for the confidential personal and medical data currently mainly held by GPs and hospital doctors in England? Amendment 60 would provide that protection in legislation and was laid only because we have not yet had a clear response from Ministers on what is permitted and what the existing rules will be relation to ICBs taking over responsibilities from CCGs because ICBs are new bodies. This is in the light of new Section 14Z61. At Second Reading and in Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns that this new section, which outlines ICBs’ permitted disclosures of information, looks very wide ranging and could, for example, enable a police officer, or another person from a public body, to demand the disclosure of a patient’s personal data.
The new section uses the phrase that ICBs can disclose data where
“disclosure is necessary or expedient”
for the person making the request, but nowhere does it explain how the decision is made by the ICB or what the decision-making process is to release the data and, importantly, where the protection of that personal data sits in the hierarchy of the request of necessary and expedient demands. I have asked repeatedly how this process would work, and in responses at the Despatch Box, in meetings and in letters I have not really had a response that has laid out simply and clearly how this process would work. I shall therefore ask the Minister the following questions in an attempt to clarify how a patient’s confidential personal data will be protected and what the process would be for it to be released to a person making a request. What rules and guidance are available for staff, including those in ICBs, to manage a request from a non-NHS person requesting information other than through a court order? How would it be processed and reviewed? ICBs would not normally be the holder of such data, and new Section 14Z61 does not set out the balance between the rights of the patient and those of the requestor who believes they have a necessary or expedient reason for being sent this data.
We wish to be confident that the structures are in place for when shared care records come into force. Let me be clear: from these Benches, we welcome the principle of shared care records, but the processes need to be in place to ensure that personal data is protected when every part of NHS England would have access to that data. I raise this particularly because just this week Health Service Journal stated that the Secretary of State is speeding up the shared care records project to be complete and implemented by December 2023.
Can the Minister therefore commit that the powers in Section 14Z61(1) will be constrained such that for requests of disclosure that come from outside the health and care system, the ICB will only ever disclose the direct care providers the requester could ask instead? Can he confirm that if an ICB is to become data controller for shared care records, he will return to this clause with primary legislation on such implementation?
I am very grateful for the discussion with Ministers and officials and hope that the Minister will be able to provide your Lordships’ House with a response that demonstrates that patient, personal and confidential data remains secure. I look forward to his response, and I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the brevity of her remarks, which is a model for Report stage. I think she put this across very well indeed and I very much support her.
My Amendment 116 relates to the containment in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 of the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care, which is required for national statistics for commissioning, regulatory research purposes and patient care. My Amendment 116 simply seeks to keep those statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England does not take on this responsibility as a result of the merging of NHS Digital and NHSX within the structure of NHS England, which was a recommendation of the review led by Laura Wade-Gery. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is going to speak in some detail—but with brevity as well, I hasten to add.
Kingsley Manning, the former distinguished chair of NHS Digital, has spelled out the implications of doing this. He believes the action of NHS England in taking over NHS Digital
“is a significant retrograde step in defending the rights of citizens with respect to the collection and use of their health data.”
In a letter to me, which I received yesterday, the Minister asked me why NHS England would be regarded as less independent, transparent or objective in the exercise of these functions, given its already significant responsibility for some data and the fact that it is a very similar organisation to NHS Digital, as a statutory arm’s-length body. In answer to him, NHS England has many different responsibilities and priorities, so, first, it will clearly not be able to give the same focus to the issue of protecting the safe haven and, secondly, it has many interests which could be deemed to at least be in tension with the concept of the safe haven. That is why I and other noble Lords believe it is important to have the statutory protection already contained in the current legislative arrangements.
I conclude by saying that I am at one with Ministers in wanting to speed up digital transformation in the NHS; after all, we have been dabbling with this over many years. But it has to be done right, and the way to do it right is to be very transparent and rigorous about the protection of patient information.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendments 60 and 116, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on their persistence in pressing these two items, because they are extremely important. I also thank the Minister for his engagement, both on the Floor of the House and in extensive correspondence. This has been really quite a complicated trail. I feel as though we have been in a maze where we have had to follow a bit of string, finding the way through into data governance in the NHS.
We have had to follow certain key principles, which we all share and which the Minister has expressed, including the protection of privacy, the right of opt-out, the value of health data and, above all, the imperative to retain public trust. Given the importance of the new ICB regime, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to comprehensively answer my noble friend’s questions.
But if we have taken the time to get to this point of really understanding—or beginning to understand—the kind of data governance that the ICBs will be subject to, it raises the question of what future guidance will be in place. I very much hope that the Minister can absolutely give us the assurance that there will be new, clear guidance, along the lines I hope he is going to express in response to my noble friend, as soon as possible, especially given the speeding up of the electronic patient record programme, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said. That is, of course, desirable, but it has to be done in a safe manner.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise even more briefly to support Amendment 116. It is worth reminding the Minister and the House that the Government Statistical Service is independent. It was made so by the Blair Government so that Ministers could not withhold, distort or delay the publication of uncomfortable statistics. Rebukes on dodgy statistics secure public reprimands of Ministers and departments.
The logic of this position is that you do not put the collection or publication of health statistics in the hands of an operational arm’s-length body, particularly because there could be a conflict of interest. That point has already been made. These functions should be left in the hands of an independent non-operational body, which is what the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, does. Can the Minister explain why the Government are making this change? My instinct is to be mightily suspicious.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I simply rise to say that I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to share all the concerns expressed about the open-endedness of what is in the Bill and the concerns about the lack of protection for patient data. Clearly, there has been much debate and discussion, and I think it is right that we hear from the Minister.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My goodness—I thank noble Lords for their brevity. I am afraid that I shall not be as brief as I would want to be. I would like to confine myself to single-word answers, but I do not think that would give the reassurance that noble Lords are looking for.
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt. As they know from our discussions, this issue is very close to my heart and something I feel very strongly about, so I welcome their pressing the Government on this and their continuous engagement—in fact, right up to this morning. I do not think that this is the end of that engagement but I hope to give some reassurances. I completely understand the interest in the integrated care boards’ power to disclose information that is personal data. I hope I will be able to clarify some of the intentions.
New Section 14Z61, inserted by Clause 20, recreates the section that applies to CCGs, which sets out the circumstances in which CCGs are permitted to disclose information obtained in the exercise of their functions. The clause in question already restricts ICBs’ powers to disclose information, by limiting these to the specific circumstances set out in the clause.
In addition, the existing data protection legislation, including UK GDPR, provides several key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s data, including strict rules and key data protection principles for the sharing of personal data. Health data is special category data—that is data that requires additional protections due to its sensitivity. For this type of data to be processed lawfully, a further condition must be met as set out in UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act.
In addition, the common law duty of confidentiality applies to the use of confidential patient information. This permits disclosure of such information only where the individual to whom the information relates has consented, where disclosure is of overall benefit to a patient or is in the public interest—for example, disclosure is to protect individuals or society from risks of harm or where there is a statutory basis for disclosing the information or a legal duty, such as a court order, to do so.
Every health and care organisation has a Caldicott Guardian—a senior person responsible for protecting the confidentiality of people’s health and care information and making sure that it is used properly. Caldicott Guardians decide how much information it is appropriate to share—they may decide that even legally permitted information may not be shared—and they advise on disclosures that may be in the public interest. They act in accordance with the eight principles, which are the framework to ensure that people’s confidential information is kept confidential and used appropriately. The UK Caldicott Guardian Council works closely with the independent statutory National Data Guardian, whose role is to advise and challenge the health and care system to help ensure that the public’s confidential information is safeguarded securely and used properly.
Nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law that provide key protections and safeguards for the use of an individual’s personal data. I can also confirm that NHS England’s power to issue guidance for ICBs will apply to their functions relating to data sharing, and that may be a helpful route in making it clear to ICBs what their duties and responsibilities are, in respect of any confidential data they may hold, in a way that illustrates how legislation applies.
The effect of the amendment is to prevent the effective operation of the clause as drafted. This would prevent the ICB from effectively discharging its functions where it may be necessary to disclose personal patient data, including investigating complaints, making safeguarding referrals for patients whose welfare is at risk, complying with court orders and assisting criminal investigations. It would also risk a confusing data-sharing system where different rules apply to different organisations.
On Amendment 116, once again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for bringing this issue before this House. Our aim is to put data and analytics at the heart of NHS delivery and remove incoherence in the organisational leadership, for the benefit of patients and their outcomes. It is a solid recommendation for improving how health and social care data is used more effectively, closing that gap between delivery and the use of data to inform and improve services.
I understand that noble Lords fear that the movement of the statutory data functions from one world-class arm’s-length body, NHS Digital, to another, NHS England, which indeed runs the NHS itself, would result in a decline in the exercise of those functions. We feel that this fear is perhaps overexaggerated but I would be very happy to continue discussions on this.
However, that movement would be accompanied by the transfer of several thousand expert staff and all their supporting expertise and technology, along with the existing statutory safeguards, which would be preserved. NHS Digital and NHS England have a history of very close working on data, most recently of course in how the management of data has underpinned efforts to defeat Covid-19, through the protection of shielded patients and the management of data on vaccinations. The Government and Parliament held NHS Digital to account for the delivery of its functions, and they will continue to hold NHS England to account for the delivery of any functions which transfer.
As to the concern about a conflict of interest, the data collections which NHS Digital undertakes are the result of directions from either the Secretary of State or NHS England, and obviously the direction-making power of the former will continue to be relevant should the proposed merger take place. Directions include details of how data must be shared or disseminated. NHS Digital is required to publish details of all such directions and maintain a register of the information it collects. There is also a rigorous process for external data access requests and audits of how data is used.
The intention here is that such safeguards would continue when the functions transfer to NHS England and would make it very difficult for the organisation to suppress or otherwise refuse to make available any data which it is required to collect and disseminate in fulfilment of its statutory role. I hope, perhaps overoptimistically, that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Warner—clearly not—in terms of suppressing information.
There is a rigorous process for external data access requests. NHS England’s Transformation Directorate will be assuming responsibility for NHS Digital’s functions, and for accomplishing the alignment of delivery and data proposed in the Wade-Gery review. There will continue to be external, independent scrutiny—for example, by the Information Commissioner and the National Data Guardian—of the use by the NHS, and NHS England in particular, of health and care data.
I hope that I have given noble Lords some reassurance that these important issues have been considered by the department, and that they will feel able not to move their amendments when reached. Of course, given my strong interest in this subject, I am prepared and happy to have further conversations to make sure that we close any remaining gaps and for me push the department and NHS England as appropriate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I now invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to reply to the debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular for their brevity given the long day we have ahead of us. In particular I thank the Minister for his helpful response.
My Amendment 60 is very specific and I asked for a specific response. The Minister has confirmed what I wanted to hear: that health data is special category data, and that it requires additional protections due to its sensitivity, which would be applied by any ICB when it has had that request. The other key phrase that stuck out was that nothing in the clause overrides the range of requirements in law to provide those key protections and safeguards regarding individual personal data. I am therefore satisfied on that basis.
Briefly on Amendment 116, which is much broader in scope and very important for the future of data use with the proposals that are coming down stream, I agree with all the comments that were made by noble Lords. One particular thing that stood out for me was the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the publication of the Goldacre review is vital before any final version of Data Saves Lives is made public.
We will not get to a vote on Amendment 116 today. However, could the Minister assist the House and confirm that guidance will be issued, rather than a looser “may be” issued? With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
(2) The integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Board where the area of the integrated care board and the responsible local authority are coterminous.(2A) If more than one Health and Wellbeing Board relates to the area of the integrated care board, the integrated care partnership may be designated as the Health and Wellbeing Boards of each responsible local authority acting in combination.(2B) The integrated care partnership must consist of—(a) one or more members appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards,(b) members appointed by the integrated care board (equivalent in number to the number appointed by the Health and Wellbeing Board or Boards), and(c) such further members as are appointed by the integrated care partnership.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 61, 95 and 96, which are all in my name, are to two separate issues. Amendment 61 relates to an issue we debated a number of times in Committee, when, if I may presume, there was a degree of support among noble Lords for the proposition that integrated care partnerships, in so far as they have to produce a strategy for a needs assessment for their area, have a very complementary—indeed, one might say overlapping—responsibility with health and well-being boards established in local authorities.
I will not go into the detail of how this works, and nor do I rest on the construction of Amendment 61. I freely acknowledge that this is a tricky thing to do. There will be circumstances where one ICS, one ICB or one ICP covers a lot of local authorities and others where it covers only one or two. In the latter case, it is pretty straightforward to integrate health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships. In other cases, the membership and construction may be more complicated.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
There has been a whole debate at Second Reading and in Committee about the equality of local government and the NHS in this regard. Importantly, local government focuses on place because it is used to doing so. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said, the legislation does not include powers to delegate right down to local government so that it can work with the NHS—which it sees as its key responsibility—then there will be a gap, and this will not be seen as a true partnership. More importantly, the powers that would unleash some of the issues central to the Bill—better integration, reducing health inequalities and improving health outcomes—will not be achieved. There will not be the powers of delegation that will be allowed to place when innovation starts.
That is why the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, are important, particularly Amendment 96, on the roles of the place board. If the Government do not take this forward, it will be a total abdication. Place will be important in unleashing innovation, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has rightly pointed out this gap in the legislation.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has made some important and sensible points, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
My noble friend Lord Scriven raised the important question of the role of local authorities. I simply want to add that I happen to know that some of the chairs-designate of the ICBs would really like to know the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, early on in his speech. What is the relationship of the health and well-being boards to the ICBs? If those people are confused, it is not surprising that noble Lords are too.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has once again put his finger on an issue that the Government need to take seriously and which, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, has run through our debates at Second Reading and in Committee. What is the role of the ICPs’ joint working and what should a place board be doing? As I said during the previous day’s debate on Report, we need also to treat place boards—or any commissioning body—in the same way as we do the ICBs.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is right. If the Government do not address this issue in the next few weeks by putting something in the Bill, we may well find ourselves back here in two or three years’ time, doing exactly what we are doing now.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important discussion about place and joint working, and although the Government are unable to accept my noble friend’s amendments, for reasons I shall touch on, I hope I can reassure him that the questions which he and other noble Lords have raised have been considered in the Bill.
England is so large and diverse that a one-size-fits-all approach will not be right for everyone, and that is why we have been flexible about the requirements for integrated care partnerships and joint working arrangements. We fundamentally believe that, if integration is to work, we must allow local areas to find the right approach for them.
As my noble friend will appreciate, our provisions on integrated care partnerships build upon existing legislation, particularly in the case of health and well-being boards. We know that health and well-being boards have played an incredibly important role in the last decade, and this legislation intends to build on their success. We will be refreshing the guidance for health and well-being boards in the light of the changes that this Bill proposes, in order to help them understand the possibilities of these arrangements and their relationships with ICBs and ICPs, so that they can find the most appropriate model for their area.
Fortunately, this Bill and existing legislation already provide the framework to do what these amendments intend to achieve. Two or more health and well-being boards can already jointly exercise their functions, and where the local authority area and ICB area are the same, there is no reason why the health and well-being board and the ICP cannot have the same membership. The ICP is intended as an equal partnership between the local authorities and the ICB. By restricting the right of the local authority to nominate a member who they see fit and requiring them to do so through a committee with a potentially wide membership, including the ICB, risks undermining that equality. Local authorities may ask their health and well-being board to nominate those members. However, we do not wish to restrict their options and unintentionally prevent better collaboration and integration by adding further requirements to the Bill.
I turn to the joint working arrangements. The Bill also provides for the ability to establish place-based committees of ICBs and to set them out clearly in their constitutions. I assure my noble friend on this point that the legislation allows the flexibility to establish these committees, so we should not find ourselves in the situation that he talks about. ICBs will be able to enter arrangements under new Section 65Z5, which allows an ICB to delegate or exercise its functions jointly with other ICBs, NHS England, NHS trusts, foundation trusts and local authorities, or any other body prescribed by regulations. Under these powers, a committee of an ICB could be created to look at population health improvement at place level and could consider entering an arrangement under Section 65Z5 to work jointly where appropriate.
The membership of that committee can be decided locally by the ICB, and it is entirely open to the ICB to seek views from other organisations as to who best to appoint. I hope that reassures my noble friend that there is already the legal framework for ICBs to look at population health improvement at a place level. We are trying to protect the ability of ICBs to determine the structures that work best for them. To help them to do that, NHS England has the power to issue guidance to ICBs on the discharge of their functions. The flexibility that we have set out in the Bill makes my noble friend’s intentions possible. However, our provisions also give a degree of flexibility, so that areas can take control, innovate, and adopt what works best for them, rather having to meet prescriptive top-down requirements.
It is for these reasons that I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his Amendment 61 and not move his Amendments 95 and 96 when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their support, and to my noble friend for responding. I have a couple of important things to say.
First, I was not suggesting these things. I was suggesting that the legislation should reflect what the Government’s intentions are, because the integration White Paper set them out. Secondly, my noble friend said very carefully that the health and well-being boards and integrated care partnerships can have the same membership, but that is not the same as them being the same organisation. I am looking for my noble friend to say, without fear of contradiction, that where they choose locally to do so—and I am perfectly happy for there to be flexibility—local authorities and the ICBs can create an integrated care partnership which serves the functions of the health and well-being boards and the integrated care partnership in one organisation. That is the question.
On Amendments 95 and 96, I take the Minister’s point. I looked at it and thought, yes, there’s no difficulty about the place boards being a committee of the integrated care boards, but the Government in their White Paper said that there should be a single person accountable for shared outcomes in each place. That place board would have functions delegated to it from the integrated care board and local authorities. For that to happen, I cannot understand why it is not necessary for that to be reflected in Clause 62, since the existing legislation makes no reference to place boards. Also, if the person who is accountable is the chief executive of the place board, we must assume that that will not necessarily be the chief executive of the integrated care board, yet as things stand in the legislation, the chief executive of the integrated care board will be the single accountable officer. How is the accountable officer to be the chief executive of the place board?
Lord Farmer
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others to Clause 21 and Schedule 4 in the name of Lord Farmer would require integrated care partnerships to consider how to integrate health-related services into the provision of health and social care services, and specifically family help services, as relationships are recognised by research as a “health asset”. “Family help” is defined in accordance with the Independent Care Review’s starting definition. ‘Family hubs’ are named as key potential sites for delivering integrated paediatric health and family help.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Amendment 64 has already been spoken to.
Lord Farmer (Con)
But I did not withdraw it. I was waiting for the response; nor did I have a chance to say whether or not I would divide the House.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that he can speak to Amendment 64 and, in doing so, move it, but he should then choose to withdraw it or test the opinion of the House.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and other noble Lords, for their support, and I thank the Ministers for helping on the direction of travel for family hubs, and for family hubs being included in statutory guidance for integrated care services and bespoke guidance specifically covering family help. However, we are talking about the bronze medal position. Gold medal is primary legislation, silver is secondary, and statutory guidance is bronze, although at least we are on the podium. As the Minister said, this is ongoing. They are awaiting the review of children’s local care evaluations from 75 local authorities. I will be with them on the journey. That is all that I can say, as it is ongoing.
Amendment 75 still presents a possible risk of imposing an additional burden on local authorities in their delivery of local services. Given that I have mirrored what the Children Act 1989 says regarding now defunct family centres, the Government should really consider amending this themselves if it inappropriately burdens local authorities. In any event, I welcome the Government’s movement. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments in my name relates to Clause 26. Noble Lords will recall that we had a rather helpful debate about this in Committee. The point is that the Care Quality Commission is an independent organisation. We want to respect that and see that carried through into its new responsibility of reviewing and inspecting the integrated care systems.
The Bill asks for “objectives and priorities” to be set by the Secretary of State. In another place, Members of the Commons inserted the idea that these priorities must include—as seen in proposed new Section 46B(3)—
“leadership, the integration of services and the quality and safety of service”.
That is fine; if they want that, let us leave it in, but I have no idea what “objectives” are in this context. Although I do not want to go down the path of semantics, for the Secretary of State to say what his or her priorities are is entirely reasonable and should be reflected in the indicators used by the CQC, but I am not sure that I know what “objectives” are in this context. Either my noble friend will explain to me what the objectives are, in which case the question of why they are not clarified further in the Bill arises, or let us leave them out—which is what most of these amendments do.
Regarding two of these amendments, it seems particularly undesirable for the Secretary of State—as in proposed new Section 46B(5) and (10)—to
“direct the Commission to revise the indicators”.
The indicators that the Care Quality Commission devises require the approval of the Secretary of State, so I am not sure why we should so trammel the independence of the CQC by enabling the Secretary of State to “direct” it to revise its indicators as opposed to denying approval, so I would rather that were not there.
Our noble friends on the Front Bench have been very accommodating; a spirit of compromise and understanding seems to have imbued the Front Bench splendidly so far. If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendments, I hope that she can at least give me some reassurance about the manner in which the Secretary of State’s powers are to be used or—in my view, this would be better—not used or extremely rarely used. I beg to move Amendment 69.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the CQC is a competent and independent organisation. Long may that continue, and any attempt to trammel it is unwelcome. We have here a 265-page Bill. If the CQC cannot get from the Bill the intentions of the Government and carry them out carefully in doing its job inspecting and reporting on how the integrated care systems are working, I do not think it needs any further direction from the Secretary of State.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I agree with that and with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will be coming to other issues about the Secretary of State’s powers later on Report, but the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has put her finger on it. I think I was there at the CQC’s inception because I was a Minister at the time, or certainly soon after. It has discharged its duties extremely well. The Minister needs to explain why the Government feel it necessary to put these powers into the Bill.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. I hope in the spirit of collaboration and compromise I am able to provide him with some further clarity and reassurance, even if I am not able to support his amendments.
Flourishing systems are critical to the success of integration and many of the proposals in the Bill. In that context it is right that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, can set the overall strategic direction of reviews of integrated care systems through setting objectives and priorities for the CQC in relation to those assessments. However, it will be the CQC as the independent regulator and expert which will develop and carry out those reviews.
In Committee, noble Lords across this House raised several matters that these reviews should or could look at—from children to rare conditions—and it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set objectives to explain the intent that lies behind high-level priorities such as leadership, integration quality and safety. These objectives will aid the CQC in its development of the review methodology and quality indicators and lay out where specific focuses should be given. The current clause allows the Secretary of State to make these distinctions and be more nuanced, just as is permitted for CQC reviews of local authority functions relating to adult social care set out in Clause 152. To remove the Secretary of State’s ability to set objectives is to remove nuance, which in turn could dilute the focus of these reviews on particular patient pathways or integration arrangements.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State must be able to ensure that the CQC’s role is complementary to other assessments, such as NHS England’s oversight of ICBs. This is achieved in part through the Secretary of State’s role in approving and directing to revise the indicators of quality, methods and approach. Removing the Secretary of State’s ability to direct the CQC to revise indicators risks the Secretary of State being locked in after approving the methodology. This could prevent the Government being able to respond to shifting developments in health and care, thus undermining the review’s relevance as time progresses.
I further reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we expect the power to direct to revise to be used infrequently, so as not to disrupt CQC reviews. The Government fully respect the independence of the CQC, and these powers are designed to ensure that its reviews of the integrated care systems are effective without undermining that independence.
It is for these reasons that I hope my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment and not move his further amendments when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend and for the support of noble Lords for the concept. I hope the CQC will find that this assists it in ensuring that it remains independent in how it goes about its job, and, indeed, how it derives indicators of quality and fitness for purpose. I take my noble friend’s point about what objectives might be. They might be, for example, objectives of the nature of the service that the review should cover so the Government might have some national priorities. I think the word “priorities” would have been sufficient.
I confess to my noble friend that I did not understand why the Secretary of State might come in and direct the CQC to change its indicators. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to have waited and seen what the CQC said. The CQC will clearly change its indicators from time to time as technologies and services adapt, and it could have been trusted to do it. I will not press the point and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 69.
Baroness Penn
“Armed Forces Act 2006
82A_(1) Section 343AA of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (due regard to principles: England)(as inserted by section 8(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2021) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) an integrated care board;”.(3) In subsection (8)—(a) omit the definition of “clinical commissioning group”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—““integrated care board” means a body established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 14 of the Bill, which establishes integrated care boards.
“Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
239_ The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is amended as follows.240_(1) Section 25 (relevant review partners) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2)(c) for “a clinical commissioning group” substitute “an integrated care board”.(3) In subsection (3)(c) for “clinical commissioning group” substitute “integrated care board”.241_ In section 36 (interpretation), in subsection (1)—(a) omit the definition of “clinical commissioning group”;(b) at the appropriate place insert—““integrated care board” means a body established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;”;(c) in the definition of “review partner”, for paragraph (c) substitute—“(c) an integrated care board, or”.242_ In Schedule 1 (specified authorities and local government areas), in the table headed “Health and social care”—(a) for “A clinical commissioning group established under section 14D” substitute “An integrated care board established under section 14Z25”; (b) for “the group’s” substitute “the board’s”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 14 of the Bill, which establishes integrated care boards.
Baroness Penn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the insertion into section 13U of the NHS Act 2006, by another amendment, of a duty for NHS England to include additional matters in its annual report.
“Duties in respect of research
In section 1E of the National Health Service Act 2006 (duty as to research), after “must” insert “facilitate or otherwise”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause provides that the Secretary of State’s duty to promote research etc includes doing so by facilitating research.
Baroness Cumberlege
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once every two years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.(2) This report must include—(a) an independently verified assessment of health, social care and public health workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 20 years; and(b) an independently verified assessment of future health, social care and public health workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 20 years, taking account of the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish independently verified assessments every two years of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population in England, taking account of the economic projections made by the Office for Budget Responsibility, projected demographic changes, the prevalence of different health conditions and the likely impact of technology.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, as this is Report, I declare my interests, which are that I am employed by NHS England to implement my report on maternity, Better Births.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak shortly to Amendment 168, but want briefly to refer to Amendment 80, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and so eloquently introduced by her, and supported across the House. Workforce planning is critical. Frankly, it is surprising that Ministers resisted amendments in Committee which called for formal long-term workforce planning for the NHS, social care and public health to be embedded in legislation.
The noble Baroness said that that current arrangements can be a bit like sticking plasters, and she is right, but it is not just about the use of bank and agency staff but about planning healthcare professional education. We all know how long it takes to train a doctor, but most of the other professionals also cannot just be turned on and off at election time. There have been too many times when this Government have said at elections that they would suddenly magic thousands of extra doctors and nurses. We need to build timescales into that workforce planning. The noble Baroness also talked about population demand, but I want to make another point: this is not just about population numbers; it is also about demographics. We will need more GPs and hospital professionals managing our rapidly ageing population. If we do not encourage people to go into those specialisms, we will not be able to look after our population in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that if government resistance is because of the funding implications with delivering such a plan, that is very short sighted. Not planning will be even more catastrophic. Amendment 80 is more modest in nature but is a critical minimum to achieve a commitment to plan effectively for the NHS, social care and public health.
I turn now to Amendment 168. Given that there are a number of speakers on this important group, I will be very brief here too. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, echoes the one he laid in Committee, and I am pleased to have signed both. We heard in Committee about this frustrating loophole that meant that it was not possible for certain members of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine to be added to the list of colleges which could be involved in the appointment of NHS consultants. This is now slowing down the appointment of NHS consultants. I am very pleased to support the amendment and hope the Minister will be able to give good news to the House on this amendment too.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is also speaking remotely, to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 168. Amendment 80 is very important and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for being so persistent. Throughout the country there is a workforce shortage in hospitals, the community and social care. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, warned that:
“Unless expressly required to do so, government will not be honest about the mismatch between the supply and demand of healthcare workers.”—[Official Report, 7/12/21; col. 1814.]
This amendment would give an independently verified assessment of the workforce numbers to meet the growing needs of the population.
Patients who have serious, rare and specialised conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, spinal injuries and all sorts of conditions need expert, specialised staff and equipment so they get the treatment they need. Otherwise, their conditions can deteriorate and result in added costs to the NHS and the taxpayer. Delayed treatment also means unnecessary pain and suffering for the patients. I hope the Government realise the need for Amendment 80.
I was surprised when I received a letter from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh telling me that, along with the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, it was excluded by omission from participating in the process of helping trusts in England recruit much-needed consultants. I wonder what the reason for this extraordinary discrimination is. Does England think it is superior? These royal colleges have been contacted by multiple trusts in England seeking help to recruit the necessary surgeons but, unless this regulation is corrected, they cannot help in this process. This sharing of important selection is more important than ever at this difficult time.
The royal colleges of medicine in Scotland have a good reputation worldwide. I have a personal interest in this amendment, as one of my grandfathers trained as a doctor in Glasgow and one of my cousins trained in Edinburgh and is now a professor of microbiology. I hope the Government can rectify this lacuna in the regulations by accepting this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am an honorary fellow of the two Edinburgh colleges and I strongly support this. It seems extraordinary that these very distinguished colleges which, as has been said, have an excellent record over many years in teaching people not only in this country but in many other countries should be excluded from playing a part in these appointments.
I also support Amendment 80 but would like to elaborate on it a little. I think Health Education England was set up, by the Act that we had before, with some degree of contention. It is a system that is supposed to help determine the future for the health service, with fairly elaborate provisions to that effect, as I remember from that Bill.
It is not at all clear to me how this assessment is going to be done. I see it has to be verified independently, in other words somebody independent of the whole system has to assess it for its accuracy. However, if you need Health Education England to do this for the medical professions particularly, why do you not need something similar to deal with the very complicated system of social care? Therefore, I think the whole system requires to be extended to cover something like Health Education England in relation to the whole area that this amendment covers. The Secretary of State sets up some kind of mechanism for report; it has to be a pretty elaborate mechanism if it is going to work. Therefore, I humbly suggest that something like Health Education England is needed to be the basis on which this assessment arises. Then, of course, you have to provide for the independent assessment of whether it was a good assessment originally. I support this amendment, but I think something more elaborate is ultimately required.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will just speak to my Amendments 111 and 168. On Amendment 111, when the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Masham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, have already put forward the arguments, there is very little for me to say, but the exclusion of the Scottish colleges from the appointment process needs to be rectified. It is an irritant, a hold-up.
In Committee, the noble Lord said that we needed to go through consultation. That was a dreary and negative response. The Scottish colleges have done that. They have consulted and got the support of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS Employers and the NHS Confederation. Surely the Minister can just accept this amendment. To simply say that there is no need for it and lots of consultation has to take place is just a ludicrous waste of time and money. This is the time to do it. He should bring an amendment back on Third Reading and be done with it. The noble Lord says that he wants to improve efficiency in the health service. I am afraid I take that with a pinch of salt, because he is just letting officials run riot around him in relation to petty, bureaucratic objections to this change.
Obviously, my other amendment is not major compared to Amendment 80, which is substantial and very important. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has really put it forward with great force. Again, I think the noble Lord needs to take a more vigorous approach with the Treasury, because clearly that is where the objection to this is coming from.
My other amendment is about the terrible problem of GP distribution, or the wide variations. I am not going to tempt the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to come in on the GP issue—but the latest figures, for 31 December 2021, show, for primary care networks in England, the huge variation in the number of GPs. In 24 of the networks, the average list of registered patients for fully qualified full-time equivalent GPs is more than twice the national average. There are five primary care networks where the average is more than three times the national average; these are often in the most deprived areas. No wonder there is an issue of burnout, early retirements and a move to part-time working.
The Government’s response so far is the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme—an incentive for GPs to go into these areas. It is not enough; a much more substantive piece of work is required, and I hope again that the Minister will come forward with a positive response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I shall speak to Amendment 82 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I attended Second Reading and made my views felt then, but I have not been able to join the deliberations on the Bill since then because of the pressure of other Bills in your Lordships’ House.
Even I, as someone who does not know very much about medicine, know that the most urgent challenge currently facing our health service is a shortage of nurses. I have been lobbied very heavily by the Royal College of Nursing, because Amendment 82 is its number one priority. It feels that, without a co-ordinated work plan, a coherent forward view and knowledge of exactly how the situation is at the moment, it cannot possibly achieve the sorts of numbers that are needed. There were almost 50,000 vacancies before Covid, and you can imagine the pressure that Covid has put on to the NHS—extreme pressure at completely unsustainable levels, and with staff numbers that are actually unsafe. We all know this, yet Boris Johnson and the Conservatives made big promises at the last election—their manifesto made a promise of 50,000 more nurses—and instantly that number began to unravel, as it included existing nurses who do not quit. That is unclever and unsophisticated number crunching.
I do not understand why this Government will not live up to their manifesto commitments. One reason why I have not been able to speak on this Bill since Second Reading is because of all the other Bills coming through, on which the Conservatives have said that they are aiming to achieve their manifesto commitments. They are actually going rather beyond their manifesto commitments in lots of areas—but the fact is that they are picking and choosing as if from a box of sweets the ones that they prefer.
The Royal College of Nursing represents over 480,000 nurses in health and social care. These are people whose pay requests are constantly ignored—and who constantly have their pay cut; in real terms, it has reduced. Just at the point when MPs are getting very welcome extra pay, nurses hang on by their fingertips. We know that vacancies are also a huge problem, with retirement age approaching for a lot of nurses. Nurses need the certainty of planning, and I do not hear those plans coming from the Government, although this is really their job—to manage the economy and manage society in a way that benefits everybody. Clearly, if the NHS fails in any area, that does not benefit anybody at all.
I argue very strongly for Amendment 82, and I just hope that the Government wake up in time to see how necessary it is.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to co-sponsor the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, Amendment 80, and to speak in support of a number of the other amendments in this group. I declare my honorary fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of GPs, and thank them and the 100 other organisations across the health and social care sector that have joined in the cross-party support that this amendment is likely to generate.
In considering how to vote on this amendment, I think it really boils down to two very straightforward questions. First, do we need regular, rigorous and independent workforce planning for health, social care and public health? The social care point, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just reminded us, is so crucial here. The second question is: if so, will we get it, with appropriate rigour and independence, without this amendment? I suggest that the answer to that question is, unfortunately, no.
The first question is self-evident to most people. We discussed it throughout Committee: workforce pressures mean that it is obvious that we need regular workforce planning. The very long lead times make it critical. Earlier this week, your Lordships were debating pressures in young people’s mental health services and eating disorder services. It is worth reminding ourselves that a new consultant psychiatrist specialising in eating disorders, starting work in NHS mental health services this morning, will have entered medical school 15 years ago. It is worth reminding ourselves, too, at a time when the NHS is confronting long waits for routine operations and needs to deal with a backlog of care, that the new medical student starting undergraduate medicine in September will report for duty as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in 2037.
So the lead times are clear, yet we have a paradox: more young people and, indeed, mid-career people, would like to join this great campaign, this social movement—the health service, social care and public health—but we are turning them away. In 1945, Nye Bevan said:
“This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.”
I suggest that, if Bevan were recasting his aphorism for today, he would say that, at a time when the NHS and social care have such a clear need for more staff, only a workforce planning system of organisational genius could turn away bright and committed young people from undergraduate medicine and other oversubscribed university places for health and other professions.
We have to accept that there will be extra costs from getting this right. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was quite right to draw attention to the fact that there will be savings, including from the £6.2 billion spent in 2019-20 on agency and bank staffing across the health service. But there will be extra costs: the Royal College of Physicians has estimated that doubling undergraduate medicine places would cost perhaps £1.85 billion, which is about one-seventh of the amount that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee identified last week as being likely to be lost from fraud and waste through the various furlough and other schemes introduced during Covid. So I think we need to put these costs in perspective.
The fact that there will be those costs gives us the answer to our second question. Of course, we need workforce planning, but are we going to get it without this amendment? I am afraid that I do not think we are. In Committee—although I shall not rehearse it—using publicly available materials, I set out the sorry history of what I described as the “wilful blindness” that has been inflicted on the health and social care sector and, indeed, on health Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Care itself, as they have sought to go about this task down the years.
The question before your Lordships is: has the leopard changed its spots? I suspect—and I genuinely sympathise with the Minister’s predicament—that he will tell us that the baton has now been passed from the Department of Health and Social Care to NHS England, so that for the first time it has the responsibility for undertaking this task, and we should be reassured by that fact. In that case, I ask him to give clear guarantees at the Dispatch Box that the proposed new powers of direction for the Secretary of State will never be used to veto or censor any independent estimates that NHS England itself puts forward, including those with a financial consequence. Indeed, I ask that he goes further than that and gives us a Dispatch Box guarantee that NHS England will be entirely free to publish, every two years, without approval, veto or censorship from either the Department of Health or the Treasury, the workforce need, demand and supply models implied in Amendment 80. If those guarantees are not forthcoming from the Dispatch Box, I think your Lordships will be entitled to draw your own conclusions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, would the noble Lord be surprised to hear the rumours that the Treasury has prevented the Minister from responding in a positive way to this amendment?
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
We await insight from the Minister himself on that point; it is indeed, of course, what the chairman of the cross-party Health and Social Care Committee, Jeremy Hunt, suggested in the House of Commons. We have an immediate litmus test before us, which should help us answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As your Lordships will remember, we noted in Committee the fact that, just 10 weeks before the start of the financial year, when it should have been planning 10 years out, Health Education England still did not have its operating budget for the year ahead. My understanding—I hope to be corrected by the Minister—is that, certainly, as of 10 am, Health Education England still does not have its workforce operating budget for just 29 days’ time. That is precisely because of a set of behind-the-scenes discussions—no doubt courteous, but nevertheless fervent—between the Department of Health and Social Care on the one hand and the Treasury on the other.
Health Ministers are more sinned against than sinning on this, frankly, and in that sense this amendment will strengthen their hand. I suspect that, privately, they will welcome the mobilisation of your Lordships to support their negotiating case. The very fact that Her Majesty’s Government oppose this amendment is proof positive that it is needed. We need it because we need to look beyond the end of our noses. To vote against this amendment would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, this whole group is worthy of government action, and I support Amendments 80 and 81 in respect of speech and language therapists. The NHS Long Term Plan itself states that speech and language therapists are a profession in short supply. The Department of Health and Social Care, in its submission to the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of the shortage occupation lists, argues that speech and language therapists should be added to them because of the pressures facing these professions, particularly in relation to mental health.
The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, for whose advice I am grateful, suggests that a minimum increase in the skilled workforce is required in the region of 15%. In recent years, the profession has grown by 1.7% in a year. The Government themselves recognise that they are clearly not delivering the speech and language therapy workforce that we need. No national assessment has been undertaken of the demand and the unmet need for speech and language therapy, which, I remind noble Lords, is essential for people to be able to communicate. Will the Government accept Amendments 80 and 81 or explain otherwise how they plan to improve workforce planning so that speech and language therapy is no longer a profession in too short supply?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceptionally brief and make two very quick points, but first I need to apologise for, when I spoke earlier, omitting to mention my registered interest as a non-executive director of the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
I very strongly support Amendment 80, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and pressed so very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others. It is absolutely fundamental to everything that the Bill is designed to achieve, and we will not achieve those things unless the workforce is addressed.
In relation to Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that it is so important that we have a review into the distribution of GPs in England. I was very concerned when we debated in Committee the huge variation in list numbers in different parts of the country. The biggest lists were in the most deprived areas. If you track that back to the debate we were having on health inequalities, where there was a huge consensus across the House, it is clear that we are never going to fundamentally tackle health inequalities unless we have far greater equality in things like the size of GPs’ lists.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and Amendment 80. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made two points: I would just like to add a third to his argument. He argued that workforce planning needs to happen. There is no large employer of people that does not plan its workforce other than the NHS. We need to do it, and I do not think anyone in this Chamber is going to disagree. He also said that this would not happen without legislation. I will not repeat the points I made at Second Reading or in Committee, or those that he just made so eloquently.
My third point, which I would like to add, is very much addressed to my noble friend the Minister. It is that this amendment will not bring the downsize that the Treasury truly fears. This is actually an amendment of sound management that enables the NHS to manage finances and people better. While there will be more money spent on training, this is actually the way to control the costs of the ever-growing demand for health and social care. If you do not plan, you cannot control the costs. This is actually the way to do the very thing that the Treasury is most concerned about.
Far from locking in old, established ways of working, this is also the way to drive transformation because, unless we are honest about the ever-growing demand for clinicians of every profession, we will not face the fact that we will need to change the way those clinicians work together as medicine and science evolve and all of us age. This is a way to deliver the very thing that the Treasury most wants: control of the finances and transformation of our healthcare services.
With that, I add one final point, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for repeating what I said in Committee. There is another reason why we need to do this now. Our NHS people are exhausted, and they have lost hope that we understand what it is really like on the ground for them. By passing this amendment, we will give them hope; we will show them that, collectively and cross-party, we really understand that it is they who make our wonderful, precious health and care system work, and we are committed to helping them going forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I must declare my interests: I am a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, which is affected by Amendment 168. I am an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and an observer on the Medical Schools Council. All those organisations have a vested interest in this amendment.
Very simply, this amendment just makes sense for the future. Without it, the cost of healthcare to the nation will rack up and never come under control. The talk about people working in the NHS is a fallacy. What matters is whole-time equivalents and the competencies of those people with whole-time equivalents. While it is absolutely right to say that it might take 15 years for somebody to come through training as a specialist, what is not understood is that, as soon as people qualify, having left their undergraduate training, they are then on the job. They are learning on the job, working incredibly hard and contributing, but they do not have the competencies developed. That is what takes a long time. The modern techniques that get things done much more quickly and that deal with more patients—laparoscopic surgery having been an example—are highly skilled, but highly efficient.
We have a shortage of 1,400 anaesthetists. Without anaesthetists, you cannot have good maternity services, you cannot operate and you cannot have good emergency services. They are absolutely essential to the whole running of secondary care. Then, of course, in primary care, we have the gaps as well, so the specialist training is really important.
As well as that, this cannot be handed over to algorithms on a computer and left to IT, because of the need for personal interaction between the clinician and the patient and their family. I do not believe that this will be replaced by AI. However, many jobs performed currently will be taken over by AI, freeing up clinicians to become even more specialist competent.
Building on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I remind the House that poor care overall is more expensive than good care in the long term. It is a very short-term view to think that you can provide poor care; in the long term, you really do stack up debt. Stopping workforce planning will not avoid costs at all; all it will do is move the costs from one year further into the future and create bigger problems. Although I hesitate to say it, I think it will also fuel the whole litigation culture.
Amendment 80 is absolutely essential. If it is accepted by the Government, or passed by this House, then Amendments 81 and 82 would fit very neatly into the criteria against which such reports are to be written on the workforce. I remind noble Lords who might be unaware of this that the royal colleges already collect workforce data. Verification of data collected from integrated care boards and areas will not be difficult, because you will simply see how the figures match up. The figures will be reported centrally, and planning can take place. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is so straightforward; I cannot see why we want to rack up costs further by not putting it through. Vacant posts cost money, they do not save money. By putting that through, we will have more efficient appointment procedures. This is an historical anomaly which could be corrected easily.
Relying on bank staff is really dangerous. Mistakes happen much more often when staff come in who do not know the place, the team or who to call. You would never field a sports team consisting of a bunch of people brought together to play at a high level who had never played before. Yet, what we are doing in our NHS is bringing in bank staff who often do not know the hospital or the team. They do not know the strengths of the other people in the team, so they do not know to whom they can delegate. I hope that the House will approve Amendment 80 if the Government are too short-sighted to just accept it.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support very strongly Amendments 80, 81 and others in the group. They have already been explained eloquently, so I will not repeat those arguments. I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. We have already heard about their importance, as a profession, as part of the wider allied health professionals. It is always worth remembering that allied health professionals make up a third of the total workforce.
Responding to workforce planning in Committee, the Minister stated that he shares the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—from whom we have just heard—on the importance of
“integrated workforce planning across NHS and non-NHS employers … and that work is under way on it.”—[Official Report, 24/01/22; col. 102.]
Unfortunately, at that time the Minister did not set out what that work was. The response did not really give a great deal of hope regarding the long-term failings in workforce planning for allied health professionals in general and speech and language therapists in particular. We need to ensure that this is addressed. As we have heard, these amendments properly address the issue.
I draw particular attention to subsection (4) of Amendment 80, which clearly states that royal colleges must be consulted in drawing up the report which will be laid before Parliament on
“meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.”
By that consultation, we should ensure that allied health professionals, and particularly speech and language therapists, are included. These professionals sometimes work directly in the NHS. Often, however, they work in other health settings and can be employed in those settings by the NHS. They might also work in settings such as education, the criminal justice system and other parts of the social care system, or in independent practice. They should all form part of the consultation to ensure that the plans which come forward on workforce planning are comprehensive in their nature and coverage. Therefore, these amendments are crucial to achieving this objective. I am sure that the Minister will want to give us that same assurance when he responds.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this group of amendments and to declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing. It is absolutely clear to me that, without the right staff in the right place, you cannot give the right care. This is the situation we are in at the moment, and we must get it right for the future. We are on an improvement trajectory, and there is an increase in the number of nurses employed in the NHS. However, this is not universal across all areas of the NHS, particularly in learning disability and mental health.
If we could get the Government to support Amendment 80, we could resolve the issue through guidance. On Amendment 81, I also speak for my noble friend Lord Patel, who unfortunately cannot be here today and who believes that an elegant solution as described by my noble friend Baroness Finlay, in terms of guidance subsuming Amendment 82 in particular, would enable directors of nursing, medicine and care to be responsible for ensuring that they have a safe staffing structure in the areas for which they commission care. That would be reported up every two years through the Secretary of State, rather than every five years, as indicated in Amendment 82. This would be a much more suitable solution.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene. I was not intending to speak but I was prompted by a recollection arising from the reference to anaesthetists by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recall that the Centre for Workforce Intelligence produced in February 2015 a report on the future supply and demand of anaesthetists and the intensive care medicine workforce. I have just checked the report, and it projects for 2033 that the number of full-time equivalent staff required will be 11,800, and supply will be 8,000. Therefore, in February 2015, we knew of this set of projections produced by the CWI. It said, among other things, that there should be
“a further review in the next two to three years.”
However, the CWI was abolished in 2016 and its functions were restored, I think, to the Department of Health.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, did not refer to this directly, but we must bear in mind the general presumption that there has never been workforce planning, although in certain respects, there has. The report on anaesthetists is only one of a whole string of reports—I could list them, but I do not need to—produced by the Centre for Workforce Intelligence before it was abolished. Their main purpose was to say to Health Education England, “This is the level of education and training commissioning you should be undertaking in the years ahead”. As the noble Lord said in Committee, it did produce a set of proposals; it is just that they were not acted upon.
I just say this: legislation may be the right way to proceed now, but let us not lose sight of what is actually required, which is for Health Education England not to have its budget cut, as happened in 2016, but to have its budget increased and for that budget to be turned into an education and training commissioning programme that delivers the numbers of trained professionals in this country that we project we will need. It is no good saying, “Oh, we’ve never had planning; we passed a piece of legislation.” I am sorry, it could be a case of legislate and forget unless the money is provided and the commissioning happens. There have been organisations whose job it was to do it—Health Education England, the Centre for Workforce Intelligence—but they were not supported, and in one case, abolished.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. On Amendment 111, I want to emphasise two points. First, GPs are and have always been the gatekeepers to the NHS. Without GPs, there is less primary care and less access to the NHS. Over 90% of patients access the NHS through their GPs and primary care. If you are unlucky enough to live in an area with a serious shortage of GPs, your access to NHS services is highly likely to be diminished and your health put at greater risk.
My second point is that it follows that a shortage of GPs is also likely to contribute to health inequalities, a topic much discussed during the passage of the Bill. In addition, this is likely to mean that you live in a place which the Government say they want to level up. So, if the Minister accepts the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he will be helping to deliver two government objectives: reducing health inequalities and levelling up. What’s not to like? Who knows—he might even get a promotion out of it.
I turn briefly to Amendment 80, which I support and will vote for if the noble Baroness pushes it to a vote. I want, however, to emphasise two points that follow on a great deal from what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. For too long the NHS has relied on buttressing its inadequate system for training home-grown staff by recruiting from abroad. Brexit and tighter immigration policies have significantly reduced this supply line. It will take long-term planning and consistency of purpose over many years to rectify the health and care workforce supply problems.
My second and last related point on workforce is that the track record of the Department of Health on long-term planning is appalling. It is not just me saying that; it was made absolutely clear in the report by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who unfortunately, as we all know, is laid low by Covid. Those who support Amendment 80 should hear the arguments in the debate on Amendment 112, which would support its implementation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, thought that something more elaborate than Amendment 80 was required. That may be the case, particularly for social care, but Amendments 80 and 112 complement each other. They are not rivals or alternatives; they put in place a structure thoroughly independent of government and which requires the Government then to pay attention to what has been independently provided.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that there remain huge and serious concerns across the House and beyond regarding how the Bill addresses the chronic staff shortages in our health and care services. I say health and care services, because as we know, the staff shortages affecting the delivery of services are not just within the NHS but felt across the board, in health, care and public health services. While this is a current and urgent issue, future workforce planning will be the single most important factor in limiting our ability to deliver the ambitions we all have for the future of health and social care and importantly, the ambitions of the Bill.
Like many other noble Lords, I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, and if she feels that the current duties the Bill places on the Secretary of State in Clause 35 to report at least every five years are inadequate, then I urge the Government to take note. As my noble friend said when she introduced her amendment, she is not alone: at least another 100 organisations are calling for this aspect of the Bill to be strengthened. I ask the Minister today, therefore: if the Government are not planning to accept the amendment, how do they plan to address the challenges of future workforce? How will they assess the future needs of health, social care and public health services? Previous work has not quantified the workforce numbers needed and we cannot wait for another review.
I have a couple of observations on the amendment itself, which I commend in that it does require the Secretary of State to report on this wider health, social care and public health workforce, unlike the current Clause 35, which refers only to the health service. However, I sound a note of caution, because if we simply assess vacancy rates, or get into the mindset of needing to replace like for like, role and service development, which will be essential to support future health and care services as they evolve, risk being stifled, as my noble friend Lady Harding referred to.
Those who hold much of the data on health and care professionals are not only the royal colleges, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, but also the regulators. I note that proposed new subsection (4) of the amendment does not mention health and care regulators, which I think should be consulted, in the spirit of my noble friend’s explanatory statement.
Finally, when describing the system in place for assessing and meeting workforce needs, as training and regulation are UK-wide, I hope there will be a spirit of co-operation between NHS England and the devolved nations to ensure that we are training the right people for the right roles across the UK NHS: this needs to be in any future workforce assessment as well. I also cannot understand why we do not accept that the royal colleges in Glasgow and Edinburgh can help us recruit. That seems completely bananas—that is the technical term. Will the Government accept that we cannot put workforce planning yet again into the “too difficult” box? We need to do more and go further, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege urges. I accept there are no silver bullets, but the regular publication of independently verified projections of future demand and supply of workforce could, over time, create a sustainable model for improvement that would have a positive impact on both patient care and staff experience.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the way she introduced Amendment 80—it was masterful. I point out that she took this amendment from the right honourable Jeremy Hunt, who unfortunately failed to get it through the House of Commons. In doing so, he expressed his regret that, when he was Secretary of State, he was not able to put in place a structure such as the noble Baroness proposes today.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, have both commented that it is self-evident that we need a workforce adequate to meet the demand. To do that, we need to anticipate increasing demand, changes in demographics, population growth and changes in practice. Crucially, we need to put in place resilience to health shocks. If we do not do that, we will continue to struggle to reach the OECD average of 3.7 doctors per 1,000 people, which is reasonable. To get there, we actually need 50,000 more doctors.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this is not just about doctors. It is also about nurses and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, it is about allied health professionals. We need to train them all in a timely way, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, pointed out, how long it takes to train all these health professionals.
The Prime Minister claimed in the House of Commons recently that we have 45,000 more people working in the health service than before the pandemic. Unusually, that may be true, but it was not clear whether they were full-time professionals. However, that number bears no relation to the demand. There is no point in quoting raw figures if they are not related to the rise in demand. Moreover, there are fewer GPs than before the pandemic, and that is where people’s access to the NHS begins. If someone cannot get to see a GP, they cannot get a diagnosis or a referral, and their disease gets harder and more expensive to treat. Having too few GPs is not a cost-effective strategy, so I support Amendment 111, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and also his Amendment 168.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This powerful debate has focused on two simple truths. First, without the full team of people in place at the right time, it will not be possible to provide the health, social care and public health services we need. The second simple truth is that this will not just happen on its own. I am therefore glad to have put my name to Amendment 80, joining the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in so doing. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her impactful introduction of the amendment. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that this is the amendment to focus on, the one that will take us in the direction we need to go.
It is hardly surprising that the need for workforce planning has come up time and again during the passage of the Bill, and it is not going away. Workforce planning is at the core of all the plans, yet it remains unresolved and continues to cause considerable disquiet, including in the Health and Social Care Select Committee. We know this is an urgent requirement to tackle, and I hope that, even at this late stage, good sense will prevail and the Minister will be able to give the assurances that your Lordships’ House seeks.
The lack of sufficient staff, trained and able to deliver care, is the biggest issue facing the NHS and social care. Whatever claims are made about how many staff there are, they are meaningless unless posed against what is actually required. Since the Bill was published there has been universal opposition to the limited and inadequate provision in Clause 35. As my noble friend Lord Hunt noted, the Treasury’s robust resistance to publishing anything that sets out properly the gap between the number of staff required and of those in post is a badly kept secret. I regard that as short-sighted for all the reasons that have come up in the debate thus far.
It is reported that a record number of 400 members of staff are quitting the NHS every week. The United Kingdom has 50,000 fewer doctors than we need, and there are currently 100,000 vacancies. Workforce planning needs to be in place to give us the chance to assess and tackle the workforce crisis. Today we have the opportunity to put that right. As we have heard, the amendment is supported by a major coalition of some 100 health and care organisations. As my noble friend Lord Bradley said, it also takes strength from giving the opportunity to consult a comprehensive range of organisations and groups that know the reality of what is needed to run our care services. We should add our support to that.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for adding their support to my Amendment 81. It tackles the same problem, but from the bottom up. Without the foundation of a workforce plan, no ICB can plan anything properly, as they are required to do by other parts of the Bill. There is also the wider point that the national strategies or definitions of systems planning have no reality unless they transfer down to those who actually have to deliver the outcomes. We know that there are widespread and well-evidenced arguments in support of workforce planning. I urge the Minister to accept the wisdom and the reality of these amendments and to take the opportunity to fix a challenge that surely is not going away.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing the discussion of workforce planning before the House today. Perhaps before I go further, all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a speedy recovery. He definitely would have spoken in this debate if he had been able to join us. I should also say that I was particularly impressed by the double act of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Stevens. Perhaps they will be known in future as the Morecambe and Wise of the House of Lords.
We all agree that the workforce is at the heart of our NHS and social care. It is right to ensure that we have the workforce that we need for the future to keep delivering world-class, safe and effective healthcare. Some noble Lords may not like to hear this, but I remind them that we have a record number of nurses. We continue to look at different ways of recruitment, and in response to Oral Questions I have referred to the way that we are looking at different pathways into nursing for British people. It is also a fact that we have always recruited people from overseas. Indeed, our public services were saved, post-war, by people from the Commonwealth coming to work in public services. I remind noble Lords that now we have left the EU we will no longer give priority to mostly white Europeans over mostly non-white non-Europeans. We will focus on ensuring that we have equality across the world.
I will not repeat what I have said about other issues, but if you are to have workforce growth, which we all want, it must be accompanied by effective, long-term workforce planning. That is why the department has commissioned Health Education England to work with partners to develop a robust, long-term strategic framework for the health and regulated social care workforce for the next 15 years. This includes regulated professionals working in adult social care, such as nurses and occupational therapists, for the first time.
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but when I listened to that last statement about Health Education England, I wondered whether he had seen the article in the Economist of 5 February, which shows that the guaranteed forward funding of Health Education England extended to less than a month ahead.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord because that was a point I was hoping to come to when I lost my line. The budget will be agreed by the start of the new financial year and, as in all previous years, following the outcome of the 2021 spending review, spending plans for individual budgets in 2022-23 to 2024-25 inclusive will be subjected to a detailed financial planning exercise, and it will be finalised in time. We have also commissioned NHS England to develop that long-term workforce strategy and the key conclusions from this work will be set out.
Clause 35 will increase the transparency and accountability of the workforce planning process. Noble Lords referred to Her Majesty’s Treasury. The department is working closely with the Treasury to deliver a bigger and better NHS and social care workforce. The spending review 2021 provides a further £23 billion for the NHS for April 2022 to March 2025 and gives a three-year settlement. It will keep building a bigger and better-trained workforce.
Noble Lords also referred to agency staff. The flexible staffing policy aims to provide sufficient temporary staff to the NHS to meet fluctuations in demand. In 2015 the Secretary of State announced the introduction of several measures to reduce the agency spend, including price caps, procurement frameworks and expenditure ceilings. These have contributed to the NHS reducing spending on agency staff by one-third, but we recognise that there is more work to be done. We also recognise that the health and social care workforces are often spoken about separately, and the department is working to integrate the two workforces, as outlined in the integration White Paper. Noble Lords will recall that, in addition, we have started a voluntary register for care staff, which we hope to move to being mandatory in due course, following a consultation to better understand the landscape of the workforce, and to look at different qualifications and make it a better career.
We know that work on long-term workforce planning at a national level will need to be replicated at a local level. Subject to the passage of the Bill, ICBs should be the vehicle to support that. To guide that work, in August 2021 NHS England published draft guidance for ICBs explaining their central role, ensuring that the health and care system has the necessary workforce to meet the needs of the populations it serves. A copy of this guidance has been laid in the House Library. In addition, the amendments on ICBs’ forward plans and annual reports will require ICBs to report on how they exercise their duty to promote education and training for the current and future workforce.
Amendment 82 refers to safe staffing. The Government are committed to ensuring that we deliver safe patient care and that there are safe staffing levels across the NHS. Safe staffing should remain the responsibility of local clinical and other leaders, supported by guidance and regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The ultimate outcome of good-quality healthcare is influenced by a far greater range of issues than how many of each staff group are on a shift, even though that is clearly important, and it is why the Government are committed to continuing to grow the workforce.
I now turn to the amendment addressing GP distribution. We fully support the intention, particularly as part of our agenda to level up and recover from the pandemic. However, the pandemic’s impact on the workforce is not yet fully understood and the system is moving to meet the impact in new ways. As a result, a review of GP distribution is likely to be premature but, as noble Lords will recall, we have opened new medical schools in areas where there has been a lack of workforce, in the knowledge that many people stay in the areas where they were trained. That is part of our plan to make sure that there is more equitable distribution. We will also use the targeted enhanced recruitment scheme to incentivise trained doctors to work in hard-to-recruit areas.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, thank my noble friend very much. He has certainly gone as far as he can today; I am afraid it is not far enough. We have had informal conversations on this and I think it is no surprise to either of us that I was hoping for a great deal more. We have heard 17 speakers and the debate has taken around an hour and a quarter. It has been such an interesting debate—I always learn more in this Chamber, and I learned so much more today.
I want to thank the 17 speakers who have supported my amendment. As far as I can see, not a single one had any reservations about Amendment 80, because it is so simple. It is not groundbreaking; it simply wants a plan that people can recognise, and one that will fill the gaps in the workforce requirements according to demography and the needs of our population. The amendment is simple and clear, and it will make such a difference, not only to those working in the NHS but to the public, whom we are here to serve.
I thank all those who have taken part, particularly from my own Benches, and all the other noble Lords. I have to say, with some regret, that I have not heard anything that counters the arguments put forward. I was hoping that after Committee we might have found some common ground, but I sense that we have not. I am disappointed by that, so I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Health and Care Bill
Thursday 3rd March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Mar 2022)
16:33 - Division on Amendment 84 - Ayes: 145 / Noes: 122 - Amendment 84 agreed.
18:27 - Division on Amendment 108 - Ayes: 110 / Noes: 91 - Amendment 108 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Amendment 112 - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 91 - Amendment 112 disagreed.
Lord Lansley
“(4) A direction under section 13ZC may not be given in relation to a decision about the relative allocation of resources to integrated care boards.(5) A direction under section 13ZC may not be given in relation to a decision about the results of a procurement of goods or services provided for the purposes of the NHS in England.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will recall from Committee some substantial discussion about whether it was wise for the Secretary of State to take additional powers of direction in relation to NHS England. I suppose I should declare an interest since I gave the NHS commissioning board, or NHS England, the freedoms it currently enjoys. I am probably the person least likely to be persuaded that it is a very good idea to take all that away. After our debate in Committee, I thought it was probably sensible, rather than to seek to remove the powers of direction that the Secretary of State is given under Clause 39, to look at the exceptions to that power in new Section 13ZD and ask: are these all the exceptions that we should have?
On Amendment 83, the conclusion I reached was that there were at least two specific areas which are not mentioned in new Section 13ZD but should be; namely, limitations on the use of this power on the part of the Secretary of State. First, the local allocation of resources to integrated care boards—and the difficult decisions of trying to remedy the inequalities in access to healthcare services through the resource allocation process—is not something which any of us want the Secretary of State to interfere with; otherwise, it is sure to be regarded as being done for a political purpose, even if it might be done for another.
Secondly, there is the question of
“procurement of goods or services”.
After all the experience we have had over recent months, the last thing any of us wants is to go too far in the direction of the Secretary of State having a power in relation to procurement when that can perfectly well be given as a responsibility to NHS England. This is Amendment 83, and I hope that my noble friend, if he cannot accept the amendments, will give us some specific assurances in relation to the Secretary of State not using those powers.
In this group, I also put my name to Amendment 84, which would remove Clause 40—and, by extension, Schedule 6—from the Bill. This is about the Secretary of State coming in and acquiring more powers than was formerly the case. I was shadow Secretary of State for six years or so. During that time, I would have loved it if the then Secretary of State had all these powers to intervene in every reconfiguration, because I went around the country—as people are fond of reminding me—mobilising opposition to some of the ways in which the health service, led by the then Government, was trying to reconfigure services. This is not something that the Secretary of State or the current Government should wish for themselves or for their successors in office. I will not go back into all the arguments, but there are plenty of good examples of where, if the Secretary of State had this power, people would press the Secretary of State to use it—and it would be deeply unwise for a Secretary of State to get involved.
The justification on the part of the Government is that it stops this going on for ever. But there is a reason that these things go on for a long time—because they are intensely difficult, and the balances are very difficult to strike. Sometimes, the processes of consultation and public engagement take a long time. If the Government’s argument is that they are going leap in, intervene and settle it all quickly, both sides will yell when they do that. We can be absolutely certain of this. No one will be happy, and everyone will blame the Secretary of State. This is very firmly in the “be careful what you wish for” category. We would do the Government a great service by deleting Clause 40 from the Bill. If the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pursues that, I will certainly support her. I beg to move Amendment 83.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
With the leave of the House, I thought it might be useful if I used my slot to speak right now on leaving out Clause 40. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for putting their names to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel—with whom I spoke this morning, and who is definitely on the mend, so I hope we will see him next week—said how strongly he supports the amendment. I will speak very briefly because we have already said much of what needs to be said about saving the Secretary of State from himself—as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, I think. This is what this amendment is about.
Clearly, this is not what the NHS asked for in the Bill. It did not ask for this power. It has been added to the Bill—by a previous Secretary of State, I suspect—and I hear rumours that even the current Secretary of State is not a great fan. Why would any Secretary of State want to have this power—to be lobbied and drawn into any minor local dispute, particularly as we head towards a general election?
I have a small anecdote. A small coastal town had a small hospital with an accident and emergency department. It could not be properly staffed, it regularly closed for random periods, and far too often patients arrived there only to be moved to the larger A&E 20 miles down the road. Proposals were made to close it—and of course, outrage ensued. “Save our A&E”, people said, even though it was unsafe. Local politics were poisonous, and the blame for the closure was thrown on opponents, whichever side they were on.
However, over time, good communications, clinical leadership and, eventually, bringing local people into the team, got the proposal moving. People understood what was needed and why, and the reconfiguration process went through its stages, with external reviews and analysis by the national clinical advisory team, which all gave reassurance. The clincher came when a distinguished clinician leading the review told a meeting that he would personally go and paint over the road signs for the A&E, because it was so unsuitable. It shut, which probably means that lives were saved.
The process of rational argument and proper analysis works, and on this occasion we should not just leave it to local politics to decide what reconfiguration means. The Secretary of State has enough powers to direct the whole NHS in its fullness, but should not be involved in what may be very small reconfigurations indeed. We agree, and many people in the NHS and its organisations agree, that this clause should be removed from the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have no doubt that when the Minister responds he will say that the Secretary of State is likely to use this power very rarely. The point is that the moment the health service knows the Secretary of State has such a power, that will immediately influence its behaviour in relation to any improvements or major changes of services likely to lead to opposition from the local Member of Parliament. I think that the Minister is responsible for innovation in the health service, and this will put the kibosh on innovation and service changes.
Written on my heart is Kidderminster General Hospital. The Minister may not recall this, because it is a long time ago now, but Worcestershire Health Authority made proposals to reconfigure A&E services and close Kidderminster General Hospital. The then Member of Parliament, David Lock, who was a loyal member of the Government, bravely defended that decision. He lost his seat in 2001, and it has been written on the hearts of many MPs since then that they do not defend that type of change, because they might lose their seats.
I cannot believe that the Government wish to give the Secretary of State the nightmare of that kind of lobbying—I am trying to tempt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, to intervene here, because he knows what MPs do. What we have at the moment is a very good system, at arm’s length, and it beats me why on earth the Government want to do this. We need to do the business and get rid of the clause. I suspect that we shall not see it back again.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 84 is intended to remove the powers of the Secretary of State, in Clause 40, to intervene in decisions on reconfigurations of health services. I said in Committee, and I say again, that those powers are very dangerous. We have recently seen how the Government’s powers to provide or withdraw funding for a proposal to, say, build a new school or improve infrastructure in a particular constituency have got them into trouble. Political considerations have trumped public interest. In the media they call that pork barrel politics—not a very complimentary phrase, I am afraid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for bringing this debate to the House today. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be grateful for the desire to save him from himself and his powers. Let me read out the following quote:
“If we went out to Parliament Square now and straw-polled people walking by, asking them who they thought was responsible for the NHS in England at a national level, I think we would wait a very long time before anyone gave any answer other than the Government and, by extension, the Secretary of State”.—[Official Report, Commons, Health and Care Bill Committee, 21/9/21; col. 393.]
These are not my words, but those of the Opposition spokesman during Committee in the other place.
One of the core pillars of the Bill is to ensure appropriate accountability for the NHS. This is of the utmost importance as we invest further in local service decision-making and delivery. It is critical that, in line with the aims of the Bill to empower local systems, the Secretary of State has the appropriate levers to meet the public expectation for ministerial accountability.
There has been some confusion about what the powers in the Bill will do, and if noble Lords will allow me, I will spend a moment on this to add clarity. Clause 39 will simply allow the Secretary of State to direct NHS England—and only NHS England—on matters where it already has functions. This is not a power over local bodies. Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to call in and decide on reconfiguration decisions. They do not remove any of the existing safeguards, including the requirement to consult or the role of the Independent Reconfigurations Panel in providing advice to the Secretary of State.
I understand the arguments put forward in Amendment 83, and I will take procurement first. We agree that it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be involved in individual procurement decisions. That is not the motive behind this power, and it is not the way it would be used. The regulation-making power inserted by Clause 70 prevents the Secretary of State being able to use this direction-making power to direct NHS England—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The Minister said that this was not the motive behind the power, but motive is not the point here. I am sure that the Secretary of State has the best of motives, as does the Minister, but the point is the effect of what the Bill says.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for clarifying that. Of course, we completely understand the concerns that have been raised. The Secretary of State must use regulation-making powers where they exist, rather than using the power of direction to achieve what could be achieved under regulations.
Turning to the allocation of resources to the ICBs, the Government have no ambition to use this power to interfere with individual allocations of money to the system. It will not be used to interfere with the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. NHS England will continue to make funding allocations to ICBs to support them to deliver functions via the target formula, in order to reduce inequalities between patients. We have attached safeguards to this power to make sure it is not misused. Any exercise of this power must be done transparently: it must be made in writing, be published and be made in the public interest. This will enable Parliament to challenge Ministers and hold them to account.
Turning to Amendment 84, Clause 40 and Schedule 6 will allow the Secretary of State to better support effective change and respond to stakeholder concerns, including views from the public, health oversight and scrutiny committees and parliamentarians, in a more timely way. The clause and schedule will ensure that key decisions made about how services are delivered are subject to democratic oversight.
It is a misapprehension that the Secretary of State currently has no role in the decision-making process for reconfigurations. He does and without these provisions that role will continue. However, currently, referrals usually come at a very late stage in the process, which represents neither good value for the taxpayer nor good outcomes for patients.
I understand the concerns from noble Lords, including former Ministers, about how these powers might be used. But I have been asked to make clear that we expect the vast majority of reconfiguration decisions to continue to be managed by the local system—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister not take my point that it is not that Ministers will have to use those powers; it is that they have powers that will change behaviour immediately in the health service? That is the issue.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Before the Minister answers that question, I wonder if he would be kind enough to answer two from me. He just gave a list of what the powers will not be used for, but could he tell us what sort of thing the powers will be used for and under what circumstances? Can he also say why previous Secretaries of State—some of whom are not very far from where I am standing now—did not feel the need for those powers and still felt themselves accountable for the health service?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank noble Lords for those interventions. If they will allow me, I will come to answer them in my remarks.
We understand the concerns about how these powers will be used. It is in the interests of nobody, least of all the Secretary of State, to be making every decision in the system, and stakeholders will be encouraged to continue to resolve matters locally where possible. Duties for those responsible for reconfigurations to involve patients and consult the local authority will continue. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for all changes to the health service. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with democratic principles that he or she should have the ability to intervene where it is deemed to be in the interests of the public.
We recognise that, in exercising these powers in this clause and schedule, it will be vital that the Secretary of State receives expert and clinical advice. That is why the Independent Reconfiguration Panel will continue to provide independent advice to the Secretary of State, allowing them to benefit from its many years of experience. This will mean that the Secretary of State will have independent advice that will include the views of both overview and scrutiny committees and patients, and the clinical case for change—
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
I thank my noble friend. On this clinical advice, he is aware of the enormous changes that were made to stroke services in London. In the reconfiguration that took place, many lives were saved. But when it came to east Kent, the reconfiguration request, which was to do with stroke services, sat on the Secretary of State’s desk for two years. I just wonder how many people died for that delay.
When I put forward an amendment in Committee, I said that a decision must be made within three months by the Secretary of State if it is before his view, on his desk. Delay costs lives. It is absolutely critical that decisions are made fast in these reconfigurations, because we will lose lives.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Indeed, sometimes it is absolutely critical that decisions are made quickly. Where there are concerns about the speed of those decisions, the Secretary of State may ultimately decide to intervene, subject to advice from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, overview and scrutiny committees, and patients, and based on the clinical case, should he or she decide to exercise powers under this clause.
I understand the concerns raised in this House and have heard the arguments presented today and in Committee. However, I think it would help if I reminded noble Lords that the Secretary of State’s powers included in the Bill are to ensure accountability. The public rightly want to hold the Government to account for the health service, and these powers allow that to happen effectively. The other place acknowledged that approach and supported it—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I cannot believe that the Minister meant to imply that all the structures being set up in this Bill are not accountable, because there are a whole lot of accountability measures in this Bill which will hold to account the people making these decisions without the Secretary of State. One might think from what he just said that the powers are very narrow.
But I draw his attention to page 206 of the Bill. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(a), it just says that the Secretary of State can decide whether a proposal goes through or not, but in proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(b) it says that the Secretary of State can intervene in the “particular results” that have to be achieved. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(c) he can decide the procedure and other steps that should be taken in relation to the proposal. In proposed new Section 68A(4)(3)(d) there is the
“power to retake any decision previously taken by the NHS commissioning body”.
These seem to be very broad powers; they are not just small intervention powers by the Secretary of State.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises some important points, but I remind her that, alongside those, she should consider safeguards and limitations that are being put in place to address these concerns and the importance of ensuring due accountability for health service delivery. I understand the strong feeling among noble Lords and have tried to go as far as I can in addressing those concerns. I once again, perhaps in vain, ask noble Lords to think about the assurances that have been given and not to move their amendments when they are reached.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In particular I am grateful for his specific assurances on the powers of procurement and the question of resource allocation. We can be pretty confident that the Secretary of State would not interfere with the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation or the NHS England response to it. If the Secretary of State were to start messing with the formula, we would get into a very difficult place.
I am still of the view that there was a very good reason we gave NHS England greater freedoms. I think it would not have been possible for NHS England to have published its Five Year Forward View in 2014 or even more so the Long Term Plan in 2019, in circumstances where it had occupied the same relationship with the Secretary of State as it did in the past.
This is taking NHS England from its current degree of independence to something that it was not in the past, but is a little more ambiguous. It will be difficult, for precisely the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, explained, for the NHS to feel that, when the successor to the long-term plan is published by the successor to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, it is the NHS’s own plan. That has been very important; Ministers have said it a thousand times. Why do we not let that happen? The measures in Clause 39 take a real risk of infringing on the idea that it is the NHS’s own plan.
It does not mean that the Secretary of State is not accountable, but that they are accountable in ways that they can legitimately control: the resource allocation and an expectation of the priorities and outcomes. That is where the Secretary of State should be putting the weight of the Government, not in trying to decide how outcomes in the NHS are best achieved. I do not agree in principle with what is proposed in Clause 39, but I am not going to press that point.
I will, however, if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pushes it, support her on Clause 40. I say to my noble friend: look at Schedule 6. The structure of it does not even mention the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. As soon as there is a proposal for a reconfiguration from any of the NHS bodies, it quite clearly places in the hands of the Secretary of State the responsibility to decide whether to go ahead with it or not. That will be exactly the moment when the Secretary of State is drawn in and is not able to be extricated from it.
My noble friend has simply to look at the example of the reconfiguration of congenital paediatric cardiac services to realise that no sensible Minister would have been drawn into that debate at an early stage with any confidence of being able to make a decision that would have been accepted by any of the parties to that debate.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
The noble Lord raises the congenital paediatric cardiac case, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the Kent stroke question. On that question, the estimate was that 40 to 50 people will have died or lost their ability to live independently as a result of that two-year delay. Is it not the case that, for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has just set out, those kinds of delays will now be invisible to the naked eye because these proposals will never get off the ground due to the self-censoring of necessary clinical change that would save lives, precisely as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath described?
Lord Lansley (Con)
We all know that when these proposals come forward, there is a lot of local pressure. In many cases, it will be local pressure that is transmitted to the Secretary of State by Members of Parliament who are—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it might be worth reminding noble Lords that on Report, noble Lords only speak twice for short questions of elucidation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The noble Lord was elucidating something to which I was responding. That is my view. Anyway, I was not planning to go on at any length. My point is very straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, that will be transmitted to the Secretary of State at an early stage, before the point where the Secretary of State can, in any practical way, distance himself or herself from the decision by giving it to the independent reconfiguration panel. There is a process out there. I am a Conservative, and we do not change things that are not broken. This is not yet broken. It is a system that has been used tolerably well and we should stick with it, so I support leaving out Clause 40. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 83.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 26A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 26A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“NHS trusts: duties in relation to climate change
After section 26A of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 45 of this Act) insert—“26B Duties in relation to climate change etc(1) An NHS trust established under section 25 must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with— (i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In discharging the duty under this section, NHS trusts must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under section 13ND.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause would require NHS trusts, in exercising their functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that any order imposing a limit on the capital expenditure of an NHS foundation trust may only relate to a single financial year (rather than spanning more than one financial year).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order under new section 42B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 to relate to a single financial year.
“(4A) An order under this section may be made at any time during or before the financial year to which it relates.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order imposing a limit on the capital expenditure of a foundation trust to relate to a single financial year. It clarifies that although the limit must relate to the whole financial year, the order imposing it may be made part-way through that year.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment requiring an order under new section 42B(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 to relate to a single financial year.
Lord Kamall
(a) the reference” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another amendment which provides that references in new section 63A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“(b) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being;(c) the reference to effects of a decision in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to its effects in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new section 63A of the NHS Act 2006 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
“NHS foundation trusts: duties in relation to climate change
After section 63A of the National Health Service Act 2006 (inserted by section 59 of this Act) insert—“63B Duties in relation to climate change etc(1) An NHS foundation trust must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with—(i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) In discharging the duty under this section, NHS foundation trusts must have regard to guidance published by NHS England under section 13ND.””Member’s explanatory statement
The new Clause would require NHS foundation trusts, in exercising their functions, to have regard to certain matters relating to the environment, including climate change.
Lord Kamall
“(2AA) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da) (as read with subsection (2A))—(a) a reference to the effects of decisions in relation to the health and well-being of the people of England includes a reference to the effects of the decisions in relation to inequalities between the people of England with respect to their health and well-being; (b) a reference to effects of decisions in relation to the quality of services provided to individuals includes a reference to the effects of the decisions in relation to inequalities between individuals with respect to the benefits that they can obtain from those services.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that references in new subsection (2)(da) of section 96 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to effects of a decision in relation to certain matters include its effects in relation to inequalities with respect to those matters.
Lord Lansley
“(5A) Rules under subsection (1) may not be framed by reference to whether the provider is in the public or, as the case may be, private sector.”
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will not go on at great length because noble Lords have heard more than sufficient from me today, but this group brings us to what is known in the trade as the provider selection regime: that is, how the NHS goes about the process of commissioning services from a range of providers and the relationship between that and the choice that is available to patients. I am going to refer to my amendments, Amendments 98 and 99, and, without going on about it, I commend Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Finding out whether people have actually experienced choice and whether that is helpful to them is a useful thing to do, and I am not sure whether it features in the current electronic referral system. It would be useful to add it in.
The words of Amendment 98 are in fact already in the regulations that the NHS currently lives by because, born of the previous experience when there were discriminatory payment arrangements for private sector providers relative to public sector providers—ie, more advantageous payment arrangements for the private sector than the public sector—in the 2012 legislation we legislated to prevent that happening in the future. The current Bill removes said prohibition on discrimination on the basis of the ownership, public or private ownership, of a provider.
Noble Lords might think, “Ah, this is trying to avoid us discriminating against the private sector.” This was actually included in order to prevent the Government or the NHS discriminating in favour of the private sector. There may be arguments for it in certain circumstances because NHS bodies often have, as it were, fully depreciated assets and to create additional capacity the private sector very often has to invest capital and has to meet the costs of capital as well as the revenue costs of providing services. None the less, we addressed all that and took the view that we did not want any discrimination: we wanted no competition on price, but we wanted competition on quality. That is why, to be perfectly frank, I am testing the Government’s intentions in omitting something that was a central plank of policy for the 2012 legislation.
On Amendment 99, if I recall there is language in the original White Paper from last year, which set the provisions for the Bill, which referred to “any qualified provider” and made it clear that it was the Government’s intention to maintain the existing choice arrangements and access to any qualified provider. Indeed, I think it said that it would “bolster” the system, although I am not sure whether that is happening anywhere. The amendment is really intended to test a particular issue that arose. I am a very sad person, and I was looking at the service conditions for the NHS standard contract; the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, will know them intimately. There is a point at which commissioners who are presented with people who wish to access other providers, who have a contract with another commissioner, are not required to extend that service to them. The way in which it was written in the standard contract was to talk about circumstances where the originating contract does not refer to the address—I think it said the postal address—included in the originating contract. My point to the Government is that this is absurd. There can be geographic limitations, but we should aim not to make them as limiting as the reference to a postal address in the originating contract would have made them.
The wider point is that, if one looks at the new provider selection regime, one sees that there is a process by which commissioners—the decision-making bodies commissioning services—go through a process of saying, “What are the circumstances of commissioning providers?” They ask whether it is circumstance 1, extending the existing arrangement; circumstance 2, going to a different provider; or circumstance 3, going to competition. The language of circumstance 2 is:
“where the decision-making body wants to use a different provider and the decision-making body considers it can identify a suitable provider without running a competitive procurement process”.
This is something that it will be readily able to do in many cases. A commissioner can say, “This is the circumstance. We want to go to a different provider and we know who we want to go to—that’s fine, we’ll give them the contract.”
Circumstance 3 is
“where the decision-making body cannot identify a single provider or group of providers that is most suitable without running a competitive process; or to test the market”.
The body could choose to test the market, but of course more than subtly. Whereas, in the past, the NHS tended to think that it needed to test the market in circumstances in which the legislation did not actually require it to, there is no such thing as compulsory competitive tendering in the 2012 legislation, or the regulations made under it. But now it has shifted completely the other way, and NHS bodies will be able broadly speaking to choose not to use competition at all. The question is whether that will really be sustainable. In the short run, access to the private sector may well be quite widespread, and there may well be a significant element of choice available to patients through the electronic referral service, but that may be closed down in years ahead, if these provisions are implemented in the way in which they are set out.
I issue a further warning to my noble friends. If you are a provider of services to the NHS and you believe that a decision has been made unfairly or inappropriately by the NHS, there is a standstill on the contract, you have 30 days, and you can send in a complaint, in effect, to the decision-making body, which then decides whether it has done the right thing. There is no independent process whatever, so it seems that the chances of providers resorting to law to challenge what they regard as unfair decisions on the part of decision-making bodies in the NHS rise dramatically with the implementation of these processes.
All that said, I hope what I can hear from my noble friends on the Front Bench is that what they said in the White Paper a year ago in February 2021 remains true: that they are going to sustain patient choice, that they will use the resources of NHS providers and beyond to enable us to fulfil our very demanding recovery programme, that they will think hard about whether the precise language in some of the respects that I have outlined is fair to providers, and that commissioners in the NHS will use their procurement capabilities to deliver best value for patients. I beg to move Amendment 98.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is contributing remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start by commending Amendment 100 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I look forward to hearing him speak on it. It is an excellent idea to ask people how much choice they have actually had when offered treatment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for explaining his two amendments, and I would like to say to him that he is not sad for carrying out his role in your Lordships’ House with interest and care. His expertise in matters that may leave others cold should be celebrated. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, ask that trade unions should be part of consultations on private providers, and that seems sensible.
I wish to focus, albeit briefly, on Amendment 106A, which proposes that Clause 70 be left out, and which will be spoken to later by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton; I apologise to her that under the remote rules I have to speak first. I will confine my remarks to the views of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 15th report, in which paragraphs 17 and 18 make plain its views about these proposed procurement arrangements and regulations. The first point that it notes is that the memorandum, at paragraph 481, says that
“full analysis has not been completed and there has not been time to produce a more developed proposal.”
Why on earth do the Government wish to bring into force legislation that they admit they have not had time to analyse, let alone produce a more developed proposal for? We from our Benches, along with other noble Lords, have repeatedly said that the Cabinet Office procurement Bill is likely to overtake the needs for NHS-specific procurement regulations.
Paragraph 17 of the DPRRC Report gets straight to the heart of the issue and provides a response to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has tabled, starting with Amendment 101 in this group. It says:
“We do not accept that the inclusion of regulation-making powers should be a cover for inadequately developed policy.”
It is therefore more than a little surprising to see a slew of government amendments on this issue that, in the group under discussion, strengthen the powers under regulation.
Paragraph 18 of the Delegated Powers Committee report states that:
“Ministers would not ordinarily propose clauses in one Bill possibly requiring imminent amendment in a subsequent Bill without expecting to face questions. The House may wish to seek further and better particulars from the Minister concerning the possible effect of any Cabinet Office procurement Bill on the Health and Care Bill, and … to press the Minister on why it was necessary to include provision, based on inadequately developed policy, in the Health and Care Bill when the Government intend to introduce a procurement Bill.”
Not only have we tried this at an earlier stage, but there have been meetings between Committee and Report, and it appears that the Government are determined to press on. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has concerns about the Government’s intentions on the clause and its amendment; if she chooses to call a Division on stand part, we from these Benches will support her.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 98A, 98B and 98C. Among other things, the Bill is designed to facilitate the outsourcing to private contractors of NHS services currently carried out in-house. That is the Government’s policy for the NHS, although it is firmly opposed by most of the citizens of this island.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, my Amendment 100 requires NHS England to
“conduct a public survey of whether patients have been offered choices about where they obtain treatment and must report to the Secretary of State what action they will take as a result of the survey.”
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton.
Currently, there is no regular survey of whether patients are aware of their right to choose or of how many have exercised it. The last NHS England official survey of whether patients were aware of their choices was in 2015, when just 47% of those questioned said they were aware.
Waiting times vary enormously by geography. Knowing about the right to choose could mean a significant cut in the waiting time for treatment. For example, waiting times for orthopaedic care vary from 89 weeks in Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to 25 weeks in the relatively nearby Milton Keynes trust. Recent polling by the Royal College of Surgeons showed that 73% of patients questioned would willingly travel to a surgical hub which was not their local hospital if they could be treated more quickly.
There is no system for monitoring whether patient choice is working. Amendment 100 fills this gap and restores the situation to where it was before 2015. I hope the Minister will accept this simple amendment in the interests of patients.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am implacably opposed to privatisation of the NHS—not for ideological reasons, although the Green Party is strongly opposed as well. I think it is inefficient. Privatisation has not worked. It has failed to deliver on promises to increase quality, decrease cost and help patients. Rather than save money through reduced bureaucracy, the main cost savings of privatisation seem to be in cutting the terms and conditions—chiefly the pay and pensions—of staff. If private companies can compete for public services, let them compete on a level playing field, rather than simply capturing staff and paying them less.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explained his Amendment 98 because I had understood it completely the other way around—that he was protecting private services. I was going to have a word with him afterwards about it, but there is now no need.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, just said, most people in Britain do not want a privatised NHS. They want a public service because that is what will give them the best results.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, this group contains a number of helpful amendments. I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the many and varied discussions we have had. I am grateful for this positive and constructive approach, which proposes transparency at the heart of procurement.
We have discussed with the Government at some length why the NHS has to have its own bespoke procurement regime, which the Bill paves the way for. We have seen two consultation documents about the scope, scale and nature of this bespoke regime. Although they seem quite sensible, we have been assured that the Government feel that the regulations will be based on a sound foundation.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is quite right about patients not knowing their right to choose. It is a hole in the provision. The right to choose is very important. People absolutely do not know that they have it.
While not being explicit, the new providers’ selection regime will actually get us to where Labour tried to get in 2010 with the NHS as the preferred provider, at least as far as the many complex and expensive services provided by NHS trusts, FTs and other core patient-facing services are concerned. Therefore, the principle is fine. The problem is that it does not extend across everything that the NHS procures, and that is partly the nub of what my noble friend said in his amendments, which I will return to in a moment.
Our view is that in any circumstances where competitive procurement is to be used, the national rules apply, so why does the NHS need a bespoke system for all non-clinical stuff? We have never actually had an answer to that, except that the NHS comes up with wider regulations, and we feel that that it is a waste of time and effort. However, we have had ample assurances from the Government that the NHS bespoke regime will be properly documented and all the rules set out, with some route to enforcement and challenge. We are assured that there will be no award of contract without applying the process that is set out—no back doors and no flexibility when contracting with private companies. With those assurances in mind and the knowledge that campaigners and trade unions will be vigilant and might even stump up for judicial review, and because of the ICB amendments agreed earlier in the week, we will get more or less what we wanted and we will not try to remove Clause 70 from the Bill.
I turn to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hendy, who has our sympathy and approval. Had we been discussing this at a different time of day, we may have sought to support some of his amendments, and certainly the spirit of them. He has posed a legitimate question to the Minister: why do the Government not insist on good employment of staff as a criterion for their procurement regime?
We on this side of the House remain opposed to the outsourcing of NHS-funded services such as cleaning, catering and many others because we can see that it has led to staff being transferred into the private sector, corners being cut and standards dropping. It has been a symptom of chronic underfunding and it is a terrible long-term strategy. It has of course been completely counterproductive because it has sometimes meant that our hospitals have not necessarily been cleaned, serviced or looked after as we might have wished them to be. We have tried at various stages to introduce safeguards and to outlaw altogether the NHS’s tax-dodging habit of setting up SubCos, but those are probably matters for another day.
I would say to my noble friend that I am not sure that changing the procurement regime is the best way forward for this issue, although he has our support in the politics and context in which he introduced his amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, before addressing the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Warner, it may be helpful if I speak to the six government amendments in this group: Amendments 101 to 104, 106 and 107. The first five of these amendments would amend Clause 70, which inserts a new regulation-making power in relation to the procurement of healthcare services, Section 12ZB, into the NHS Act 2006. They amend the clause so that regulations, when they are made under this power, will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives, for steps to be taken when competitively tendering and for transparency, fairness, verifying compliance and the management of conflicts of interest. Amendment 106 also requires NHS England to issue guidance on the regulations.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, in particular for the helpful explanation of the impact of the response to the consultation published yesterday, which I think moves us in the right direction on the service conditions in the standard contract on that point. I am grateful for my noble friend’s assurance on Amendment 98 as well. Clearly the power is available in the regulations to make sure that the non-discriminatory element of the procurement regulations can be brought forward in due course, so it need not be in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 98.
Lord Warner
“6H Survey relating to patient choiceNHS England must annually conduct a public survey of whether patients have been offered choices about where they obtain treatment and must report to the Secretary of State what action they will take as a result of the survey.”
Lord Warner (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances on the issue of patient choice. I suggest that the arrangements that he outlined in his response to my amendment are not well known, even to those such as the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, so I wonder whether he might look at the arrangements for publicising that information. In the meantime, I shall not move my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the principal regulation-making power in relation to procurement so that regulations under the power will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives.
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision specifying steps to be taken when following a competitive tendering process.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires procurement regulations to include provision specifying steps to be taken when following a competitive tendering process.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the changes made by another amendment to the principal regulation-making power in relation to procurement.
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services to which they apply, make provision for the purposes of—(a) ensuring transparency;(b) ensuring fairness;(c) ensuring that compliance can be verified;(d) managing conflicts of interest.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires procurement regulations to make provision, in relation to all health care services to which they apply, for the purposes of ensuring transparency and fairness and that compliance can be verified and managing conflicts of interest.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I shall not call Amendment 105, as it has been pre-empted by Amendment 103.
“(4) NHS England must publish such guidance as it considers appropriate about compliance with the regulations.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires NHS England to publish guidance about compliance with any procurement regulations that are made.
“(b) in section 272 (orders, regulations, rules and directions), in subsection (6), after paragraph (zzd), insert—“(zze) regulations under section 12ZB,”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that regulations made under new section 12ZB of the National Health Service Act 2006 (as inserted by Clause 70 of the Bill) will be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Health service procurement and supply chains: genocide convention obligations
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the purposes of ensuring that procurement of all goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England is consistent with the United Kingdom's obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), procurement is not consistent if a Minister of the Crown has assessed that there is a serious risk of genocide in the sourcing region.(3) A Minister of the Crown must make an assessment as to whether there is serious risk if the chair of a relevant select committee of either House of Parliament requests one, and must complete such assessment within two months.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I should note, for the convenience of the House, that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be taking part in this debate remotely.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as we move to Amendment 108, I should declare my interests as set out in the register: my involvement in a number of all-party parliamentary groups, and the fact that I am patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response. I should also declare my support for the other two amendments in the group, Amendments 162 and 173, which will be spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has trenchantly and consistently pursued the arguments around forced organ harvesting and the public exhibition of anonymous cadavers from Chinese jails. I have spoken in favour of those amendments previously and will not repeat my arguments today.
Like those two amendments, Amendment 108 is an all-party amendment, which was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and by myself, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is a sponsor today. It would have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but he has had to self-isolate in Cumbria with Covid, and we all wish him a speedy return to his place.
Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was able to attend an online meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and he asked me to move the amendment in his place. I thank both Ministers for their constructive engagement, and perhaps I might pursue further with them some of the arguments and issues raised yesterday. During our discussion the department told me that it had found no evidence of child labour, forced labour or unethical behaviour. Indeed, that was a repeat of a statement made to me in a parliamentary reply by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, when he was a Minister.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is unwell, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his excellent introduction to Amendment 108, to which I have added my name. I also support the other two amendments in this group, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who I commend for his consistent campaign on these issues over the years. His Amendment 162 would ensure that there must be informed consent, with no coercion or financial gain, when organs are donated or when UK citizens go abroad for transplants. Amendment 173 would ensure that cadavers would no longer be used for public display unless it is the body of a person which is at least 100 years old, because, as with Amendments 108 and 162, there is real concern that people have been forced to have organs removed, or their bodies have been used after their death—sometimes murder, sometimes execution—but without their consent.
Returning to Amendment 108, it has two clear objectives: the first is to prevent the Government procuring health service goods produced in regions where there is a serious risk of genocide. While the Government say there is no evidence, a New York Times investigation found that PPE made through the Xinjiang labour transfer programme was present in US and international healthcare systems. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there is increasing evidence that the NHS has procured such items already.
The second objective is to create a process through which the UK Government can be required to assess regions for serious risk of genocide and publish their assessment. This is necessary because the UK Government have given out PPE contracts worth almost £150 million to Chinese firms with links to forced labour abuses in the Uyghur region.
The Government have said that genocide amendments are not appropriate in the Bill and that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 offers protection, but the reality is that the UK is not leading the world here. The US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act creates a “rebuttable presumption” banning all goods sourced in whole or in part from the Xinjiang region of China, unless clear and persuasive evidence can be provided to the contrary; and the European Union is now considering bringing forward new legislation to ban products made with forced labour from entering the European market. The UK’s Modern Slavery Act does not go nearly as far as either of these proposals, merely requiring that companies publish—but not that they act upon—modern slavery statements. People’s lives and human rights are at stake here. Frankly, it is time the UK followed suit with stronger legislation. This amendment would be a strong and careful start that means government and Parliament cannot look away. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I shall speak very briefly, because I am conscious of the time and that we have a lot of business to do. This amendment seeks nothing more than to create another human rights threshold for health procurement, adding to those that are already in place, which seek to address slavery but have major shortcomings, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just described. I keep hearing it being said that a health Bill is not the proper place for an amendment concerning genocide. Well, I am afraid that I do not agree. This is an appropriate place.
We are not asking the Government or the Department of Health to decide whether there is a genocide taking place; we are asking the Minister to take on the duty to assess whether the source of instruments, test kits, protective equipment or whatever may be from forced labour and a situation of slavery. Xinjiang province is the obvious place for us to be concerned about, but there are other places—for example, in India—that we should be concerned about too, and I think that placing that duty on the shoulders of the Minister is a way of concentrating minds. That is why I really press this amendment and I pay tribute to the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so assiduously pursued this. That is all I wanted to say, but I will support this amendment and I urge the House to support it too.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour for my two amendments to be grouped with that in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Blencathra. As the noble Lord has discussed the supply chain, I should declare my interest as president of the Health Care Supply Association, although I am not speaking on its behalf when it comes to my strongly supporting his amendment, which sets the context for my own two amendments.
We debated this issue very fully in Committee. I think that the House believes strongly that the commercial exploitation of body parts in all forms is unethical and unsavoury. When it is combined with mass killing by an authoritarian state, we cannot stand by and do nothing. In 2019, the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, stated:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
In June this year, 12 UN special procedure experts raised the issue of forced organ harvesting with the Chinese Government in response to credible information that Falun Gong practitioners, Uighurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians had been killed for their organs in China.
Currently, human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, where we have a very ethical approach, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants, and British taxpayers’ money will pay for anti-rejection medication regardless of where the organ was sourced or whether it was forcibly harvested from prisoners of conscience.
I shall not repeat all that I said in Committee, but I have had a helpful meeting with Ministers for which I thank them. In that meeting and in subsequent meetings, the Minister was concerned that my amendment in relation to organ tourism would penalise vulnerable people seeking to pay for a transplant. I have thought about that carefully, but, in the end—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, expressed so well why this Bill is highly appropriate for these kind of amendments—we have to draw a line in the sand. That is particularly so today, in the horrific circumstances that we meet. We have to draw a line in the sand and send out a powerful message globally that we will not support these abhorrent practices in any way.
My Amendment 162 comes later, but I shall seek the opinion of the House at that time.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has very effectively introduced the amendments to which I have put my name, Amendments 162 and 173, and I wish briefly to express the support of these Benches for those. We also support Amendment 108, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has put her name.
As noble Lords know, we have been inching forward on these matters with Ministers, and I welcome that forward movement. I note, however, recent warnings from Ministers that, for example, there are “opportunity costs” in implementing these measures, as ensuring that proper standards are enforced requires effort and potential cost. I understand that. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to become complicit in any way in organ tourism where the source of those organs is forced or where selling the organ is to address appalling poverty.
Some say that this trade may be declining in and from China. If so, that is welcome and might reflect international pressure, not least on the Chinese medical profession. It is not clear that those involved in the China Tribunal and the Uyghur Tribunal would agree that it is declining.
Even if we were to accept that, and Ministers seemed to indicate that they thought that might be the case, we are also hearing now of an increase in the selling of organs in Afghanistan because of the dire situation there. There have been recent reports of journalists seeing the scars of those who have sold their kidneys. That is a terrible indictment of our walking away from Afghanistan and failing to address the appalling conditions that we have left there. How can we regard such potential “donors” as being anything other than the most extremely vulnerable? How can you put that up against the vulnerable who may need to have donations?
As for the bodies exhibitions, we have discussed before how distasteful they are—but then we realise with horror exactly where these bodies seem to have been sourced: among other things, from Chinese prisons. We should never have condoned that, turning a blind eye. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who argued in Committee that they should simply be banned. There is no reason whatever to agree to their continuation.
I now hear that the Government may argue—and this is incredibly familiar—that these amendments are flawed. As the noble Earl knows, often Ministers are given briefs that say, “This is a flawed amendment, so turn it back.” I am very familiar with them. In those circumstances, the best thing is for your Lordships to pass these amendments, because Ministers know, or should know, that the essence is extremely clear, and with government lawyers we can work out how best to sort out any unintended consequences. I hope that I do not hear anything about these amendments being flawed—and I say that to the Box. I therefore commend them to your Lordships.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, and I shall speak specifically and briefly to Amendments 162 and 173.
These amendments are updates to the Human Tissue Act, which was born out of public outrage following the Alder Hey scandal, when over 100,000 organs, body parts and entire bodies of foetuses and stillborn babies were stored in NHS facilities. The body parts of dead patients, including children, were removed without consent. Today, the Human Tissue Authority’s guiding principles, as set out in its code of practice, are consent, dignity, quality, honesty and openness. These principles should not only reflect how human tissue sourced from within our own nation is treated, we must treat human tissue and organs with the same principles when sourced overseas.
In China, as has been said, there is substantial evidence of Falun Gong practitioners and Uighurs—as well as some evidence of Tibetans and house Christians—being killed on demand for their organs. Blood is taken off them for tissue-typing at the time when they were taken into custody, often with no idea why they were taken into custody at all, other than that they belong to one of those groups. There is no consent, no dignity and no transparency.
On 7 December last year, the British Medical Association released a statement on the abuse of Uighurs in China, expressing
“grave concern regarding the situation in China and the continuing abuse of the Uyghur population of the country as well as other minorities.”
It went on to state:
“We are particularly alarmed by the reports of organ harvesting, forced birth prevention, and the use of genomics data for racial profiling.”
It urged
“the UK government and international actors to exert pressure on the Chinese government to cease its inhumane actions towards the Uyghurs”.
If we do not pass amendments as laid before the House today, we will be complicit with these practices, because we will be looking at them with Nelson’s eye, with all the evidence that we have that they are going on.
On Amendment 173, on the exhibition of whole bodies using a plastinated technique, I suggest that there is no transparency whatever. Any attempt to claim that there has been consent is extremely suspect, because consent is very easily falsified. I went to one of these exhibitions because I thought you ought to go and see what you are criticising. This was not an anatomical, educational experience but a visual display of plastinated bodies in all kinds of different poses. But the one that horrified me the most was a pregnant woman, quite advanced in her pregnancy and with the foetus in her womb, which had been plastinated. I do not believe that that woman would have given consent for plastination. That raised real questions as to why such an advanced foetus was in the womb of a dead woman without something there explaining the nature of her death, the cause of death and the circumstances in which she had decided to consent to such a procedure.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 108, while supporting the other two amendments introduced so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Northover, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke so eloquently.
I am completely in support of those amendments, but I wish to speak briefly to the genocide amendment today. On various occasions during the Covid pandemic questions were asked of the then Health Minister about the procurement of PPE. He was not able to give me a straight answer to say, “We can guarantee that no PPE procured could have had anything to do with slave labour or could have come from Xinjiang.”
The NHS seeks to be world leading. We all support it and want it to be able to deliver for every citizen in this country. But that should not be at the expense of the lives of those in other parts of the world. It is not good enough to say that we have the Modern Slavery Act if that will not lead to a change in practices. It is absolutely essential that our supply chains do not include anything that comes from forced labour.
If one looks at what is going on in Xinjiang, it is possible to barter to get numbers of people, just as it was 200 years ago during the slave trade. That is not acceptable. It may be the case that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, we will be told, “This is not the right piece of legislation.” If it is not, what will the Government bring forward that will mean that every point of our supply chain—every part of government procurement—ensures that we are not procuring things that have been made using slave labour?
We must not be complicit. This House should support the amendments, and if the Minister is not able to support the amendment, perhaps he could come back with a revised and better version of the amendment that will do what we all seek to achieve.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly only to Amendment 108, which I understand the Government are likely to resist when my noble friend the Minister comes to speak. I say simply, very briefly, that to be persuasive, my noble friend has to explain how through administrative measures the National Health Service will achieve the effects of this amendment. He has to explain that in a credible way and that the effects will be rapid and comprehensive. Any idea that this will be kicked into a long review that ambles on and may or may not produce the effects required by at least the first two proposed new subsections of the amendment will lack credibility; I am less concerned about the chairman of the Select Committee part that comes in the third one. I would like my noble friend to know before he speaks that that is what I think we all want to hear.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, China has been found out. Thanks to surveillance and other types of technology, and courageous on-the-ground reporting, it is clear that China does use slave labour. As we know, the UK has a duty under the genocide convention, and there is strong evidence that much of the material produced by slave labour, even possibly by genocide, is being used by NHS staff—and even by noble Lords ourselves when we use lateral flow tests, since we are not confident about where they came from. They come from areas where there is serious risk of genocide and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, it is not necessary to determine genocide in order to be obliged to do a risk assessment and take action; and we are not doing enough of that. Over half of these products come from places where there is no conflict, so action against conflict is not adequate. More needs to be done. We must not fail to do it because it is more convenient to buy products to keep us safe without investigating how they are produced. Our safety must not be on the backs of people whose rights, and even their lives, are being taken from them.
The same applies to organ-harvesting from unwilling donors. There is incontrovertible evidence that it is not just happening but happening increasingly, and it absolutely has to stop. My noble friend Baroness Northover made a strong case that the exhibiting of cadavers should not happen in a civilised society, and I hope that the Minister is going to tell us how the Government are going to stop it.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to give my strong support to Amendment 108, and I do so because of the terms of the genocide convention to which this Government are committed and are obligated to support. It is important for the House to note that genocide is not defined solely as mass killing. It is also defined as
“causing serious bodily or mental harm … deliberately inflicting … conditions of life calculated to”
destroy the protected group
“in whole or in part … imposing measures intended to prevent births”,
and
“forcibly transferring the children of the group to another group.”
The Government are a signatory to the genocide convention, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is obligated by that signature to support this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, it is impossible to turn away from the connection between procurement of products and services and the message and support that such procurement may give to those who seek to exploit, oppress, damage and murder.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who we wish well. Genocide and the abuse of human rights do not respect the imposed boundaries of government departments, and that is why it is appropriate that these amendments, which have extensive support both inside and outside your Lordships’ House, have been tabled today. Amendment 108 has cross-party support and if the will of the House is tested, we on these Benches will support it.
The NHS is the biggest single procurer of medical products in the world. It has a huge amount of leverage to be a force for good or otherwise when it comes to ethical procurement. It can starve abusive regions of resources. It can also remove a veneer of acceptability from those regions.
If we are serious about being global Britain and a force for good in the world, we need to act as such. It is surely wrong that, for example, we are using bandages which have been produced by forced labour. We must hold the Government to their commitment to provide guidance and support to UK government bodies to use public procurement rules to exclude suppliers where there is sufficient evidence of human rights violations in any of their supply chains. As expressed by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, this is about giving the Minister the opportunity to act. It is about focusing minds. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the noble Earl.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Collins spoke of the need not to be tied down by a very strict legal definition of genocide. He also emphasised that we must focus on broader human rights issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, we need to take a comprehensive, joined-up approach. Amendment 108 gives us this opportunity.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for continuing to press home the need for action, as outlined in Amendments 162 and 173. We heard explicitly and movingly about the realities of how this affects people’s bodies, alive and dead, and the distaste and abuse related to it. It is surely right that UK citizens are safeguarded against complicity in forced organ harvesting as the result of genocide. Countries such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway and Israel, among several others, have already taken action to prevent organ tourism in respect of China. We have the opportunity to do so today.
I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to accept these amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord and his officials for the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope only that your Lordships’ House can assist in improving this aspect of the Bill by taking action, as we should, about genocide and the abuse of human rights.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group bring us to three discrete topics which are nevertheless linked by a common thread—that of human rights. Because they engage us in issues of great sensitivity, I begin by saying something that may sound unusual. There is probably no one in this Chamber who is not instinctively drawn towards these amendments. All three are honourably motivated. In pointing out any shortcomings, I would not want noble Lords to think that the Government did not understand or sympathise with why they have been tabled.
I will start with the issue of organ tourism. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I find it abhorrent that individuals exist who are in the business—often the lucrative business—of sourcing human organs from provenances that are both illegal and supremely unethical. They then entice desperate and seriously ill people to go to a foreign country to have such organs transplanted within them. This idea is unconscionable. As far as we can, we should have no truck with it. The Human Tissue Act already prohibits the giving of
“a reward for the supply of, or for an offer to supply any controlled material”
in any circumstance where a substantial part of the illicit transaction takes place in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
The Modern Slavery Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate another person’s travel, including travel outside the UK, for the purposes of their exploitation, which includes the supply of organs for reward in any part of the world. The law as it stands addresses a substantial element of potential criminality. How widespread is this criminality? What do we know about the scale of organ tourism as it relates to UK residents? I have obtained some figures from the department. In 2019-20, the last reporting year before international travel was curtailed by the pandemic, a total of 4,820 organ transplants took place in this country. At the same time, NHS Blood and Transplant data shows that only seven UK residents received a transplant abroad, many if not all legitimately, and had follow-up treatment in the UK.
Therefore I am thankful to say that the scale of the problem of illicit organ tourism, as it relates to UK residents, is small. If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, were to say to me that one such case is one too many, I would agree, but the House should not support this amendment, because it is not right to support an amendment that could cause vulnerable transplant patients who receive a legitimate transplant overseas to face imprisonment because they may not have the right documentation. That is what the amendment could lead to. Checking such documentation and creating individually identifiable records for every UK patient who has received a transplant overseas would put healthcare professionals in an invidious and inappropriate position by blurring the line between medic and criminal investigator.
More to the point, it could also prevent those who legitimately receive an organ transplant abroad—particularly those from minority-ethnic backgrounds—from seeking follow-up treatment, for fear of being treated as a criminal suspect. Following that thought through, I say that the effect that this amendment could have in exacerbating health inequalities is likely to be far greater than its effect in deterring transplant tourism, especially, as I have emphasised, because there are already legal provisions in place covering most cases of organ tourism.
I listened with care to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, particularly regarding her examples of the exhibition that she went to. I join her in being somewhat incredulous that there could be consent to some of the exhibits that she witnessed. However, where consent has been obtained, it must be unequivocal. As I emphasised, the law as it stands now prohibits the exhibition of bodies or body parts where express consent cannot be fully demonstrated. I undertake to speak to the Human Tissue Authority, to see that, should there be another exhibition of this kind proposed, there is full transparency in the form of labels under each exhibit making clear how consent was obtained and what it consisted of.
Targeting those who receive an organ, rather than the traffickers and their customers who initiate or negotiate the arrangements, risks imprisoning vulnerable patients who may have been misled as to the provenance of their organ. That would be disproportionate. The Government’s view remains that the best approach is to continue targeting traffickers and their customers, while doing all that we can to help UK residents who are in need of an organ by focusing our efforts on improving the rates and outcomes of legitimate donations.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Before the noble Earl sits down, may I apologise to the House? I should have declared that I am the UK chair of Commonwealth Tribute to Life, which aims to establish a memorandum of understanding across the Commonwealth over ethical transplantation.
The Minister, in his reply, spoke of seven patients who are known to have travelled abroad for organs. Most of those were legally arranged, so the numbers are very small; yet the clinical services in the UK are not aware that it is illegal to arrange to purchase an organ abroad if most of that transaction happens in the UK, or to procure the travel to go. I wonder whether the Minister would be able to undertake to work with us in NHSBT to ensure that all the clinicians working in the field are aware of this and can brief patients appropriately at the time they sign up to be on the transplant list, so that they understand that, although they are eligible for a transplant, they should not be seeking transplants in other countries, even when tempted to do so. It can look quite alluring, and I am concerned that, within the profession itself, there might be some misunderstanding. I realise this is a difficult question and the Minister might prefer not to answer it now; it might be something we could discuss later.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, that is a perfectly valid question from the noble Baroness, and I would be happy to take that back to those in the Department of Health and Social Care who have direct responsibility in this area.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I know that this is a complex and long Bill, and that the House will want to move quite quickly to the next business. I will end by simply thanking every noble Lord who has participated in today’s debate, especially the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Merron, from the opposition Front Benches, and the noble Lords on the Government Benches who have supported the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, at every stage of the progress of this amendment.
I know that when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that he was instinctively drawn to these amendments, and that he found many of these practices abhorrent, he was speaking as he feels. I am grateful to him, not only for the meeting that we had yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, but for his promise to look at this further. Among those to whom I would like to introduce him is a Uighur surgeon I have met, who has given evidence here in the House about being forced to remove organs and to kill the patient in the course of that. This is the ethical issue here. If people profit from that in any way whatever, even if inadvertently, we must not be complicit.
A year ago, we were promised that there would be an urgent review of exports to Xinjiang and fines for businesses which failed to comply with the Modern Slavery Act, when parliamentary time allowed. Those things have not happened. The urgent review has just been completed, but it ended up dealing only with military exports and there have been no fines applied one year later. It is never the right Bill or the right time. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I were told this on the telecommunications Bill, we were told it again on the then Trade Bill. We are told it on every Bill. That is why it is inevitable that we come back with amendments like this until the comprehensive plan, to which the noble Earl referred, actually happens.
The House really needs to send this amendment further. We have had between Committee and now for the Government to help us redraw it, if there are any defects or flaws. I am unaware of what they may be; they have never been pointed out to us. The noble Earl also knows that the Government could say to us, “Bring this back at Third Reading and we will help to draw up such an amendment.” However, I am told that this is not possible either. Therefore, the only way for us to ensure that this amendment can proceed and be perfected is to send it to another place. I am glad to be able to tell the House that a former leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, has agreed that he will personally promote this amendment if it is passed in your Lordships’ House today and take it further there. He says that he is with us 100%. I would like to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
“Meaning of “health” in NHS Act 2006
In section 275(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—““health” includes mental health;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause clarifies that in the NHS Act 2006 “health” includes mental health (unless the context otherwise requires). Although the natural meaning of health is capable of including “mental health” the existing provisions of the Act are inconsistent about whether they mention mental health expressly which could cause confusion.
Lord Kamall
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Clause 79(3) of the Bill, which omits paragraph (c) of section 100(4) of the Care Act 2014.
Lord Warner )
“PART 1AHEALTH AND CARE SUSTAINABILITYOffice for Health and Care Sustainability
(1) There is to be a body corporate, independent of the Government, called the Office for Health and Care Sustainability (“the Office”) to safeguard the long-term sustainability of an integrated health and adult social care system for England. (2) The Office must be established within six months of the passing of this Act and must publish a report of its initial findings relating to its main functions within a year of its establishment.(3) The role of the Office is to continually assess the outlook for the health and care system over the coming five, 10 and 15 years.(4) The Office has no function in operational or service delivery aspects of the health and care system.(5) The Office must—(a) monitor and publish data relating to demographic trends, disease profiles and the likely pace of change relating to future service demands,(b) assess the workforce and skills mix required to respond to those changes and publish regular reports on those matters, and(c) consider the stability of health and adult social care funding relative to changing demographic and disease trends, including the alignment between health and adult social care funding, and publish regular reports.(6) The functions of the Office are to be exercised on behalf of the Crown as if it was a public department.(7) The Office is to consist of—(a) an executive chair appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Public Accounts and Health Select Committees of the House of Commons,(b) two other members appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Public Accounts and Health Select Committees of the House of Commons, and(c) two other members nominated by the Office and appointed by the Secretary of State.(8) The initial appointments under subsection (7) are for a term of five years and no more than two terms may be served.(9) The remuneration of the executive chair is to be agreed by the Secretary of State but may not be less than that paid to the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Care; and all other salaries and gratuities for members may be agreed by the Office with the consent of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.(10) The Office may employ staff on terms and remuneration consistent with that of the civil service.(11) The Office may—(a) establish such committees and sub-committees as it deems necessary,(b) determine its own procedures and those of its committees and sub-committees, and(c) do anything calculated to facilitate, or conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions.(12) The annual budget of the Office is to be provided by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.(13) The Office must keep proper accounts and records in relation to its accounts, and must prepare and publish each year an audited statement of accounts.(14) The Office must prepare an initial report on its work within one year of its establishment, and thereafter annually, and may at any time publish a report on its functions when it considers that this assists safeguarding the long-term sustainability of an integrated health and adult social care system in England.(15) The Secretary of State must lay any report prepared by the Office before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements recommendations 33 and 34 of the 2017 report by the House of Lords Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care. It draws on the legislation setting up the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 112 is my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Scriven and Lord Kakkar. I am grateful for their support. This amendment goes much wider in terms of independence from the Secretary of State than Amendment 80, moved so convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, earlier today.
Amendment 112 establishes a new body to help to secure the long-term sustainability of our health and care system. That body is an independent office for health and care sustainability as recommended by this House’s Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and adult social care. This new body is based on the model of the Office for Budget Responsibility. That body is widely accepted as having worked well over a number of years. My amendment draws heavily on the 2011 legislation setting up the OBR.
The new office of health and care sustainability has three main functions which are set out clearly in the amendment, so in the interests of time I will not repeat them. The new body would look five to 10 to 15 years ahead and publish regular reports which would be laid before both Houses of Parliament. It would produce an initial baseline report within a year of its establishment. Like the OBR, the new body would have an executive chair and five members. The chair and two members would be appointed by the Health Secretary but—and this is a very big but—with the consent of the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee and Health and Social Care Committee. The remaining two members would be chosen by the office itself. Like the OBR, the new body would not have a membership controlled by Ministers.
The new office of health and care sustainability would be much more independent of the Secretary of State than is provided for in Amendment 80. It would have a much wider remit in terms of improving the balance between the NHS and social care, on both staffing and funding. The greater long-term independence seems essential given that the Department of Health—now the Department of Health and Social Care—has a political and official track record which was revealed to the Lords Select Committee as pretty unsatisfactory.
The Department of Health has been failing to plan for the future for a very long time. The evidence given by its Permanent Secretary totally failed to convince the Select Committee that it took long-term planning seriously. That Permanent Secretary is still in place. I do not like personal attacks, but in evidence to the Select Committee this person actually said that he did not see long-term planning as part of his job description. So we have a situation where the long-term planning of the NHS and social care is simply not on the agenda of the government department responsible for it.
With this track record and the Covid recovery programme that the Department of Health and Social Care now faces, it seems to me a triumph of optimism over reality to rely on that department and its harassed political head to undertake long-term planning. I say that despite the House passing Amendment 80. We are looking for a situation in which there is more independence of the Secretary of State and, indeed, more independence in the collection of information, the sifting of that information, and the analysis that that information shows—and that covers funding as well as workforce issues.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of your Lordships’ ad hoc Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS. My noble friend Lord Warner has very clearly introduced the arguments summarised at that time, when your Lordships’ committee made its report, strongly supporting the establishment of an independent office for the sustainability of health and care, and I shall not repeat those arguments.
What was striking was Her Majesty’s Government’s response to that report and, indeed, to recommendations 32 to 34 in that report, which dealt with that specific question. To summarise, Her Majesty’s Government felt that that office was unnecessary and that the Office for National Statistics had much of the data publicly available to assist in this long-term planning activity. Clearly, that is not the case; it has not happened, and it is unlikely to happen.
It is essential, as we have heard, that such an office is established not only to deal with questions of workforce—my noble friend has identified the interview given by the right honourable Jeremy Hunt on the question of an independent office for questions of workforce—as sustainability of health and care goes far beyond workforce. A very careful and appropriately defined methodology and expertise needs to be brought together to ensure that we can plan on a definite basis and achieve the sustainability that every Member of your Lordships’ House clearly regards to be essential. I therefore hope that Her Majesty’s Government accept this amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, five years have passed since the ad hoc Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS, under the chairpersonship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, recommended an office for health and care sustainability. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for bringing this amendment before your Lordships’ House. This is a clear direction to put sustainability at the heart of planning and is long overdue. So we on these Benches support the amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment as a way forward.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for bringing this debate before the House today. As mentioned in the debate in Committee, the specific functions described in Amendment 112 are crucial functions that the Government are committed to ensuring are discharged. This commitment is underlined by the fact that there are already bodies and mechanisms in place to fulfil these functions. These are core components of the Government’s commitment to evidence-based health provision. This commitment has been made clear in many of the Bill’s provisions, in our wider programme of public health reform and in the proposals set out in the Government’s plan for health and care.
The amendment makes recommendations on both appraisal and scrutiny of funding and of social and demographic trends. With regard to the monitoring of trends, the department already publishes data relating to disease profiles, which incorporates demographic trends where relevant. This is supported by independent academic modelling from the Care Policy Evaluation Centre, CPEC, to produce projections of the long-term demand on adult social care services. As for funding, noble Lords will also be aware that successive Governments have used the well-established spending review process to set public service budgets. This takes into account the needs of service users, but crucially also considers the fiscal context and how healthcare expenditure balances with the range of priorities across government.
As noble Lords have noted, aligned to those spending decisions, the Office for Budget Responsibility already scrutinises the Government’s fiscal approach and our management of fiscal risks. For example, in October 2021 the OBR provided an independent analysis of the Government’s reform to the funding of adult social care in England and has announced that it will provide more analysis of the long-term implications in its next fiscal sustainability report. There is also, as noble Lords will know, a wide range of highly influential non-governmental bodies dedicated to the kinds of functions proposed for this new body—the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust to name just three. All of these contribute richly to the public debate on financial sustainability and on the size and composition of the workforce, as well as other related issues, and to the ability of this House to scrutinise government decisions on spending and policy.
The Government therefore do not think that the creation of a further body would add value. At this crucial time for the health and care system, we must proceed with the reforms we have outlined. For these reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, no chance. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 7th March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2022)
16:06 - Division on Amendment 113 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 113 agreed.
16:49 - Division on Amendment 116 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 116 agreed.
17:28 - Division on Amendment 124 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 124 agreed.
18:49 - Division on Amendment 141 - Ayes: 198 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 141 agreed.
19:04 - Division on Amendment 144A - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 144A agreed.
Baroness Pitkeathley
“Carers and safe discharge from hospital
(1) This section applies where—(a) a person (“the patient”) is a qualifying hospital patient at a hospital, and(b) the responsible NHS body considers that it is unlikely to be safe to discharge the patient from hospital unless care provided by one or more carers is available to the patient.(2) It is the duty of the responsible NHS body to—(a) consult the patient about their preferences regarding their care following discharge from hospital, and(b) take reasonable steps to identify and consult any carer or potential carer of the patient about to be discharged.(3) The NHS body must consult any carer or potential carer identified under subsection (2) to ascertain—(a) whether the carer is able, and is likely to continue to be able, to provide care for the patient needing care, and(b) whether the carer is willing, and is likely to continue to be willing, to do so.(4) Having consulted the carer, the NHS body must cooperate with the local authority in relation to their duties under the Care Act 2014, the Health and Care Act 2006 and the Children Act 1989.(5) For the purposes of this section—(a) a “qualifying hospital patient” means a person being accommodated at—(i) a health service hospital, or(ii) an independent hospital in pursuance of arrangements made by an NHS body,who is receiving (or who has received or is expected to receive) care.(b) a “carer” means any person, including any child under the age of 18, who provides or intends to provide care in respect of a patient to whom the NHS may provide services, but a person is not to be regarded as a carer if they provide or intend to provide care under or by virtue of a contract, or as voluntary work.”Member’s explanatory statement
This provision retains the principle and duty on a hospital, whether it be an NHS hospital or an independent hospital, to ensure that a patient must be safe to discharge from hospital and mirrors carers’ rights which were established in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges, etc) Act 2003.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 113 focuses on carers and safe discharge for hospital patients. The amendment defines the patient and the carer and is focused on safeguarding the rights of unpaid carers when the person they care for is discharged from hospital. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who is sadly unable to be in his place because he is isolating, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hollins, and all the other Peers who have expressed it. My thanks go also to Professor Luke Clements, professor of law and social justice at the University of Leeds, for his wise advice on the drafting of this amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time and effort they have put in to meeting Peers and Carers UK—I declare an interest as its vice-president.
I continue to be amazed at what I am going to say next because, as it stands, the Bill revokes the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, which includes a requirement to consult carers prior to discharge. Thus, for the first time, the rights of unpaid carers will be removed without being replaced by additional or improved rights. Many people, me included, have been fighting to get rights for carers recognised for over 30 years. We first achieved rights through Private Members’ Bills over several Parliaments and under Governments of all colours. No one could have been more delighted than I when these were later enshrined in government legislation such as the delayed discharges Act and the Care Act, but here there is no question of enhancing carers’ rights.
On the contrary, the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill recognises that carers may be asked to take on additional hours of care, which could mean they have to reduce their hours of work or give up paid work entirely. It states that while the Government anticipate that in some cases
“carers may choose to … There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier.”
I should point out that “may choose to” is a late addition to the impact statement. Originally, it said simply “There is an expectation that” carers may allocate more time, with no reference to choice at all.
Perhaps this may remind some of your Lordships that the Secretary of State for Health has said that families must be the first port of call for caring responsibilities. I always found that puzzling, since families always are the first port of call. Whatever reforms we make, the bulk of health and social care will continue to be provided by the so-called informal army of family, friends and neighbours. The contribution they make to the economy is now estimated at £193 billion annually—almost the cost of the NHS itself.
The point of hospital discharge is often the most vulnerable time for patients and carers. Carers UK research shows that more than half of carers were not involved in decisions about discharge, two-thirds were not listened to about their willingness or ability to provide care, and 60% received insufficient support to protect the health either of themselves or of the person being discharged. Anyone who speaks to a carer will hear horror stories about hospital discharge. I am reminded of Norman, a man in his late 70s and a carer for his wife who has multiple disabilities—Norman spoke to a group of your Lordships by Zoom recently. His wife went into hospital for a procedure, which was a relief to him as he himself had been diagnosed with cancer and was having chemotherapy. While he was actually hooked up receiving the chemo, he received a call from the hospital saying that they were discharging his wife. He received no prior notice that she was ready to be discharged. “Okay,” said Norman, “but could you just wait till I get home to receive her?” “No,” was the reply, “she is already in the ambulance on her way home.” Norman’s response was not, “Well, please take her back again,” as I suspect many of us would have been tempted to say, but to ask the oncologist whether the drip that he was on could be speeded up so that he could get home quickly. As it was, he arrived home to find his wife had been left in a bed, frightened and alone. Many of your Lordships will have heard similar stories.
This amendment would place a duty on the NHS to ensure that carers are consulted and to check that they are willing and able to care, as well as ensuring that the patient is fit to be discharged—I emphasise not just medically fit but fit to be at home—and putting the right support in place. It would avoid the experience of another carer, who said, “We knew she was on her way home only when she was on hospital transport. We had to drop everything and rush around to try to get a commode just so she could go to the toilet when she got home.”
The Government suggest that rights in primary legislation will be replaced by statutory guidance. I have been assured of this by the Minister and officials, and I know they are sincere in the belief that this will be more than adequate. But guidance, however strongly worded, is not the same as having concrete rights in legislation that can be quoted and used. I cannot express how disappointed I and all who work with carers are that the Government are for the first time rowing back on the rights of carers, for which we have fought so hard.
With the leave of the House and at his request, I shall quote some of what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, would have said had he been able to be present. As your Lordships know, he is especially concerned about young carers. He says—
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, while I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Young wanting to contribute to the debate, in order to do so, he needs to be in it.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I apologise to your Lordships. I will just say that the noble Lord said it was a “backward step” to leave only guidance.
This is not only morally wrong but very short-sighted. If a discharge is unsatisfactory, the inevitable consequence is readmission—and think how much that costs. The Government believe that the new discharge to assess procedures will deal with discharge problems, but carers report that discharge to assess takes place as the discharge itself is happening, with no chance to order suitable devices, equipment or changes to the home, let alone to consult the carer. I must point out that two earlier versions of the discharge to assess guidance did not even mention carers and did so only after pressure from Carers UK.
I am sorry to say that the Government and the NHS have form on ignoring carers. They were not mentioned in the health and care White Paper, which set out the foundations for the Bill and only marginally in the integration White Paper, yet I have never heard any Minister say anything other than that carers are essential, that they must be valued and respected and that we owe them a debt of gratitude. Similarly, I have always heard Ministers and officials agree that carers must be supported to combine paid work with caring to help them financially now and to avoid future poverty, yet here we are with a Bill which states baldly that carers must allocate more time, requiring a reduction in work hours and associated financial costs. I asked the Minister at Second Reading and I ask him again: does he expect carers to go on benefits in order to provide care?
Carers and patients need this amendment badly, and I hope the Minister understands that. I have no doubt of his good intention, but I fear for the plight of carers and patients if he does not accept the amendment, which is essential if we are to ensure that all carers, including young carers, are not overlooked in the hospital discharge process but retain concrete rights and recognition in primary legislation. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I will speak very briefly from the Liberal Democrat Benches to offer our support for both the amendments in this group.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, Amendment 113, says that unpaid carers, including those under 18, must be properly consulted by the NHS to ensure that they are able to provide the care needed to keep patients safe. In Committee—and, more recently, at the excellent and moving round table with family carers organised by Carers UK, about which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, just spoke—we heard evidence of hospitals discharging patients before assessments had been completed and before carers had even been told. The burden that this places on carers is totally unacceptable and unsafe. Worse still—and unsurprisingly—the home arrangements too often break down when family and unpaid carers are not a full part of the consultation process. We support the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in this vital amendment.
The second amendment, Amendment 144, to which I have added my name, was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. The amendment ensures that there are always proper social care needs assessments to ensure that both the family and unpaid carers are consulted, along with the relevant local authority; and that ICBs must have an agreement in place with the relevant parties to ensure that vulnerable people are not discharged without the right support. Some carers are themselves vulnerable people, and we need to make sure that all protections are in place for them too.
Equally importantly, it ensures reporting by the relevant authorities back to the ICB so that it can monitor discharge effectiveness. It says—as a bit of stick to go with the other carrot parts—that the ICB must pay for any
“additional costs borne by a local authority in caring for a patient whilst carrying out social care needs assessments”,
in the event that the patient has been discharged before this was completed.
There are 1.4 million unpaid carers who save the state just under £3 billion a year—and they need more than guidance. Both of these amendments will ensure that the patient and their unpaid carer are assessed and supported properly, and that the key stakeholders—the NHS, the relevant local authority and the ICB—must work together to make this happen.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 113. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, both on this amendment and on the years and years of commitment she has given to the support of carers.
It is extraordinary what this Government are prepared to do in this Bill. In revoking the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, they are abolishing the “safe to discharge” test, which requires processes to have been followed to ensure that appropriate and adequate care is, or will be, in place for a patient’s discharge from hospital. The Government are proposing that carers’ rights in primary legislation should be put in statutory guidance instead.
As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am very conscious that, under this Government, secondary or delegated legislation is used more and more to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers rather than in Parliament. The only possible reason for the Government to remove carers’ rights from the Bill, and to put them into secondary legislation, is to weaken those rights. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that point? It is a very important question.
A number of us recently met with a group of so-called adult carers—teenagers and adults—and also with a group of young carers. Both of those experiences were humbling from my point of view. I will mention a couple of points that came up. One teenager rather casually mentioned that she had begun being a carer at the age of three. This is unbelievable, is it not? I forgot to ask her what she actually had to do at the age of three; it is difficult to imagine. But, whatever she had to do, the idea that she somehow had a sense of responsibility at that age is truly alarming.
The other memorable moment was when a teenager was asked, “What is the most difficult thing for you, or the biggest problem that you have as a carer?” I thought she would say that she did not have any time to play with her friends or that she had to do all sorts of boring and horrible jobs that her friends do not. But no, she did not say any of that; what she actually said was, “The biggest problem I have is that the hospital staff won’t tell me how much medication my mum needs. They say they’ve got to talk to my mum, but that’s impossible.” The selflessness implied in that is just completely extraordinary—and of course there were lots of other incredible points.
If these young carers are not consulted before their dependent relative is discharged from hospital, they may be at school or in the middle of a hockey match—it is just unimaginable that this requirement should be in any way weakened. I ask the Minister to take extreme care on this issue when going back and considering the Bill; only then can we be sure that patients are not just medically fit to be discharged from hospital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, but are safe to be discharged—that is, carers or others are there to look after them.
BASW rightly points out that revoking a local authority’s Care Act duty to integrate care and support provision with health provision at the time of the key decision about where a person should be discharged to from hospital undermines the model of integration between social and health care staff—surely the absolute opposite of the whole objective of the Bill. I understand that discharge to assess is probably reasonable for medium and long-term care planning. However, an assess to discharge approach is even more important and should be done in hospital, from the date of admission to hospital. Where is that commitment in the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness’s amendment, and my thanks go to Carers UK for its briefing. I declare an interest as a family parent carer of an adult disabled man.
Earlier in Report, community rehabilitation was debated, and Amendment 113 complements this by acknowledging the vital role that carers play in supporting people’s discharge from hospital and promoting a community-based model of care. In Committee, I promoted an amendment that sought to define carers within the Bill, as they are mentioned in three clauses. This amendment incorporates that approach, to ensure that parent and young carers are not overlooked. I cannot stress sufficiently strongly how important rights in primary legislation are for carers, who often have all the responsibility for caring but very few of the rights. They are often experts in how people like to be treated, and they can be experts in a condition that professionals may have little detailed knowledge of.
Carers UK heard from carers directly about their experiences of being shut out of the system as part of the discharge to assess process. For new carers, it was often described as bewildering; promises to contact them just did not materialise. Carers UK research found that carers were not consulted and were not given information and advice or the support that they needed to care safely and well for the person who had been discharged. For several of these people, this involved admission to longer-term intensive support or, sadly, readmission back into hospital again. The amendment would have provided the checks and balances needed to ensure that this did not happen.
Carer experience surveys are also important, and they found that carers’ experiences of accessing health and care services for themselves have either plateaued or deteriorated in the recent past. Carers are twice as likely to have ill health as a result of caring; too often, they are overlooked in policy and practice in relation to health services. This is particularly true for parents of disabled children and for young carers. The work that they do has invaluable medical and economic benefit, often at the expense of their own well-being. I therefore urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the two amendments in this group.
In Committee, I spoke on hospital discharge, focusing particularly on carers who are working. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, until very recently the impact assessment talked about an expectation that carers would have to provide more care. It said:
“There is an expectation that unpaid carers might need to allocate more time to care for patients who are discharged from hospital earlier. For some, this may result in a … reduction in work hours and associated financial costs.”
While Ministers have talked of carers being able to choose whether or not they give up work to care, we have heard that many have not been given a choice, been consulted or been given the right information to care safely and well. We know that, on occasions, carers do make an informed choice to take on more care, which is great, but we have heard far more stories where the system is working against carers. Indeed, the research from Carers UK shows that two-thirds did not feel listened to about their willingness and ability to care by healthcare professionals.
I am particularly concerned about carers who are trying to juggle working and caring. They may be willing to take on and provide more care, but they are juggling work as well. The impact assessment makes an assumption that, when carers give up work, it will be a short-term thing because the care provided will not be significant. Yet the stories we have heard from carers show that, too often, that is not the case because patients with significant needs are discharged into the community without sufficient support.
To conclude, this is not a minor issue. It affects millions of people, and it particularly affects women. There have been 2.8 million more carers juggling work and care during the pandemic, and many have had to give up work. We also need to remind ourselves that women are more likely to be reducing their working hours to juggle work and care, and they are a group that is already often under-pensioned.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches, as has been said, support both amendments in this group. I just ask the Minister one question. We have heard about people who might have to give up work or reduce their hours in order to care. I do not know if the Minister has ever tried to apply for benefits, but it takes a while, and it certainly takes a while for the benefits to turn up in somebody’s bank account. Given that situation, will the Minister talk to the relevant department to see if a fast-track process could be put in place for people in that position?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I fully endorse my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley’s excellent speech and the other contributions on Amendment 113. The amendment focuses on three fundamental issues for unpaid carers: being fully consulted and involved before their loved one is discharged from hospital; having a proper assessment both of their own needs and of those who they care for; and clinging on to the few concrete rights they have under the health and care and family legislation that refers to and defines carers, including parent and young carers, and the right of all carers to have a carers’ assessment.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name to my Amendment 144 and for her usual forensic analysis of how the discharge to assess approach is working and its impact on both carers and their loved ones being discharged from hospital. I spoke on this amendment in Committee, but the noble Baroness has underlined the key points and I will not therefore press my amendment today. We can instead concentrate on showing strong support from across the House for carers and for Amendment 113.
Speakers made this support very clear in Committee. At the very least, we could have hoped that this would lead to a commitment from the Government to reinstate the carers’ rights that the Bill deletes and to ensure that carers are consulted before the partner, husband, relative or friend they care for is discharged from hospital, as per their current entitlement under the 2003 delayed discharges Act. Instead, there have been no reassurances or movement in these crucial areas, despite some helpful meetings with the Minister. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley points out, we are once again having to defend existing carers’ rights rather than working to enhance them to recognise the worth of carers and reflect the vital role that they play.
If the Minister was hoping that his recent letter and the accompanying updated draft guidance on discharge to assess would address the deep concern and frustration felt by carers, then he knows today that this has not worked. The promise of statutory guidance, and of carers being able to undertake judicial review if it is breached, is not the same as legal rights. In reality, how many carers would be able to go down the judicial review route? The Government just do not seem to understand how deeply ignored, undervalued and unrecognised carers feel.
We should remember, on discharge to assess, that the evidence from key stakeholders to the Commons committee dealing with the Bill clearly showed a very mixed experience of how the approach was working. In some areas, the perennial and disruptive issues around delayed transfers have eased and it is working relatively well, whereas in others, there were calls for much tougher safeguards or for the process to be ended altogether. The Government need to recognise that the system is in its early days but that, as we have heard, the horror discharge stories are happening now—and all too often, as we see from the briefings from Carers UK.
In his response, the Minister needs to reassure the House about the action that the Government are taking now to ensure that hospitals involve and consult carers about arrangements before discharge of patients. I hope that he will also accept Amendment 113 and fully recognise that carers’ existing rights must be reinstated in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her continuing championing of carers.
Discharging people as soon as they are clinically ready is increasingly recognised as the most effective way to support better outcomes. The evidence shows that the “discharge to assess” approach reduces time spent in a hospital bed and supports people to remain independent at home wherever possible. Although the hospital discharge clause does not mandate discharge to assess, the Government are supportive of local areas that choose to implement this best practice model. We believe that carrying out long-term needs assessments at a point of optimum recovery leads to a more accurate evaluation of people’s abilities and needs and more appropriate care packages. Many people discharged from hospital require longer than two weeks to recover. Requiring social care needs assessments to be completed within two weeks of discharge would not necessarily be in the patient’s best interests.
I understand that noble Lords are concerned about safe discharge from hospital and safeguards for patients and carers. However, relevant NHS bodies are expected to ensure that patients’ health needs are met safely in hospital and in the community. Local authorities also have duties to assess patients’ and carers’ needs and, where relevant, ensure that appropriate support is put in place for them. In addition, the CQC monitors, inspects and regulates services to make sure that they meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety, which are set out in legislation.
The Government do not believe that these amendments are in the best interests of either carers or patients. They would create new burdens on NHS bodies and local authorities, and Amendment 144 would create new penalties for local authorities for failing to carry out assessments within a specified timeframe. In doing so, the amendments would undermine the entire purpose of Clause 80 and hinder the ambition, shared across the health system and by Members of this House, to ensure that people are discharged in a safe and timely manner. The creation of significant bureaucracy between local authorities and the NHS risks damaging relationships and would go against the spirit of integrated working that this Bill seeks to support. We agree, however, that accountability and transparency are key to ensuring that local systems deliver high-quality and safe discharge services, which is why we welcome the fact that NHS England now publishes hospital discharge data.
Additionally, a duty on NHS bodies and local authorities to co-operate with one another is already set out in Section 82 of the NHS Act 2006. To specify how this duty will apply to hospital discharge, we are co-producing guidance with organisations including Carers UK, the Carers Trust and Barnardo’s. This will set a clear expectation that, where appropriate, unpaid carers should be consulted during the discharge process. As noble Lords have acknowledged, this guidance will be statutory; NHS bodies and local authorities will therefore be required to have regard to it or risk claims for judicial review potentially being brought against them. We agree that, where we can do more to “think carer” across the NHS, we should. With this in mind, we can commit that we will consult with the public, staff and carers on including a stronger reference to the role and regard of unpaid carers in the NHS constitution, for which a review will be launched this year.
I am also mindful of the specific concerns that have been expressed in relation to young carers. As well as using the guidance to include a much broader definition of carers than that set out in Schedule 3 to the Care Act, I can inform the House that the new Explanatory Notes for the Bill provide clarity that young carers and parent carers are included within the everyday definition.
In response to a number of noble Lords’ questions, I repeat what I said earlier: our new guidance includes a broader definition of carers than Schedule 3 to the Care Act, which applied only to adult carers of patients requiring a long-term needs assessment before discharge. Adult carers’ rights to an assessment of their own needs, under Section 10 of the Care Act, and young carers’ rights, including those as part of the Children Act, remain unchanged under the proposed hospital discharge arrangements.
We believe that statutory guidance is more appropriate here. At the moment, current guidance is not statutory; this will be statutory. Where a young carer is identified, or staff have concerns, the local authority should be notified. Local authorities must then carry out a needs assessment if it appears that the young carer needs support. We are not imposing new duties on local authorities; the existing legislative duties placed on local authorities to assess and meet patients’ and carers’ eligible needs remain unchanged.
I recognise the good intentions behind Amendments 113 and 144, but we believe they would have the effect of undermining the ability of local areas to adopt best practice for hospital discharge. I am not confident when I say this, but I hope that, having heard what I have said, noble Lords may feel able not to press their amendments when reached.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his responses, particularly about consultation and about broader definitions and identification of carers. I was a little puzzled when he mentioned transparency, since the latest updated version of the impact assessment says:
“The level of support required as well as the associated impact on work hours and salary would vary significantly case-by-case and the impact on unpaid carers is difficult to assess. We are therefore unable to quantify the impact on unpaid carers at this stage.”
I am very concerned that, if we cannot quantify the impact on carers, we cannot really do anything to support them.
The problem with guidance, good practice guidance or statutory guidance, is that we have been here before. I have seen other bits of guidance—the identification of carers by GPs, breaks for carers—I have seen those bits of guidance fall away when another priority takes over. Therefore, I am very concerned that we need to have the rights of carers enshrined in primary legislation, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Howarth of Newport
“Creative health
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must establish a review to consider and report on social prescribing and other creative health interventions, including—(a) the existing provision, quality and effectiveness of social prescribing and other creative health interventions,(b) the evidence base and research requirements,(c) the benefits in terms of preventing ill health and aiding recovery,(d) the impact on health inequalities, social value and communities,(e) barriers to innovation,(f) sustainability,(g) means to integrate creative health with other approaches to health care and social care, and(h) the potential to extend and improve creative health provision, including—(ii) the costs and benefits of doing so, and(iii) the resources and actions needed to realise this potential.(2) The Secretary of State must appoint as Chair and members of the reviewing committee individuals who appear to the Secretary of State likely to have an informed and independent view of the relevant issues. (3) The review must consult—(a) creative health practitioners,(b) people with lived experience of social prescribing and other creative health interventions,(c) charities working in the field of creative health,(d) the National Academy for Social Prescribing,(e) the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities,(f) Integrated Care Partnerships,(g) Royal Colleges,(h) NHS Providers,(i) the NHS Confederation,(j) Health Education England,(k) the Local Government Association,(l) social care providers,(m) Research Councils,(n) Academic Health Science Networks, and(o) others that the Chair of the review considers appropriate.(4) The review must make recommendations to the Secretary of State on the topics described in subsection (1).(5) The report of the review must be published within 18 months of the passing of this Act.(6) Within three months of receiving the report the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement specifying how he or she intends to implement the recommendations of the review, including timescales and budget.”
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to only Amendment 114, the proposed new clause on creative health. While I fully support Amendment 184ZB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in view of the pressures of time today, I will not add to what I said on that subject in Committee. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have added their names to my amendment.
The term “creative health” denotes a range of non-clinical approaches to healthcare. These include working with cultural, natural and other community assets to effect a radical improvement of people’s experience at any stage in the life course. People receive expert support to engage creatively with, for example, the arts, crafts, museums, heritage and the natural world. There is a body of powerful evidence for the benefits of creative health, set out for example in the 2017 Creative Health report of the APPG on Arts, Health and Wellbeing and the World Health Organization Europe’s scoping review of 2019. Tapping into their own and others’ creativity has significant benefits for people in relation to a range of mental and physical health conditions, mitigating for example the distressing impacts of loneliness, anxiety, depression and dementia, as well as addictive behaviours and obesity. Health and well-being in social care settings also benefit significantly from creative health interventions. I detailed some of these benefits in speeches in Committee.
In the NHS long-term plan, the Government have already recognised social prescribing, and the National Academy for Social Prescribing has been established and made encouraging progress. With the establishment of the integrated care systems through the Bill, it is time now to examine a wider, systemic application of creative health approaches. In the new clause, I propose that the Secretary of State commissions a thorough review of the potential to integrate creative health fully within the new structures and the modern orthodoxies of health and social care.
I am sure Ministers will recognise the ways creative health can support them in their agendas. We know that creative health can help significantly with some of the most pressing, intractable and expensive problems in long-term health, including mental illness and obesity. It can reduce demand pressures on GPs, hospitals and pharmacological budgets. When adopted to support people working in the NHS and social care, it reduces staff turnover and losses. At very little cost it can support the prevention agenda, enabling people to have the confidence to take responsibility for their own health, and building resilience against ill health. Striking results are in evidence from creative health programmes in deprived communities such as Blyth and Grimsby. In such communities, through building confidence, energy, co-production, relatedness and social capital, creative health can prepare the ground to reduce health inequalities and improve productivity, serving the place-making and levelling-up agendas. So much more can be achieved if we develop creative health across the country.
These are the reasons why I believe it would be appropriate for the Government to set up the review described in the proposed new clause. If the Minister tells us today at the Dispatch Box that they will do so, we shall not need to legislate. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. He has made very powerful arguments, and I will add only three quick points.
First, I congratulate the noble Lord on the way he has championed creative health throughout the Bill, not just on this amendment, as well as the health impact of creative activity and beginning to move this into the mainstream.
Secondly, I have talked to a number of GPs about this, and they talked to me about the benefits they have observed: for example, of singing for respiratory health, of dancing for exercise and of gardening for contact with nature. Most involve some social engagement and all give meaning and purpose to life. For all these things there is some evidence base to show their impact on health. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said in Committee, we do not yet have decent evidence of the impact of specific creative health activities or of when and where they are most appropriately used. That is why it is very useful that the review specifically sets out to understand how and when specific creative activities impact on health and searches for the evidence and research requirements that will make this whole new approach as vital as it can be.
My third point is very simple. Throughout this whole process, it has been evident that we are reaching for new understandings of health from those that we perhaps had 10 or 20 years ago and certainly in the last century: an understanding that we need to pay great attention to healthcare and health services, an understanding that we need to pay a great deal of attention to prevention—by which I mean tackling the causes of ill-health—but also an understanding that we need to pay attention to the causes of health and the creation of health. That is another reason why this is such an important amendment. I hope the Government will look on it favourably.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to these two amendments: 114 and 184ZB. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, would require the Secretary of State to review and commission a report on social prescribing and other creative health interventions which have already been outlined. My Amendment 184ZB follows on from the discussion in Committee, when the Government agreed to include social prescribing as part of the overall dementia plan, and I am very pleased about that.
In the Committee debate, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, cited a study that cast some doubt on the merits of social prescribing. Briefly, I refer the House to the research conducted by the Global Brain Health Institute, which showed that lifestyle interventions, including art and music, can reduce dementia risk by up to one-third—that is a huge proportion. We have real-life studies such as that of Chris Norris, a 67 year-old man who was diagnosed, aged 58, with frontotemporal dementia in December 2012. Musical interventions have slowed the advance of his dementia. There are plenty of other real-life examples of this which I would be very happy to share with any Member of the House or, indeed, the Government.
The Government have already made commitments in this area, so I will not take up any more of the House’s time. However, I ask the Government to give serious consideration to Amendment 114 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, as this could make a huge difference to many people’s lives.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 114 in the absence of my right reverend friend the Bishop of London, who is having to self-isolate due to having tested positive for Covid—which seems to be a bit of a theme of the first two amendments.
Members of the House will know that my noble friend is very involved, and was very involved in Committee, in speaking about health inequalities. Today, we want to share and highlight the strength of social prescribing and especially the role of faith organisations in helping to deliver this. There is evidence from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Arts, Health and Wellbeing and the National Academy for Social Prescribing. But everyone who sits on these Benches would be able to tell you stories of where faith communities and local charities aid and assist with health improvements through activities which happen through them. Through cultural, creative, art, nature—all sorts of—interventions, people find health relief and are moved forward in improving their health.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of London herself runs a health inequalities action group, which she shares with six different faith leaders, healthcare workers and people with lived experience of health inequalities. They all highlight the role of faith organisations as legitimate community assets in delivering social prescription. An example is Art is Freedom, an art exhibition which features the work of survivors of modern slavery, curated by the crisis charity Hestia, which works closely with the Salvation Army. Not very far away from here, in Hackney, some churches run an intervention called Psalms & Stretches—a meditative form of gentle exercise which uses breathing, stretching and strengthening.
There is growing knowledge among multifaith groups—of all faiths—and volunteer organisations of informally doing work to reduce health and social inequalities, so our ask is simply that local communities are included in the solutions towards personal and community health. Civil society and all the people and groups that make it up are doing work that is worth learning from, and we need to consult them, as is mentioned in subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by the amendment. Alongside the professionals, they have insights to offer, so I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment and join us in creatively tackling health inequalities and improving population health through social prescribing.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly but very briefly support these proposed innovations in fortifying and enhancing health, not least in their application to the treatment of dementia. Will the Minister consider the work of Arts 4 Dementia, whose aim is empowerment through artistic stimulation, and which promotes social prescribing of arts and well-being activity at the onset of dementia, including through its seminal report, A.R.T.S. for Brain Health?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer support from the Green group for both these amendments. In Committee, I spoke extensively on the issues around creative health, and I will not repeat any of that. I just note that, looking at the Government’s response, I get no sense that they have got the point that this is not an additional “nice to have”—something that is done after you have done the medical stuff—this has to be a core part of allowing people to get well again, and keeping people well.
On Amendment 184ZB, it is interesting that the Covid pandemic has seen a really large increase in private medical provision, such as testing on our high streets, et cetera. Now that they are there, those businesses will be looking out for different procedures to keep them going, and it is really important that we have full transparency about the advice that people are getting at those kinds of places.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I say very briefly that I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others. I hope that they will build into a review an assessment of the cost efficacy because as well as all the positive aspects that we have heard about, we must remember that, if you can decrease medication prescribing, you will decrease not only costs but adverse side-effects, which also have a cost. All these initiatives tackle the problem of loneliness, isolation and not having contact with other people—people who may be able to empathise with the way that you feel about your condition when you are undertaking a common activity with them. That can become particularly important for the psychological well-being of patients as well as their physical improvement.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth on bringing this subject before your Lordships’ House again. I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House for providing their support for embedding the conditions and opportunities for art, creativity and culture in improving public health. These amendments provide something of a focus for action and I hope will be regarded seriously as such.
We know that the practices relating to creative health can be very effective and good value for money. Some 20% to 30% of all visits to the doctor are for non-medical reasons; for example, social isolation or loneliness. Therefore, the potential that we have in the United Kingdom is huge. Indeed, evaluation of the Arts on Prescription scheme suggested an average return of £2.30 for every £1 spent.
These amendments support the idea that art-based approaches can help people to stay well, recover more quickly, manage long-term conditions and experience a better quality of life. I hope that the Minister will be able to take these amendments on board.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, if I may, I will introduce a slightly discordant note, seeing as my name has been mentioned. I did not intend to speak, but I do think we need to be a little cautious about all this. I congratulate deeply the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on her remarkable work in this area, and nobody would doubt for a moment that everybody here is speaking in very good faith and for the best of purposes.
However, as medical practitioners, we must say that the placebo effect is very powerful and can cure people or improve their health in all sorts of ways and with all kinds of activities, not only dementia. Feeling well is not a simple matter. One concern is that we might spend much more money than we expect on these activities, without coming to the gist of why and whether they work, rather than something that substitutes for them.
I remind the House of one thing. For many decades, the health service supported homeopathy. Homeopathy—like cures like—has been widely used across the world and many people have great faith in it. There is actually no evidence at all that it has any genuine medical or chemical benefit; it is probably essentially a placebo effect. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should not look at exercise, music and all the other things, but I implore the Government; if we do this on the health service, there is a duty to ensure that research is done as well, because we must have a health service that looks at evidence-based medicine. That is fundamentally important.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, for initiating this debate, and for the work he has done on this issue.
A common theme runs through the comments of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, at the end, talked about evidence and evaluation informing government policy. I hope that we can all agree on that. With regard to Amendment 114, as part of the Government’s plans to roll out social prescribing across the NHS in England, a large evaluation has been commissioned by NHS England and NHS Improvement, through the National Institute for Health Research, which will evaluate many of the points raised. It will seek to find out how social prescribing services operate, how well they work, who does and does not use them, whether they are of benefit to people and a good use of NHS resources, and how cost effective the interventions are. The research will benefit patients by identifying how link worker services can be developed further. It will also study how to help people access social prescribing services and use them effectively, and how to ensure that everyone has access to them, no matter where they live or who they are. Importantly, it will also evaluate the economic sustainability and capacity of social prescribing services.
Furthermore, as part of the cross-government project to prevent and tackle mental ill-health through green social prescribing, another large evaluation has been commissioned to assess models, processes, outcomes and value-for-money of green social prescribing, to inform the scale-up of green social prescribing across England. We are already embedding social prescribing in current non-statutory integrated care systems. In September 2021, NHS England and NHS Improvement published the ICS Implementation Guidance on Partnerships with the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector, which outlines the importance of the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector as a key strategic partner in ICSs and provides guidance on how sector partnerships should be embedded in how the ICS operates. This will apply to ICBs in the future, following the successful passage of the Bill. It also describes the importance of embedding social prescribing services, which provide the bridge between health and community by connecting people to local activities and services for practical and emotional support.
Turning to Amendment 184BZ, as of December 2021, there were 1,803 additional social prescribing link full-time equivalent workers in place, and more than 826,000 referrals to social prescribing through NHS primary care. This will make us well placed to reach the target set out in the NHS Long Term Plan of 900,000 referrals by 2023-24 well ahead of time—and this is in addition to other social prescribing schemes across the NHS, local authorities and the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Furthermore, NHS England, the National Academy for Social Prescribing and the department worked closely with Music for Dementia to facilitate a series of webinars on creative health and on the publication of guidance for social prescribing link workers and for social workers on music prescriptions for those with dementia.
We will also set out a new dementia strategy later this year. We are working with stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and their carers, and we will be looking at how we can improve the lived experience of dementia. This will include a focus on promoting personalised and integrated approaches to health and care. For some individuals this may include the use of music and arts-based interventions.
The Government are already putting substantial resources into social prescribing. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords from all parts of the House who have supported this proposed new clause, whether they have spoken today or, in the interests of enabling the House to make progress with other important business, refrained from speaking.
I invite my noble friend Lord Winston to study the research and evidence that is already available. The proposed review would, of course, consult with the research councils, a number of which are also engaged in this field of research, commissioning important work.
I say to the Minister that of course I am glad the National Institute for Health Research is already considering social prescribing, but I point out that creative health goes beyond that and embraces a range of other important and proven approaches. Of course, the review would look at a whole range of other issues as well. Her particular focus on social prescribing, important as it is, neglects to address the full range of relevant considerations.
That being so, I am sorry that Ministers have not seen fit to take the lead in establishing the review proposed in the new clause. They are missing an opportunity to act in the interests of the health and well-being of our society. That being so, the National Centre for Creative Health, which I chair, will look for resources to enable us to lead the review ourselves. We will still, of course, want to engage with government and NHS England. I hope they will see value in that. In due course, we will make recommendations as to how to develop creative health approaches on a national scale, and we will seek to resume dialogue with Ministers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(3A) Regulations under this section may not transfer a function as defined in Part 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012.”Member’s explanatory statement
Part 9, Chapter 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 lays out the safe haven for patient data across health and social care, required for national statistics, for commissioning, regulatory and research purposes, and for patient care. The amendment seeks to keep these statutory protections in place and ensure that NHS England do not take on this responsibility because of a potential conflict of interest in their role.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we debated this amendment on patient security of data last week. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Etherton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and other amendments in the name of Lord Etherton to Part 4, will remove the provisions concerning the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
Lord Etherton (CB)
The amendments in this group that are in my name would remove Part 4 in Schedules 13 to 15 of the Bill, all relating to HSSIB. I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement with me and other Members of the House on these amendments. An alternative, narrower amendment—Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—would simply remove the permission of HSSIB to disclose protected material to coroners.
The basis for these amendments can be stated in four words: it will not work. The safe space within which HSSIB is intended to operate cannot work because, under the provisions of the Bill, HSSIB responds to specific incidents which have, or may have, implications for the safety of patients. Those same incidents may be the subject of an inquest, and senior coroners are entitled under Schedule 14 to require the disclosure by HSSIB of protected material if it is relevant to the investigation being undertaken by the coroner. Once the coroner has that material, he or she is in practice bound to disclose it at the inquest, and the High Court will inevitably order such disclosure if it is relevant to one or more of the questions that the inquest is required by statute to resolve—in particular, in the present context, if it is relevant to deciding how the deceased died. That is because, in the words of a leading Court of Appeal case, the duty of the coroner is
“to ensure that the relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated”
and
“are exposed to public scrutiny”.
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human rights does not add materially to the intensity of that investigatory duty of coroners which already exists under our domestic law. The materiality of Article 2 is only that it imposes the obligation not merely to decide by what means the deceased came to his or her death but in what circumstances.
I am very sceptical that coroners need protected material from HSSIB since they have managed perfectly well without any such right of access to similar material held by the PHSO since the PHSO was established under its founding statutes of 1967 and 1993. Be that as it may, my focus today is on what the senior coroner must do when in receipt of protected material from HSSIB. In short, the material must be disclosed by the coroner.
Although an inquest is in legal terms an inquisitorial process, the ascertainment of the relevant facts is often, as many members of the House will know, highly contentious. Those who have been designated interested persons by the coroner, who include a wide range of family members, may cross-examine witnesses either in person or by representatives. It is inconceivable that a coroner could keep secret from interested persons protected material obtained by the coroner from HSSIB which is relevant to the matters that have to be decided by the inquest. This may have very serious implications for those who have given evidence to HSSIB which is deployed in the inquest, including the possibility of a conclusion of unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter.
No medical practitioner could possibly feel confident that, in giving evidence to HSSIB, it is being given in a safe space in view of the need for public disclosure of such evidence by coroners if it comes into their hands and is relevant to the inquest. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord and have tabled amendments of my own. As the noble and learned Lord said, his amendments simply take out the HSSIB provisions from the Bill, whereas mine take out the reference to senior coroners.
I think we are all united in supporting the concept of HSSIB improving safety in the health service. A stand-alone Bill in 2019 had a Second Reading in which we were beginning to get to grips with some of the issues around the construct of HSSIB and, particularly, the safe spaces concept. This is very important in the health service because of the traditional reluctance of staff to come forward with information about where things have gone wrong because experience has shown that whistleblowers have often been treated very poorly indeed.
I fully support the concept of HSSIB and safe spaces and believe that if it is implemented properly it will lead to improved safety. However, as the noble and learned Lord has so eloquently pointed out, the problem is that the inclusion in the Bill of the coroner’s ability to access this information would render the whole safe space concept unworkable. Staff will simply not trust it if these provisions are left in the Bill.
We are faced with two options. One is to take out the whole of the HSSIB provisions. Ideally, I would support that because it would benefit from a stand-alone Bill, where we could give it the scrutiny it clearly deserves. On the other hand, our job here is to be constructive as a revising Chamber. On that basis, we would be much safer removing the coroner elements and giving the Government a little more time to discuss this further before the Bill goes on to Third Reading and back to the other place.
I think there are ways through. I have been attracted, for instance, to one solution put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to a memorandum of understanding between the noble Earl’s department and the MoJ. We need to discuss that; in order to do so now, I believe we should remove the coroner provisions from the Bill.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for rising because I know we need to move on but before I speak to this amendment perhaps I may take the opportunity, as I was not here on the first day of Report, to thank the Ministers for listening—and taking action after doing so on many aspects. I thank them all for that. I also thank all those who sent me good wishes. It helped, and I did not realise I had so many friends.
I shall not speak at length on this group. I have my name on both sets of amendments. The reason I supported removing the whole clause was that there are a lot of issues arising, not just the invasion of the safe space. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that it gives the Government another chance if it is confined to removing the coroner provisions. I agree with what has been said: the medical profession particularly, but even other health professionals, will find it difficult if the safe space of what they say confidentially can be invaded, so I support that proposal.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I well recall hearing Jeremy Hunt announce that we would have this organisation and thinking at the time how important it would be in turning the NHS into a learning organisation, in the interests of patient safety. I would prefer not to take the whole clause out but to amend it.
The predecessor non-statutory organisation’s chief inspector has written to us, pointing out that when his organisation was set up it was made clear that full statutory independence, along with the fully enclosed prohibition on disclosure, would be essential to its success. I am concerned that if this power to disclose information to coroners is left in then this organisation, which we all so much support, will be set up to fail. That would be a very bad thing for patients and the whole NHS.
Quite honestly, the number of cases that the HSSIB is going to investigate—only 30—is highly unlikely to cut across anything that the coroner wants to do. In fact, the Joint Committee which scrutinised the previous Bill in 2018, which got only as far as Second Reading, concluded that the safe space would in no way impede the ability of coroners, regulators, the PHSO or the police in undertaking their own investigations or speaking to witnesses. That is not what we heard in the meetings which the Ministers have been kind enough to set up on Zoom, or from the Ministry of Justice. They obviously disagreed with the Joint Committee that scrutinised this carefully.
I hope the Minister is not going to rely on paragraph 6(7) of Schedule 14 because, as it stands, the so-called protections in that part of the Bill are completely unknowable. How can the High Court know whether a disclosure to the coroner will deter future witnesses from giving full disclosure? It simply cannot know that but there is a big danger. Nor can it know whether it will have an
“impact on securing the improvement of the safety”
of the health service. This is an empty protection and I hope the Government will not rely on it when arguing against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for so forensically and carefully introducing this group of amendments. The debate on the subject today, as on previous occasions, has been both rich and constructive. I hope it will lead to improving this clause; as we have heard, there are multiple issues in respect of its drafting. The main issue and debate today focused on coroners having access to protected information which has been shared in confidence under safe space conditions. Therefore, I will make my brief remarks in respect of Amendment 124, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We are all pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Patel, back in his place.
It cannot be right, on the one hand, for someone to be compelled to give information and to do so on the understanding that they act within a safe space and would be committing an offence if they did not give information, yet, on the other hand, to enable that very information to be made publicly available. It is not the purpose or duty of HSSIB to act as a branch of the coroner. The coroner has multiple other avenues of access to information and powers of investigation. It does not need the access to this protected material simply because of the convenience of the existence of HSSIB. Therefore, I hope the Minister will understand this point and take it on board. If not, and if noble Lords are so minded to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House, these Benches will support the relevant amendment.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, every day, the vast majority of NHS patients receive safe, effective and world-class care. Sometimes, though—and very sadly—errors occur which lead to harm. This is what the HSSIB will help us to address. The HSSIB will be an independent arms-length patient safety investigation body, with a statutory safe space and powers to discharge its investigative functions effectively across the NHS and the independent sector. This body will be one of the first of its kind in the world. Its independence will give the public full confidence that it will arrive at impartial conclusions and recommendations. The aim will be to drive improvements by learning and not blaming.
The provisions in the Bill were developed after considerable thought and scrutiny. We have had extensive stakeholder engagement, including an expert advisory group. The clauses, broadly in their current form, were scrutinised by a specific Joint Committee comprising Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in December 2018. We accepted many of the Joint Committee’s recommendations—for example, to include independently funded healthcare within scope and to exclude local maternity investigations. The HSSIB had widespread support across both this House—when it was introduced in a previous Session and again during earlier debates—and the other place. I know that many noble Lords here today, having heard some of them, are enthusiastic about the prospect of a fully independent investigation body. I very firmly believe that we need to continue with the same enthusiasm and see this new body through to fruition. We should not delay this important work by rejecting this part of the Bill.
I honestly think that removing Part 4 would be a backward step. It would be greeted with dismay by those patient safety campaigners who have argued so eloquently for the creation of this body. The current investigation branch does not have the necessary independence or the range of powers to truly drive change as a world-class investigation body. This is what we are trying to address by creating a new body with all the tools it needs to thrive. By the way, those noble Lords who think that removing Part 4 and keeping things as they are will prevent access to information by coroners are wrong: coroners currently have such access, but without our proposed restrictions. Key to the HSSIB’s function is the creation of a statutory safe space, whereby non-compliance with those safe space protections can result in criminal sanctions.
I turn to the issue of access to safe space, which I recognise has caused concerns. We firmly believe that the only way to bring about a cultural shift in the NHS, so that people feel confident to share information and concerns are addressed promptly, is that there be a robust safe space. The current investigation branch does not have a statutory safe space. The Bill would create one, with tight restrictions. There are very limited circumstances when protected material can be disclosed—for example, if the HSSIB discovered information which demonstrated there was a serious and continuing risk to the safety of a patient or to the public—but this disclosure would occur only to the extent necessary to address those risks.
I know that direct access to protected material for senior coroners, as raised in Amendments 124 and 125, is an area of concern, but coroners have a unique role. A coroner’s investigation is an independent judicial process that aims to provide bereaved families with the truth regarding the death of their loved one—who has died, where, when and how—and enable society to learn from any mistakes that may have caused or contributed to a death. When a death occurs, and when that death requires coronial investigation for the sake of families and of the public, that work should not be hampered. It is an important principle that we should trust our judiciary. I am confident that coroners will take seriously their responsibilities to safeguard any safe space material that they may see. They are used to doing this; they already routinely handle sensitive, confidential material.
It is most unlikely that senior coroners will need to access safe space information on a frequent basis. Of the 57 national investigations conducted by the current investigation branch, 10 were investigated by the local coroner. However, only one gave rise to a request from a coroner for material held by the current investigation branch. Having said that, even though we expect requests for protected material will be rare, the principle of coroners having access when they need it is an important one.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
In the case the noble Earl has just mentioned, could not the coroner have obtained the information by another means?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that. I can, of course, find out and let the noble Baroness know, if those details are available.
I know there have been concerns that inquests can seem to be adversarial, and that protected material passed on to the coroner could be used in them. Inquests are, by definition, designed to be inquisitorial; statute prohibits inquests from determining criminal and civil liability, and interested persons are prevented by the inquest rules from making submissions on the facts. Coroners seek to obtain the objective truth—how and not why someone has died. I submit that not allowing coroners to see relevant safe space material could prevent justice being done and seriously undermine public confidence in the coronial system.
I turn to the important issue of funding, raised by Amendment 123, although I do not know that noble Lords have spoken to that. The noble Lord is shaking his head so, to save time, I will not cover that point.
Finally, let me just say that an independent HSSIB is an excellent concept that has wide support. In my submission, it would be a terrible pity if noble Lords rejected it because of doubts about how well it would work. I believe that it will give patient safety a valuable boost and hope that the House will support it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am extremely grateful to the Members of the House who have spoken, and to the Minister for his reply.
The Minister appears to accept that, if it is necessary to ask HSSIB for its material to reach a proper verdict or conclusion on the cause of death at an inquest, the material ought to be supplied and be made known to the families so that they have the benefit of what I described as the legal test: a full, fair and fearless investigation of the facts, in public. That is the problem.
Although the Minister referred to the extensive past consideration of safe spaces, I have not yet heard from any Minister, not even in the long letter we were helpfully sent on 3 March by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, an explanation of how the safe space would operate in a coronial setting—in practice, that is, not in theory. As I said, I have not heard any explanation of how the information obtained by the coroner, which can be obtained only if it is relevant to the inquest, can be kept secret from the participants in the inquest. It cannot be; it is simply not possible. That is the fundamental problem with this particular provision relating to disclosure to coroners.
Having said all that, I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had to say. In view of what he and others said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another amendment to Schedule 14, would remove the provision allowing coroners to require the disclosure of protected material.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
On Amendment 125A, I think there may be a number of amendments in a similar vein.
Amendment 125A
Lord Etherton
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am so sorry, Deputy Speaker, but I asked for my amendment to be dealt with by way of just removing the whole of Part 4, but I was told by the Public Bill Office that every single clause had to be mentioned. The Public Bill Office was unable to explain why that was, other than that was how it had always been.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If it is down on the Marshalled List, it has to be dealt with. May I assume that the noble Lord is seeking not to move Amendments 125A to 125M?
Lord Kamall
“(a) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (iv);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on paragraph 5 of Schedule 16 to the Bill, which adds a new sub-paragraph (vi) to section 19A(6)(h) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Lord Sharkey
“(3) In section 1, omit “an EEA state or Switzerland” and insert “a relevant state or territory”.(4) In subsection 2(1)(b) omit “an EEA state or Switzerland” and insert “a relevant state or territory”.(5) In subsection 2(2) after (i) insert—“(j) make provision to make payment (otherwise than under a healthcare agreement) in respect of healthcare provided in a relevant country or territory, but only when the Secretary of State considers that exceptional circumstances justify the payment and has laid before Parliament the reasons for such consideration and the details of the payments;”.(5) Omit subsection 2(7).(6) After section 2 insert—“(2ZA) Regulations under section 2 may—(a) confer functions on a relevant public authority or a Scottish or Welsh health board (including discretions);(b) provide for the delegation of functions to a relevant public authority or a Scottish or Welsh health board.(2ZB) The Secretary of State may give directions to a person about the exercise of any functions exercisable by the person under regulations made by virtue of section 1 (and may vary or revoke any such directions).””
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I shall speak to all the amendments in this group. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, for their support. All the amendments in this group address Clause 151. The purpose of this clause is to enable the Secretary of State to implement reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries other than the EEA states and Switzerland, where we already have such agreements. These agreements were provided for by the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019. This Act was the subject of intense debate as it passed through this House. Noble Lords approved the inclusion in the Act of explicit constraints on the powers of the Secretary of State to make such agreements. This ensured that wider and different purposes, such as privatisation, could not be included. I make it clear at this point that we strongly support the intention to extend the geographical range of reciprocal healthcare agreements.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Sharkey to the Ministers and their officials for the very helpful discussions that we have had with them on reciprocal healthcare agreements. I also thank my noble friend for his persistence in leading on those discussions between Committee and Report on the two points of difference between us—the definition of reciprocal healthcare, with our concerns about the ability to create a privatisation of parts of healthcare, and that an SI under a negative resolution is not strong enough for Parliament to scrutinise properly. My noble friend’s amendments are, as he said, very specifically aimed at removing these concerns, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I also particularly thank Ministers for understanding that the House was deeply unhappy with the original proposals for regulations via a negative resolution. I hope to hear that Ministers will now agree to the affirmative resolution proposed in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Scrutiny by Parliament needs to be timely, and Parliament needs to be allowed to effectively challenge proposals about which it has concerns.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak about reciprocal healthcare, which is not how I felt several years when we dealt with this exact issue in your Lordships’ House, as many noble Lords might remember. It was with some trepidation that I and these Benches looked at this part of the Bill, because we were so concerned and had to do so much work to protect our NHS in the passage of the 2019 Act.
I am very grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for engaging with us so thoroughly to take on the board our concerns, which needed to be built into this part of the Bill. I say particularly how impressed I am by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and how grateful I am to him for his understanding and persistence—and his ability to read long, complex documents, understand them and then translate them so that other people can understand them too. That is a great talent.
From these Benches, with the idea that the affirmative resolution will be agreed, we are very happy indeed.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I too thank noble Lords for their helpful engagement on this matter over the last few weeks and for bringing forward the debate on this issue today. It is important that the results of those discussions are on the record, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive the length of my response.
I am pleased that we agree on the overarching benefits of having reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries across the world, which would provide support to UK residents when travelling abroad and can be particularly valuable to those with long-term health conditions. Such arrangements can also support enhanced healthcare co-operation with our international partners. It is for these reasons that the Government have negotiated new arrangements with the EU and Switzerland and now wish to refresh arrangements with countries outside Europe and with our overseas territories and Crown dependencies. This policy is fundamentally aimed at assisting UK residents to access healthcare abroad.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I start by making some assurances to him and to the House over the policy intentions of the international healthcare arrangement clause in the Bill. To be clear, this legislation is not about the negotiation of international healthcare agreements. Those agreements are negotiated using prerogative powers. This clause and the 2019 Act that it amends simply ensure that the Government have the powers to implement international healthcare agreements. Healthcare agreements contain substantive provisions, such as eligibility criteria and which treatments will be covered. New Section 2(1) gives us the power to implement those healthcare agreements; for example, by putting in place administrative arrangements and conferring functions on public bodies to deliver our reciprocal healthcare commitments. We could, for example, set out which public body will administer the global health insurance cards. It is anticipated that any regulations made under new Section 2(1) will be materially the same as the current Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 No. 1293.
The department has been undertaking careful analysis of how to take forward international healthcare agreements, balancing the benefits for citizens when abroad with the Secretary of State’s duties in the NHS Act 2006, which apply when exercising functions in relation to health services, for example, the duty to continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service. Our analysis to date shows that there are clear benefits to be derived from state-to-state reimbursement models, but that these will generally work only with countries with public healthcare systems.
I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns about the breadth of the powers, and I reassure him that Clause 151 narrows the powers under the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 to better reflect what is necessary now that the UK has left the EU and has reciprocal healthcare arrangements in place through the trade and co-operation agreement. It does this by revoking existing powers in Section 1 of the 2019 Act, which currently enable the Secretary of State to pay for unilateral healthcare policies in the EEA and Switzerland; enabling payments to be made for treatment outside the scope of a healthcare agreement only if exceptional circumstances justify the payment; allowing the payment power to be exercised only if authorised by regulations. and limiting the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations in areas of devolved competence.
Our approach follows concerns raised by noble Lords in the original Bill debates in 2019 about the breadth of the unilateral payment and regulation-making power. Under the current Sections 1 and 2, the wide powers given to the Secretary of State to fund healthcare in the EEA and Switzerland were intended to cover various EU exit options and ensure that UK nationals were not left in a cliff-edge situation in the EEA and Switzerland in the event of a no-deal scenario. There was limited additional scrutiny for the payment power in the original 2019 Act due to the circumstances at that time. We consider that this power is no longer appropriate or necessary now that the trade and co-operation agreement is in place.
Amendment 126A would limit the exceptional payments power so that it is exercisable only after the Secretary of State has set out reasons for, and details of, any payments made before Parliament. However, I do not believe that this would work in practice. The policy intention is that the exceptional payments power will be used in circumstances where an individual falls marginally outside of the scope of a healthcare agreement. We have, for example, used discretionary payment powers under the 2019 Act to provide crisis mental health support to a minor in the EU who was not covered under the European health insurance card scheme due to the structure of the member state’s healthcare system. These circumstances are often where an individual has a very serious and urgent medical need, and it remains essential that the Government are able to move quickly to support that person and ensure their welfare. An amendment where this power is exercisable only after the reasons and details of payments have been laid before Parliament could severely hamper our ability to act quickly—something that I am sure is not the intention. Furthermore, the Government are already obliged under Section 6 of the 2019 Act to lay before Parliament an annual report outlining the payments made pursuant to the Act. This ensures that there is transparency and will continue to apply following amendments made by this Bill.
I confirm that the amended definition of a “healthcare agreement” in this Bill is materially the same as the current 2019 Act definition. Both cover commitments between the UK and a country, territory or international organisation for healthcare provided outside the UK in whatever form. Making reference to “other commitment” is a drafting change to make it clearer that the regulation-making power can be used to implement non-legally binding arrangements, such as memoranda of understanding. This ensures that implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements made with close partners, such as the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, are in scope of the 2019 Act, as they do not have the authority to become parties to treaties in their own right. They can, therefore, enter only into non-legally binding arrangements.
Amendment 184ZC would make regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. With thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his constructive engagement, the Government are content to accept this amendment and, as the noble Lord is aware, may amend it further to ensure that the drafting is optimal for our shared objective.
The purpose of the 2019 Act and the provisions that we have put forward in Clause 151 is not to implement trade deals. The Government have categorically stated in their manifesto that the NHS is off the table when we are negotiating agreements with our international partners. To be clear, it is important to state that reciprocal healthcare agreements that we agree with other countries do not relate to the commissioning and provision of services for the NHS. The policy intention in that reciprocal healthcare should cover publicly available healthcare.
This legislation narrows the scope of the powers compared with the 2019 Act and is tailored to negotiate more comprehensive healthcare agreements with our closest partners, as well as provide support to our citizens when they need it most. For that reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment and not move Amendments 126B to 126G. I confirm the Government’s support for Amendment 184ZC.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the comprehensive way she addressed the various anxieties about Clause 151. I am reassured by her clear statement that the purpose of the 2019 Act, as amended in this Bill, is not to implement trade deals, and by her equally clear statement that reciprocal healthcare agreements do not relate to the commissioning and provision of services for the NHS. I heard the Minister say that Clause 151 actually narrows the power given under the 2019 Act and explained how this was so. I am grateful for that explanation too. I am even more grateful that all the regulations produced by Clause 151 will now made under the affirmative procedure. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wheeler
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked with the amendment in the name of Baroness Wheeler to leave out Clause 155.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to my Amendment 141, which would delete Clause 155. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Brinton, and to the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Lansley, for their combined support of these amendments. Sadly, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, cannot be here, but the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will speak to my amendments. I understand that they will move Amendments 143 and 144A.
In the Care Act 2014, we have a carefully crafted, step-by-step, cross-party agreement implementing the key recommendations of the 2011 Dilnot commission on the cap-and-floor model of social care funding, which went through the full parliamentary processes in both Houses. It built a consensus for implementing and funding the introduction of the care cap in 2016, and enshrining the key Dilnot principles of fairness and equity across all those needing social care. However, as we know, this agreement was never implemented following two separate postponements and a final cancellation in 2019.
Instead, the short Clause 155 we have before us on the Government’s proposals is a last-minute, hastily scraped together, ill-thought-through mishmash of subsections added to an essentially NHS Bill after its Commons Committee had finished, which was then bombarded through that House without any time for close scrutiny and debate. Our own Committee session on this clause started late in the evening at 10.30 pm and lasted not much more than an hour, so we fared little better on such a major and fundamental issue that will impact hundreds and thousands of lives. Moreover, the Minister, despite his offer on the record in Committee to talk to noble Lords about their questions and concerns, has been given no authority to discuss or agree any possible changes to the clause, which is so clearly ill thought through—contrast this with the fruitful discussions that have been held on a number of other important issues in the Bill.
My Amendments 127 and 141 to delete Clause 155 would ask the Commons to think again about how it implements the care cap. It presents a key opportunity for fundamental reconsideration of the Government’s proposals. There has now been time for greater analysis and scrutiny of the proposals and their impact by key stakeholders and expert think tanks, such as the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund, both of which have called for the clause to be removed. Its deletion would restore the full provisions on the cap under the Care Act 2014. It would mean that there would be reconsideration of how the cap should be implemented, not whether it would be implemented. Amendment 144A would reinforce this.
Labour strongly supported the 2014 negotiated care cap, its charging package and the costs involved. This has always been in the context of the care cap as part of a much wider social care reform that is needed to address the current crisis and build long-term sustainability and growth, which the Government have yet to address. We know that the Government’s proposals for the cap were discounted by Dilnot in 2011 as unfair, because they will result in people with low levels of wealth spending the largest proportion of their income on their care. The cap at £86,000 is set too high to benefit the majority of people who need to be protected, and the bombshell of abandoning the key safeguarding Dilnot principle enabling local authority care costs to count and accrue towards the cap means that poorer people will be exposed to the same care costs as the very wealthiest in society.
Despite the pledge that nobody should have to sell their homes, the fact is that someone with assets of £100,000 will lose almost everything, whereas someone with assets worth £1 million and over will keep almost everything. This is clearly shown in the extensive modelling by stakeholders such as Age UK, Mencap, the Alzheimer’s Society and the think tanks. That was detailed during our Committee debate, particularly the impact across some of the most deprived areas in the country. The Government’s own figures show that more than one in five older people will not see the benefit of the cap at all, and poorer care users are much more likely to die before they reach the cap than someone who is better off with the same care needs. Only 19% of people with dementia will reach the cap.
Moreover, Amendment 143, which will now be spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the principle of which we strongly support, reinforces the key point that a fair cap and charging system has to provide essential support to older adults and working age disabled adults, many of whom have lifelong conditions, including those with learning difficulties and who have to draw on social care support for their daily needs and support. The Dilnot proposals recognise this by seeking to ensure that adults entering the care system under the age of 40 or who were under 40 when they first entered it would have their care capped at zero.
I commend Amendment 144A from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to which I added my name. This fully complements the deletion of Clause 155 in restoring the current charging provisions in the Care Act. It would add a new clause to require the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Care Act to ensure that all its provisions on the care cap—Sections 15 and 16—come into force before 1 April 2023. This would mean that there would be no delays to the implementation of the care cap based on the relevant sections of the Care Act. It also means that the uprating of the care cap value from the level fixed in 2014 could take place—the concern of Amendment 182.
What is crystal clear is that the Minister’s repeated claim—or rather, as he described it in Committee, his “hope”—that
“no one will lose out when compared to the current system”—[Official Report, 31/1/22; col. 751.]
or face “unpredictable care costs” just is not borne out by the evidence proving otherwise, which is stacking up every day. Increasing the complexity of local authority charging arrangements on personal budgets, as the government amendments to the Care Act seek to do, makes an already hugely complex and system-heavy admin and technical system even worse. How many care users will be able to understand what is happening? I was particularly interested in the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in Committee that a number of the issues that the government amendments sought to rectify or amend were never introduced in 2014 anyway.
How much more straightforward to use the sections of the Act developed for implementation than to try to patch up the provisions and hang them on a different Bill. We support the ambitions of self-funders to pay the same rate for care as local authorities pay for the people they fund, but there is absolutely no evidence of any government intention to provide cash-starved councils with the huge costs involved in this, and bearing in mind the massive underfunding of social care over the past decade.
Clause 155 must be deleted so that the key Dilnot principles of fairness and equity across all those needing social care can be reinstated. Deletion of the clause would mean that implementation of the care cap could proceed but under the provisions of the fully scrutinised Act designed to implement it: the Care Act. Under Amendment 144A, all provisions relating to the cap would be implemented by 1 April 2023.
At the appropriate time, I shall withdraw Amendment 127 and then move Amendment 141 in its place and seek to test the opinion of the House. I understand that the government amendments to Clause 155, which come before Amendment 141, will be agreed on the nod and will then fall if Amendment 141 is carried. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for introducing so comprehensively this group of amendments on care costs. Given the lateness of hour in Committee, the House needed to hear the detail of this.
Her Amendments 127 and 141, which I have signed and which we will support if she calls a Division, would remove the cap on care costs which was announced and introduced by the Government in the Commons. It was not widely consulted on, and is a deeply unfair element of the Government’s proposals for the new social care payments arrangements. Far from fixing the ongoing crisis in social care “once and for all”, which the Prime Minister said from the steps of No. 10 Downing Street in 2019 he would do, these divisive plans will not stop people needing to sell their homes to pay for care and are a breach of the Government’s promise in that election. It is very important that the Commons have the time to discuss the consequences of the detail of removing that cap now that the announcement has been better understood, especially by the professionals, including the think tanks, who are very concerned about it.
We also support the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who will speak to Amendment 143 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which would ensure a zero amount for personal care charges for those under 40. It is absolutely against the spirit of Dilnot and a deep injustice to those under 40 with personal care needs that they are treated the same as those whose working years are behind them. It is a huge injustice that we have an NHS that is free at the point of use and yet younger people with learning disabilities and life-limiting health conditions are charged for essential care. There are also a number of deep, practical contradictions in this arrangement that make it particularly shocking, including a survey that found that charges made by cash-strapped local authorities—made because they could charge them—had forced people to stop the care they needed or made them face difficult choices for financial reasons, with the results showing an increased reliance on family members and high levels of deteriorating mental health, including suicidal thoughts.
Amendment 144A from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, supports the principles behind both Amendments 127 and 141, which would remove Clause 155. It proposes that all provisions on the care cap are brought into force by 1 April 2023 by regulation under the Care Act, resulting in no delay to its implementation. We support that too.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 127 and 141 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler; Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bull; and Amendments 144A and 182. Sadly, my noble friend Lady Bull is unwell, so I will speak to Amendment 143 and do my best to encapsulate her reasons, as well as mine, for returning to it on Report. I shall not move it later when it is called.
Unfortunately, at this hour, my voice is fading because I have had to use it a great deal today, so I shall use my speech facilitator, as allowed by the House, more than I would usually.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 141, 143 and 144A—to all of which I have added my name. In the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, through Covid, I shall be moving Amendment 144A with his agreement. I also declare my interest as one of the three members of the Dilnot commission and, unsurprisingly, I shall be supporting the findings of the commission’s report in speaking to these amendments.
The coalition Government passed the Care Act 2014 to enable the Dilnot cap to be implemented but, since then, there has been no action to do this until now, with Clause 155 of this Bill. Unfortunately, that clause has major unfairnesses and shortcomings, as has been pointed out by all three speakers—the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell—so I am not going to repeat what they have said. This is a deficient clause, and no reasonable person would see it as a fair and reasonable implementation of the Dilnot proposals on the cap. As far as I am concerned, Clause 155 is an unsatisfactory attempt at implementing that commission’s report and should be deleted from the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 144A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. The purpose of this amendment is very simple: to require the Government to bring Sections 15 and 16 of the Care Act 2014 into force by April 2023. That is the time when one might expect the Government to bring the cap into force if Clause 155 remained in the Bill, so I do not think we are doing anything very adventurous by putting that date in the amendment. However, the removal of Clause 155 without any replacement would create uncertainty as to whether Sections 15 and 16 of the Care Act would be activated. If, as I and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, hope, Clause 155 is deleted, Amendment 144A would ensure that the cap was brought into force by April 2023, but also on the basis that the cap was calculated to include the costs of all eligible needs met by the responsible local authority. In short, Amendment 144A would ensure a date for the Dilnot report on fairer care funding to finally start being implemented.
I acknowledge that if the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, were here to move this amendment, he might be more trusting than I am and willing to accept assurances from the Minister that Sections 15 and 16 would be activated by April 2023. I am afraid that someone who wrote and contributed to a report over a decade ago—which has been subject to prevarication ever since then—is rather less trusting, and I think it is absolutely essential, if we want to implement the Dilnot recommendations, that we should not offer that comfort of assurances to the Minister.
I turn briefly to Amendment 143, spoken to so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull—another Covid casualty. The Government have made—if I may put it this way—a total hash of the Dilnot recommendations on page 24 of our report. These made it absolutely clear that anyone born with an eligible care need—or who developed an eligible care need before the age of 40—should have a zero cap. We set out the evidence and the arguments for this recommendation extremely clearly. The Government have chosen to ignore our clarity and have muddled up—for charging purposes—the income and capital circumstances of two very different groups of people: older adults and disabled working-age adults. As the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has shown, this is very unfair to working-age disabled people. I suggest to the Minister that the Government need to remember the title of our report was Fairer Care Funding—that is what it said on the tin, and that is what we expected to be implemented. The extra cost of sticking to our recommendations on working-age disabled people is—at the most—about the cost of 10,000 people by about 2030. That, if I may put it crudely, would be about the cost of a few rather dodgy PPE contracts.
These three amendments—141, 143 and 144A—work together well as a package. They remove dubious government amendments; they restore the Dilnot proposals for younger disabled people at a modest cost; and they start the implementation of the Dilnot cap in April 2023 on the basis that we recommended.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord who sat on the Dilnot committee. I think it was a first-class report, which, at the time, I was prepared to endorse as the least bad solution to the social care problem. But I have changed my mind since then. Why? Because the facts have changed. I set out some of those facts when I spoke in Committee, and they include the large rise in house prices that makes many people much more able to pay for care for themselves at the moment. The facts have changed again in the last couple of weeks because of this disgusting war that has broken out in Ukraine. As a consequence, we are going to have to spend more on defence, as the Germans have already recognised. Therefore, public budgets are going to have to be squeezed in other areas. I regret those squeezes, but it is President Putin’s fault, not ours.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 141, which I would have added my name to had my noble friend Lord Lansley not done so himself. As he is not here, from these Benches I add my support for the deletion of Clause 155. As an adviser to the Dilnot commission at the time—around 2011—I believe it runs directly counter to the aims of the cap, which had such strong cross-party support. I am sorry to say to my noble friend that I struggle to understand the Government’s concept of fairness in this regard when Clause 155 imposes much greater losses of wealth on the least well off and forces longer waits on them while those with significantly more assets lose only a small proportion of their wealth before state funding starts.
I support Amendment 141. I hope my noble friend will either be able to accept it or that the other place will have a chance to consider this unfair change, which was added at the last moment without giving Members there an opportunity to do so.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I am in favour of deleting Clause 155, as proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell. I will also speak to my Amendment 182, which would lower the social care cap to £51,000 from 2023. I will not be putting my Amendment 182 to a Division but I feel that it is important to bring it back on Report as this would be the level of the cap recommended by the 2011 Dilnot report, then adjusted for care cost inflation. I understand that the Government’s cap of £86,000 is based on the increase in property values since the Dilnot report was published—can the Minister please confirm that? If so, was this for properties throughout the country and does it factor in that, while property values in London have increased significantly over the last decade, in many parts of the country they simply have not? Can the Minister please explain how the Government came up with that figure?
Clause 155 is a break with what is currently in the Care Act, which would mean that means-tested support does not count for an individual’s progress towards the social care cost cap. According to analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, with Clause 155, someone with that care need who has an annual income of £16,000 and assets of £100,000 would take almost six and a half years to reach the cap, whereas without Clause 155 the cap would be reached after three to four years. I declare my interest as set out in the register as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia. For many people with long-lasting forms of dementia who require many years of care, Clause 155 will disadvantage them considerably.
I will be voting to delete Clause 155 and for the Government to return to the sound and sensible recommendations from the 2011 Dilnot report, with numbers adjusted for inflation, and implement them.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, these Benches support Amendments 141, 143 and 144A. I congratulate all who have spoken and laid out the very important issues that we are talking about in this group. I will add one more point, which is that the fairly small savings that the Government might make under these measures, unless they are amended, would be paid for by the most vulnerable people. That is unworthy of a Government who say that their ambition is to level up across the country.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and I am sorry I was unable to engage as much on this issue as I was on others. I will speak first to government Amendments 128 to 140 and 187. We believe that these amendments are crucial to make the adult social care charging reforms work as intended. If they do not stand as part of the Bill, it will lead to unfairness between those whose needs are met by a local authority and those who self-fund their care. The intention of these amendments is to correct this.
Without these amendments, some costs which individuals have incurred will not meter towards the cap when they should do so. Currently, individuals eligible for funded support who have not had a timely needs assessment may incur costs in getting their needs met in the interim. This applies whatever system of charging we come up with. The costs incurred during periods of delay currently do not count towards the cap, and my amendments fix this. We came across this issue when we were looking back at previous Bills and unintended consequences.
I have also tabled an amendment to clarify the circumstances in which an independent personal budget must be provided by a local authority and what information those documents must include. We want these to be forward-looking documents, personal to the care user. To support this and to simplify the metering process, we are also removing the link between these documents and what meters.
Finally, as set out in the recent impact assessment, our charging reform implementation plan includes a small number of trailblazer local authorities that will implement charging reform earlier than others. I have tabled Amendment 187 to allow these trailblazer local authorities to begin implementing the reforms before others. For these reasons, I ask that noble Lords support my amendments.
On the other amendments, a number of noble Lords have asked questions and I will try to answer them. We believe that the £86,000 level set for the cap balances people’s personal responsibility for planning for their later years with a need to put in place a system to ensure that nobody faces unpredictable costs. Removing Clause 155 or simply omitting Clause 155(2) would have the effect of removing the ability to meter towards the cap by individual contribution only. Instead, progress towards the cap would be based on both individual and local authority contributions to care costs. This policy is unfair. However, it is also considered unaffordable.
Removing these clauses would increase the cost of the overall reforms by about £900 million per year, if you keep all other parameters the same—although. of course, other noble Lords have asked for other amendments, so those parameters would not necessarily be the same. This would require raising the cap, reducing means-tested support or expecting people to make contributions towards their daily living costs that are unaffordable from most people’s income. None of these is preferable to the approach that the Government are proposing to take.
We argue that the Government’s reform package is affordable and deliverable. We have indeed seen many reports over the years, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, was on the Dilnot commission, but we have to ask ourselves why these were not implemented. Although we may see many merits in a number of a different systems, and we all have our own biases or views on what the system should—
Lord Warner (CB)
May I give the Minister the answer to why they were not implemented? Successive Conservative Chancellors declined to implement them.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord may say that, but I have been advised that they were considered unaffordable.
On Amendment 142, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his engagement with me on his very interesting idea. I agree with him; I regret the fact that the private sector has not come forward sufficiently to offer products. I agree that that could have solved a number of problems, but I should clarify that the taper rate is not linked to income, as suggested. It is what people are considered to be able to afford to pay towards the costs of their care, based on their capital.
The amendment would make the means-testing regime significantly more generous than in the Government’s proposal, and I can see why that is attractive. However, once again, to answer the questions from many noble Lords, that would be considered to make charging reform unaffordable. We would be unable to afford to invest in wider improvements in the social care system that we are all keen to see. The Government’s plans balance providing protection and predictability when it comes to care costs with how much additional burden should be placed on the taxpayer. We believe that our reform is responsible, deliverable and affordable. I repeat that although it may not be optimal, our proposal is better than the existing system, where there is no cap.
Amendment 143 suggests a zero cap, which would equate to free personal care for those identified as having eligible care needs before the age of 40. We considered this issue carefully and, as acknowledged by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, we looked at this system and engaged with her, but, as she rightly said, the issue was the cliff edge. One may disagree about the cliff edge, and there are other cliff edges, but we felt that one of this magnitude was unfair. We also believe that younger adults will benefit from the announced charging reforms. From April 2022, the social care allowances will be uprated in line with inflation to allow everyone to keep more of their income.
The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, asked about data on the under-65s. We need to improve the data that we hold on under-65s who are drawing on care and support so that we better understand their needs and how reforms impact them. The Minister for Care and the Minister for Disabled People this week met a large number of organisations representing working-age disabled adults to discuss this and other issues. This group will continue to meet as our reform programme progresses. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
Amendment 144A would require the full rollout of the government reforms to be commenced before 1 April 2023. One of the reasons we looked at October is that we recognise that implementing reforms of this magnitude —noble Lords will have heard me say previously that we have grasped the nettle—requires a significant lead-in time to enable local authorities to prepare. We have invested £3.6 billion in preparation for these reforms, and we cannot do it overnight. In addition, we want to have the flexibility to work with some of those trailblazer authorities to make sure that we really get the best of the discovery process to ensure that it works and that we can spot any unintended consequences.
We do not believe that there is sufficient time for local authorities to prepare for full national rollout by April 2023. It is vital that we take the time to work with the sector and local authorities on the process of implementation if we are going to get this right. To enable a successful rollout, we want to see how the trailblazers will work before we go for the full national rollout by 2023. Trialling and engagement with the sector would have to happen anyway, whether Clause 155 stood or not. As I have said, if Clause 155 does not stand, we would not be able to afford to implement charging reform.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and all noble Lords who have spoken. Between them, the supporters of my amendment seeking to delete Clause 155 have all mounted the overwhelming case for its deletion, so in view of the time I will say just a few words.
The Government insist they have a social care strategy; they do not. They have the cap, hastily tacked on to an NHS Bill—a Bill that does not deal with integration across health and social care—and two subsequent White Papers on integration which set out how social care should look in the future, but with no plan, road map, timescale or massive funding injection out of the health and care levy to show how we will get there.
On the question of why Dilnot was not implemented, I absolutely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said. As somebody who was around when the Care Act was carried, I remember that £6 billion was allocated to implement it, so I often wonder what happened to that.
The Minister still has not provided convincing evidence that nobody will be worse off under the Government’s proposals. I asked him in Committee to explain his comments that 90,000 people would be better off under the new eligibility criteria, and have since asked the Bill team, but I have still not received a response to my request to show how this figure was arrived at and, importantly, how it breaks down between older people and younger, working-age disabled adults.
The deletion of Clause 155 would enable the care cap to be reintroduced under the Care Act, under the Dilnot principles of fairness and equity across all those needing care. As I said earlier, I will withdraw Amendment 127; I will move Amendment 141 in its place, on which I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
“(a) in relation to eligible needs met by a local authority, to any amount the local authority charged the adult under section 14(1)(a) or 48(5) for meeting those needs;(b) in relation to eligible needs met by a person other than a local authority, to what the cost of meeting those eligible needs would have been to the local authority that was the responsible local authority when the needs were met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment de-couples the costs that accrue towards the care cap from the costs specified in the budgets and simplifies the drafting for determining those costs that accrue.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that, where there is a delay in carrying out a needs assessment or a delay in preparing a budget, costs incurred by an adult after the local authority was required to carry out a needs assessment will accrue towards the care cap.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that a local authority is only required to prepare an independent personal budget when there has been an eligibility determination.
“(b) the adult has at any time either—(i) asked a local authority that was, at that time, the responsible local authority, to prepare an independent personal budget, or(ii) had needs met by a local authority as mentioned in section 24(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the responsible local authority will automatically be required to prepare an independent personal budget where an adult with eligible needs has a personal budget and then no longer has any needs met by a local authority.
“(a) the current cost to the local authority of meeting those needs,(b) how much of that cost the adult will be required to pay under section 14(1)(a), and(c) the balance, if any, of the cost referred to in paragraph (a).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the personal budget will specify the cost the local authority is incurring in meeting needs, the cost the local authority is charging the adult under section 14(1)(a) for meeting those needs and the balance of the two costs.
“(a) the current cost to the local authority of meeting those eligible needs,(b) how much of that cost the adult will be required to pay under section 14(1)(a), and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the personal budget will specify the cost the local authority is incurring in meeting eligible needs and the cost the local authority is charging the adult under section 14(1)(a) for meeting those eligible needs.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the personal budget is only required to specify costs in respect of eligible needs which are not being met by any local authority, if a local authority is meeting some of the adult’s needs.
“(a) what the current cost would be to the responsible local authority of meeting those eligible needs, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that, in relation to eligible needs that are not being met by a local authority, the personal budget must specify what it would currently cost the responsible local authority to meet those needs.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out language that is no longer needed in light of the amendment to page 125, lines 13 to 18 and the amendment to page 125, lines 21 to 24 that both appear in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that, in relation to eligible needs that are not being met by a local authority, the independent personal budget must specify what it would currently cost the responsible local authority to meet those needs.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the independent personal budget does not need to specify costs in respect of eligible needs which are not being met by any local authority if a local authority is meeting some of the adult’s needs (those costs will be in the adult’s personal budget).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out language that is no longer needed in light of the amendment to page 125, line 41 that appears in the Minister’s name.
“(7) In section 31 (adults with capacity to request direct payments), in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) a personal budget for an adult specifies an amount under section 26(1)(c) in respect of any needs, and”.(8) In section 32 (adults without capacity to request direct payments), in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) a personal budget for an adult specifies an amount under section 26(1)(c) in respect of any needs, and”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 125, lines 13 to 18 that appears in the Minister’s name.
Baroness Wheeler
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove Clause 155 (Cap on care costs for charging purposes) from the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, may be moving the next amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, is taking part remotely and I invite her to say whether she wishes to move the amendment.
Amendment 143
Baroness Bull
“Social care cap for younger adults
In section 15 of the Care Act 2014 (cap on care costs), after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) The Secretary of State must ensure that regulations made under subsection (4) specify a zero amount for adults—(a) who are under the age of 40 when they first receive care and support to meet their eligible needs, or(b) who have eligible needs which first required care and support before they reached the age of 40.’’”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that adults entering the care system under the age of 40, or who were under 40 when they first entered it, would have their care costs capped at zero, in line with the Dilnot report recommendation.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
Although I do not accept the Government’s arguments with respect to the effect that these proposals will have on younger disabled people, and do not accept the cliff edge reason either, I will not be taking this to a vote. I hope we have learned something here tonight.
Lord Warner
“Commencement of sections 15 and 16 of the Care Act 2014
The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 127(1) of the Care Act 2014 (commencement) to ensure that all provisions under sections 15 and 16 of that Act have come into force before 1 April 2023.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Complaints about care services
(1) The Care Quality Commission (CQC) must establish procedures for investigating complaints of conduct which breaches, or potentially breaches, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (“the regulations”).(2) In establishing the procedures, CQC must take into account, by regular surveys, the views of—(a) appropriate representative bodies,(b) those representing users and their families, and(c) such other persons or groups of persons as it considers appropriate.(3) Nothing in this section affects the requirement for registered persons to comply with regulation 16 of the regulations.(4) Complaints under this section include those made to CQC about regulated care services by users, their relatives or advocates, staff, or other relevant persons. (5) A user of a service, their relative or advocate may make a complaint directly to CQC.(6) CQC may, after due consideration, redirect a complaint to the registered person where it is satisfied that the conduct complained of does not constitute a breach of the regulations.(7) CQC must—(a) regularly publish a written report which includes examples of breaches of the regulations, and(b) provide guidance to registered persons and others to illustrate how such complaints can be resolved to the satisfaction of service users, their relatives or advocates, staff or another relevant person.(8) CQC must regularly review the procedures that it has established under this section.(9) Procedures established under this section must be made available by the registered person to any person who receives services, or to their relative or advocate.(10) CQC must publish information about procedures established under this section and take appropriate steps to make the procedures available to any person or group who may require such information.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment requires the Care Quality Commission to establish procedures for investigating complaints of conduct which breaches, or potentially breaches, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, there is a series of amendments in this group. My amendment does not really relate to the others in the group, but it is about an important issue.
In Committee, I raised the problem that a number of members of the public and the Relatives & Residents Association have brought to my attention: in a minority of care homes, if residents or relatives complain, the homes take retaliatory action in the form of making visits even more restrictive than they currently are and, in some cases, even evict, or threaten to evict, the person on whose behalf the complaint has been made. As I said, this is in a minority of homes— over the past few years I have been impressed by how many homes have continued to provide high-quality care in very difficult circumstances. None the less, this is an important issue.
In 2019, the Relatives & Residents Association was coming across at least one case a week of such intimidatory behaviour. We discussed this in Committee. The Minister said that she did not really think that the department had received much evidence of this, that in any case residents and their relatives and friends should complain to the home in the first instance, and that the Care Quality Commission would also pick up concerns.
This is a very confusing picture. If you go to the CQC’s website, you will see that it states:
“we do not settle individual complaints ourselves, but we still want you to tell us about your experiences of care.”
To most people, that is pretty confusing. If you are worried that a home is going to be intimidatory in its response to legitimate complaints raised, you are hardly likely to have confidence in its complaints system.
Up until about 2008, the CQC did take individual complaints but, due to a funding cut, it stopped doing so, even though, in Scotland, the equivalent body investigates specific complaints, and the predecessors of CQC investigated complaints. We know that there is huge pressure in care homes. We also know that some care homes are continuing extremely restrictive practices around relatives and friends being able to visit. This has become quite a serious problem in which, while they may not be in total lockdown, they come near to it, clearly more for the convenience of the home than for a public health reason. My amendment simply asks the CQC to go back to receiving and dealing with individual complaints in these cases. I hope that the Minister will perhaps be sympathetic to this. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely; I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 144B on complaints about care services very well. He is absolutely right: this is a muddle. Are people to go to the CQC or to a particular home when they wish to make a complaint? Any complaints system where the person making the complaint feels in a less strong position than the organisation to which they are complaining, or indeed—sometimes they might even put this strongly—which is wielding power over them is a complaints system that will not work. I hope that the Minister will understand this, and will respond and ensure, first, that there is a clear and understood system, and, secondly, that if some funding needs to be restored to the CQC to take us back to where we were, that will happen.
I want to speak particularly to two of the issues covered in this wide-ranging group of amendments: the licensing of cosmetic procedures and medical practitioners’ financial and non-pecuniary interests. I also have sympathy for the other two, on registration of social workers and hospital rehabilitation accommodation.
The amendments laid by the Minister, beginning with 153A, on the licensing of cosmetic procedures by local authorities and, indeed, Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on cosmetic procedures, which I have signed, set out models for registration for those who work using devices that breach the skin and who are not covered by medical registration or, currently, by any effective regulation. I know that considerable discussions have taken place between Committee and Report, and it is welcome that the Government have felt that they can now lay their own amendments, signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. I look forward to hearing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on those amendments.
Amendment 184ZBB in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, which I have signed, brings us back to the debate on medical practitioners’ financial and non-pecuniary interests. Our debate in Committee highlighted the problem that the financial and non-pecuniary interests arrangements do not match those that many others in the public sector have to make, where the registration body holds the information. The GMC has said once again that it does not particularly like the style of this amendment and would prefer the records to be held directly by the employer. However, I believe the argument that the registration body, which also has the power to take action, should be the place where these are kept.
I hope that, regardless of whether a vote is called, the Minister will take this away and look at it in more detail. We need an open, transparent and clear system of registration of financial and non-pecuniary interests.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, is taking part remotely; I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 169 and 181. I have my name down for Amendment 169 on the licencing of cosmetic procedures. During the passage of this Bill, I have had my eyes opened to just how enormous this industry is and how a great many people are putting themselves at huge risk. I have heard of some disturbing cases in which procedures with collagen have gone wrong. At a conference about plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures, one-third of the attendees were from the plastic surgery field and two-thirds from cosmetic procedures, which shows how popular this is becoming.
All Members of your Lordships’ House taking part in these amendments share the desire that these procedures should be registered and safe. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has accepted that this matter needs addressing and making safe. I thank him and his team for the hard work that they must have gone through in producing these amendments.
Amendment 181 is a very practical and important amendment, which I could not resist supporting and speaking to. It would reduce bed-blocking—a most unfortunate problem for a busy hospital that needs all its acute beds for ill patients, and frustrating for patients who still need rehabilitation but not in acute beds. These patients cannot go home because their accommodation is not suitable for their needs; for example, they might have to use a wheelchair and they need time to get organised. One of the problems is the time that it takes to get necessary adaptations completed. Housing authorities and social services need to work together with health authorities. If suitable rehabilitation accommodation is available, it can also be used for patients who need specialised treatment that is a long distance from their home. St James’s hospital in Leeds has a hotel for such patients, and incorporated into the hospital is a Marks & Spencer food shop; this is a very valuable service. I hope that the Minister will agree that these provisions should be available throughout the country.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for tabling Amendments 153A and 157A; I will not be moving my related Amendment 169. I should declare that I am married to an academic dermatologist, and that I am vice-president of the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health.
I am very grateful to the officials with whom I have had many discussions over the issue of cosmetic procedures. These government amendments are a welcome step in the right direction, by ensuring that individuals who carry out cosmetic procedures such as Botox fillers, threads under the skin and so on will have to meet consistent safety standards. Anything that breaches the barrier function of the skin—going through the live layer of cells of the epidermis—can cause inflammation, introduce infection and cause scarring and other reactions. The government amendments are most welcome because they are broad-reaching and tackle the real problem of people doing things to other people with no proper training and in premises that are not even properly inspected and licensed.
Perhaps I could just ask the Government two questions on this. First, when we had discussions we were considering the use of the term “energy-based device” to cover all the different modalities that can be used to get different types of radiation, whether as heat or whatever, through that layer—the barrier of the epidermis. That phrase would have captured such things in future regulations. Can the Minister assure me that subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new clause will also cover forms of energy not in the wording of the amendment, such as radio frequency and ultrasound devices, which are currently in use on the high street for cosmetic skin-tightening purposes? The idea is, of course, that they produce a small amount of scarring and tighten the skin, but if that goes wrong then you have a problem.
Secondly, can the Government confirm that, in order to obtain a licence, practitioners will be required to meet the agreed standards for training and education and that, in order to maintain their licence, they will be required to undergo appraisal and report adverse events so that such events can be collated and appropriately followed up on?
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, for supporting Amendment 184ZA, which I have tabled. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is going to speak—yes, she is—and I look forward to that. I very much hope that other noble Lords will want to support this amendment, too. They would be in very good company with the royal colleges and the remarkable past editor of the British Medical Journal, Professor Fiona Godlee, who has done a lot on this subject. We have also had contact with a host of doctors and some very rewarding conversations with them. Many feel it would actually be to their benefit to make this all transparent and accessible to the public.
I pay tribute to Simon Whale and Professor Sir Cyril Chantler, who have done sterling work on this amendment. I know that Sir Cyril is known to many in this House because he has so many qualities: of leadership, clinical management and research, and in lots of other fields. This is my one opportunity to pay tribute to him through the Bill.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials. They have given their precious time, working very hard with me and my colleagues throughout the Bill’s passage. I mention particularly the government amendments concerning the declaration of industry payments to doctors and others that my noble friend introduced in Committee, and which I thoroughly welcomed.
Turning to the amendment before us, I am delighted to say that together we have fashioned a form of words which reaches, I hope, common ground. Together with my team, we have constantly amended many amendments in discussing with officials what they thought was particularly important and what we thought was important. I think we have reached a happy place. My noble friend the Minister and his officials deserve praise and thanks for their tireless efforts and, unreservedly, I give those to them now.
In Committee, we debated an amendment on establishing a register of doctors’ interests. My noble friend made the point that this information should be collected locally by those who employ doctors, rather than nationally by the GMC. I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about it making sense to have the GMC involved, but in the end we agreed that this information should be collected locally. The problem is that these declarations are often out of date or incomplete, and in some cases the information is not collected at all, so it is very difficult for patients and the public to find out where that information is—and now they will have to go to the employer of the doctor. Sometimes it is hard for them even to find out if it exists, so I understand the logic that has just been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the GMC should be the body that collects this information. However, we have had very strong pushback on this. So, in the end, we have agreed with my noble friend that this information should be collected locally and made available to patients and the public.
Amendment 184ZBB simply puts into law what should be happening already. It would require any organisation that employs, contracts with or commissions a medical practitioner to provide medical services, or provides practice rights—we put that in because we wanted to cover the private sector as well—to obtain from that doctor a declaration of his or her financial and nonpecuniary interests. This, as I have said, can be done locally and it will be done through the annual appraisal that trusts have to carry out with employees. I think the missing piece in this puzzle is the doctors’ regulator. This amendment requires the GMC to take reasonable steps to assure itself that doctors are providing this information locally: that is very important. Following discussions with the Minister’s officials, the amendment now also requires the CQC to assure itself that employers are collecting the information and publishing it. We think this is sensible and I am pleased that we are all agreed.
I hope this puts all of us—my noble friend, the GMC and those of us who have tabled this amendment and support it—on the same page. However, I would be very concerned if none of this was laid down in legislation. These requirements and responsibilities are clearly spelled out in law at present, and we see from the research that this leads to very patchy compliance. This is not acceptable to any of us. So, finally, this amendment is simple and clear and is aligned with the position of the Government and the GMC. It requires employers and doctors merely to do what they should already be doing, but are not in all cases. It places a light but important duty on the GMC and the CQC to assure themselves that doctors and employers are indeed doing what they should. This is in the interests of doctors. Indeed, Professor Carl Heneghan, in oral evidence to our review First Do No Harm, stated:
“I think it’s important that if I’m treating you, you know who’s paying me.”
We owe it to patients and the wider public to improve transparency and to ensure that nothing undermines trust in our medical professionals. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that this amendment does achieve this in a way that he can support and that it fulfils all our aims.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in what she has just said, as well as my noble friend Lady Finlay and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for the extraordinary work she did on First Do No Harm, which led—gradually—to this amendment. I too pay tribute to Cyril Chantler, who I first knew when serving on the General Medical Council with him. I declare an interest as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of Whittington Health NHS Trust. I am, as I just said, a former member of the General Medical Council, and I am somewhat surprised, I must say, that it has said yet again, including this afternoon by email, that it does not really support this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures and other important considerations, such as hospital rehabilitation accommodation and the doctors’ register of interests. They all relate to the interests of patients.
I shall address particularly the issue of cosmetic procedures and I start by thanking the Minister and his Bill team for giving so much support, showing such interest and bringing this into being today. I know we all welcome it; it is much appreciated. I am glad to have taken part in the meetings and to have tabled an amendment in Committee relating to cosmetic regulation. The amendments before us today have been very much welcomed by medical associations, because we all know that lack of regulation has been a ballooning problem. For example, the Save Face organisation received more than 2,000 complaints of botched procedures in 2020 alone and the true number, as we know, is likely to be higher.
The other point to make is that this is a fast-moving industry and I am glad that these amendments will be able to keep pace with an ever-changing landscape. We have seen a significant rise in recent years in the number and type of non-surgical aesthetic procedures performed in the UK. Practitioners, both medically and non-medically trained, are performing procedures without even being able to evidence appropriate training and the required standards of oversight and supervision of procedures that can be described only as high- risk. When they go wrong—and we have all heard the stories of intense and lasting damage from untrained practitioners carrying out procedures in unlicensed premises—we all know that it will then fall to the NHS to pick up the pieces. This, today, is a meaningful step in protecting more people from rogue operators.
I close by thanking noble Lords for their contributions not only to this debate but to shaping the legislation. Once again, I thank the Minister and his team for all their efforts. I hope we will come to see a much safer set of non-surgical cosmetic procedures than we have at present.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, just before the Minister stands, I rise to support Amendment 184ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
Over the last 28 years, it has been my privilege to work with a fantastic team of GPs in the East End of London who are now responsible for 43,000 patients. I know what great GPs and doctors are like. If I am honest, however, I have also had to deal with a number of dodgy doctors, which is a very difficult matter to deal with. One doctor undertook female circumcision in his practice, unbeknown to the health authority for quite a period of time. He ended up marrying his practice manager and, some years later, he murdered her. Another practice, when I dug under the carpet, had bought a cheap fridge from B&Q and, over a period of three years, kept 10,000 injections at the wrong temperature and injected 10,000 patients with dead, illegal injections. Another doctor, as we learned when we took over his list, had countless ghost patients. As a result, I started to discover what ghost patients are. It took our team two years to sort out the realities of who were and were not real patients.
For the sake of GPs and patients, we need to protect them in the way the noble Baroness is suggesting. Doctors are flawed human beings like the rest of us, and we need to protect them from themselves and from us. It is really important that these things are taken seriously. This amendment puts its finger on a very important matter.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, this morning, I told my three daughters that they needed to be more assertive at school, but I have completely failed to intervene tonight. I will be very quick in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is not here tonight, and in thanking the Government for the amendments on cosmetic interventions. I sponsored the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill in this House, which assisted with the regulation of non-surgical interventions for children. At the time, we said that this was only the start and that there was a lot more to do. We acknowledged that others had done a lot of spade work, and I pay tribute to all those who have done yet more spade work. I want to put on record my appreciation to the Government for listening and reacting.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
I will be very brief because this is a slightly different subject. I shall speak to Amendment 181, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that each hospital has sufficient accommodation for patients who are rehabilitating and no longer require a hospital bed but still have needs. Further, as part of this duty, the Secretary of State must ensure that any spare land owned by the NHS is considered for this use.
In Scandinavia, patient accommodation of this nature has been part of the state health system since the late 1980s. Having patients stay in these facilities, which are designed to cater for people still needing some medical care, has delivered considerable savings to the public health system. The savings from these facilities is significant. In the previous group, much of our discussion—as always—was about the cost of our health and care system to the taxpayer, and to those who need care. This amendment, as well as delivering better rehabilitation and care for someone recovering from being in hospital, also delivers a significant saving. As I pointed out in Committee, NHS trusts are currently spending money putting up patients in hotels, with rooms costing as much as £275 a night. One London hospital has spent over £1 million on hotel rooms in the last three years. The cost of someone staying in a hospital bed for longer than they need is even greater than that. This is something that I would very much like to take up further with the Government.
Over the last few years, I have been working with a chartered architect who has identified various sites where this could happen throughout England. One is not terribly far from here. This is a real opportunity and I hope the Government will take it to include this as part of the Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In the end, this turned out to be an eclectic mix of amendments. Given that, I hope I can get the right balance between giving noble Lords comprehensive enough responses, while bearing in mind the more basic need of a dinner break for some noble Lords who have been in this debate today. I will be as brief and as comprehensive as I can be.
I turn first to Amendment 144B. We should be clear that the CQC is not intended to be an investigative body for an individual seeking redress. Other statutory bodies already exist to investigate individual cases and complaints, including the NHS complaints system. If complainants remain unsatisfied, they can raise their complaint with the independent Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Where the risk is serious or life-threatening, the CQC can act on a single concern and take regulatory action. Similarly, complaints about adult social care services should be made first to providers. They can also be made to the local authority, if the local authority is commissioning the care. Thereafter, complaints can be made to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Providers must investigate all complaints thoroughly and take necessary action where failures have been identified. The CQC monitors health and social care providers’ complaints processes and can compel providers to provide a summary of complaints received and their responses. Failure to do so within 28 days is considered a breach of the regulation and could lead to prosecution of the provider.
On Amendment 147A, I hope to assure the noble Lord that work is already in place for a framework for assuring the quality of people working in social care. Registered managers are already assessed by the CQC, to confirm their fitness to be registered. Nurses are regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council and social workers by Social Work England. Any person delivering personal care must have a DBS check. If, in the future, it was decided that adult social care workers in England should be subject to statutory regulation, the power to do so already exists in Section 60 of the Health Act 1999.
I turn now to the amendments in my name. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, for raising this issue with the House, and thank all those noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who have raised concerns about the need for regulation of this ever-evolving industry. As I hope noble Lords will now acknowledge, the Government are committed to improving the safety of non-surgical cosmetic procedures by establishing a licensing system. This will support the introduction of consistent standards that individuals carrying out such cosmetic procedures will have to meet, as well as hygiene and safety standards for premises. The definitions in the amendment are intended to cover the broad range of cosmetic procedures which, if improperly performed, have the potential to cause serious injury and harm. The subsequent regulations will set out in detail the treatments to be covered by the licensing system, and the detailed conditions and training requirements individuals would have to meet. The purpose of this amendment is not to ban procedures or stifle innovation, but rather to ensure that consumers who choose to undergo a cosmetic procedure can be confident that the treatment they receive is safe and of a high standard. The Government will work with stakeholders, including noble Lords, to put in place a licensing regime that works for both consumers and providers, protecting those who choose to receive cosmetic procedures without placing unnecessary restrictions on legitimate businesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me a number of questions, so I will try to answer them. I begin with radiofrequency. Given the broad range of skin-tightening procedures, proposed new subsection (2)(e) provides scope to encompass a variety of treatments which involve a wide range of application techniques, including radiofrequency and ultrasound devices. The aim of the licensing scheme is to protect the public from the risk of harm. To achieve this, the regulations will specify the standards of training required. The proposed new clause will also allow regulations to make provisions about the duration, renewal, variation, suspension or revocation of licences.
The range of non-surgical cosmetic procedures available to consumers is vast. Therefore, drawing up the regulations will require detailed consultation with a range of stakeholders. This will include a number of partners, such as the cosmetics industry and local authorities. We will try to do this as quickly as possible, while ensuring that the list is as comprehensive as possible. We will try to get that balance. For these reasons, I hope I can ask noble Lords to support these amendments and I ask the noble Baroness to consider not moving her amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who summarised a variety of amendments, none of which seemed to have much connection at all to each other. I should have declared my interest as a member of the GMC board but, of course, under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to comment on anything to do with the GMC.
On my Amendment 144B, all I would say is that the Minister is absolutely right that the CQC is not there to investigate complaints. The fact is that, if you are a relative of a resident and you are concerned about quality so you complain, you are then threatened that you will not be able to visit if you carry on doing it. You cannot go to the CQC, effectively, the ombudsman is far too remote and long-distance, and the provider does not have a satisfactory complaints system. That is the problem. We still have to find a solution. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Health and Care Bill
Monday 7th March 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-III(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2022)
22:39 - Division on Amendment 151A - Ayes: 59 / Noes: 99 - Amendment 151A disagreed.
“(c) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) No financial assistance provided under this section may be used for the purposes of—(a) repaying debt incurred outside of the business's normal day-to-day operations;(b) paying interest on debt incurred outside of the business's normal day-to-day operations;(c) making distributions to shareholders.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that financial assistance given by the Secretary of State is not distributed to shareholders or used to repay debt obligations incurred as “financial engineering” or leveraging.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 145, which appears in my name, I will also speak to Amendments 146 and 147. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who has swung behind these amendments since Committee, and I also very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, for her support for Amendment 147.
As we discussed at some length in Committee, all of these amendments address predatory finance in the care sector. We keep seeing more and more reports, whether from “Panorama”, Tortoise Media or the Financial Times, that there is a huge unfolding scandal in this area.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is taking part remotely. I invite him to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on bringing back this issue on Report; I was sorry not to be able to speak in Committee. We must also be grateful to the academics at the University of Surrey who followed the money and, a year ago, published their exposé, Careless Finance.
The noble quartet of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett, Lady Brinton, Lady Tyler and Lady Altmann, has previously provided the House with an excellent analysis of predatory financial manipulation of the social care sector by hedge funds and offshore entities. I just want briefly to underline certain points.
What we have been seeing is legalised theft. Financial operators are leeching, for their own profit and benefit, substantial proportions—16% to 20%—of the funds provided for social care by both the public purse and self-funding individuals; “grey gold”, the profits thus extracted are sometimes called. This racket, unacceptable at any time, has been perpetrated during a period when the Government have chosen to underfund social care lamentably. Because sufficient budgets are not available to local authorities, many people who should be eligible for social care are not receiving it and many who are in social care are experiencing threadbare services. The workforce is depleted and miserably paid.
It is in the context of this crisis that unscrupulous operators have been ripping off a broken system. In their greed they are putting the business survival of providers at risk. As Christine Corlet Walker, Angela Druckman and Tim Jackson of the University of Surrey have reported, we have been seeing a large-scale transfer of money from the poorest to the richest. As they say,
“the ongoing cost is the silent tragedy of the most vulnerable in society.”
Meanwhile, the Government have made little or no effort to address the problem, which indeed they do not appear to acknowledge exists. The noble Earl, Lord Howe—for whom personally I have great regard—in his response on behalf of the Government in Committee, said that the noble Baroness’s amendment to improve transparency was not proportionate or necessary. He suggested that the Care Act 2014 and the CQC’s market oversight scheme should take care of any problems. However, since the abuses continue, it is obvious that these policies have been ineffectual with regard to them.
The noble Earl also said that it was for local authorities to shape, oversee and manage the market, but only the Government can act to close opportunities for rogue investors to carry out these abuses. He suggested that BEIS was on the case, but BEIS has been inexcusably dilatory.
The Government claim to be fixing social care, but all they are doing is providing a meagre and delayed increase in funding for social care by dint of imposing extra tax on the poor. The only reform they are truly interested in is to relieve the affluent of the need to sell their homes to pay for care.
Even the Government are now exercised about the abuses by Russian kleptocrats. So too they should be very seriously exercised by the abuses of the social care system by unscrupulous investors. Can they not see the evils that have flowed from marketising the social care sector? As the noble Baroness has just said, on Wednesday, the House will debate the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill. We should also be debating an overdue “social care financial abuse (transparency and enforcement) Bill”, brought forward by the Government.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is also taking part remotely. I invite her to speak next.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments, slightly amended from Committee, and in particular for responding to the Minister’s concerns that the first amendment had perhaps been too broad and would catch the day-to-day business of companies. That cannot be said about Amendment 145.
I also want to pick up a point that the noble Earl made in Committee. He said:
“A company’s working capital, by its nature, is money that is used to fund day-to-day operations in general, and one cannot associate a particular pound with a particular business activity.”—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1161.]
Yet the Charity Commission does have the ability to intervene in the event that a charity, or series of charities stretches—shall we say?—those rules. Its Internal Financial Controls for Charities, CC8, provides very specific guidance. Indeed, in recent years, one charity, the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, was investigated for a circular set of donations. Each donation to each different body was paid tax relief out of the public purse, coming back to serve the schools that the adults at the community church sent their children to. The way that was structured was similar to a financial instrument employed by the few companies that abused the funding they received from the public purse for social care.
The noble Earl also referred to the Treasury guidance Managing Public Money and Accounting Officer Assessments. I have been through that, too. It is very interesting and clear. Under the heading
“expenditure which may rely on a Supply and Appropriation Act”,
Managing Public Money lists
“routine administration costs: employment costs, rent, cleaning etc … lease agreements, eg for photocopiers, lifts”.
It does not say: “Re-charging sister/parent/daughter companies for large amounts of borrowing and the interest thereto”, which is what has been happening.
It is important that we start to debate how public funding is spent by these companies, particularly those overseas, when we cannot see how that money is spent. I also support the other amendments in the group, which ask for a review of financial regulation. It is interesting that the Treasury guidance refers constantly to the Nolan principles, which are absolutely vital in talking about transparency and responsibility when spending public money. These amendments might not be quite right to deliver that, but it would be good if there were a review under way.
The other thing we must have when these companies spend large amounts of public money is publication of their full accounts. They should not be able to hide behind very short, superficial accounts from overseas.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as I did in Committee. In essence, they are about financial practices in the social care sector that I find completely unacceptable.
The social care provider market, as we all know, is complex, fragmented and too often inherently unstable. One of the causes of instability is financially risky behaviour by a small number of large, equity-backed, highly debt-laden companies in the residential care sector. This has resulted in some high-profile sudden exits from the market, such as Southern Cross and Four Seasons. The key point is that, in the event of the closure of a care home, the provider bears no responsibility for continuity of care. That falls on the local authority, with the direct impact felt by care home residents and their families. That just cannot be right.
It is also concerning that, in its 2021 social care market report, the NAO was unable to analyse the accounts of five of the large equity-backed providers because of difficulty in accessing their accounts. Of course, the issue of the lack of transparency over accounts, profits and shareholders is exacerbated when company ownership is offshore.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained, Amendment 147 seeks to require local authorities and other public bodies to commission care from non-UK domiciled companies only if they publish full accounts and offer transparency over their ownership. There is an interesting international precedent for the latter part of this. Indeed, in February 2022, the Biden Administration announced a set of measures around improving quality and transparency by requiring private equity firms to disclose ownership stakes in nursing homes.
I will finish by making a couple of broad points. For a measure like this to be implemented effectively, it will clearly be essential that local authorities are equipped with sufficient complex accounting knowledge to scrutinise the ownership and financial practices of a provider. Although this amendment would help ensure transparency and enable better scrutiny of offshore entities, I am conscious that complex ownership structures are not limited to companies owned abroad. I hope the time will come when this sort of financial transparency is extended across all providers, wherever they are based.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for returning us to this issue because I have reflected on the noble Earl’s remarks when we discussed this in Committee. He made an impressive contribution in that it listed many of the safeguards that the Government say are in place to deal with what are clearly very unsatisfactory situations in the care sector, which affect the most vulnerable in our communities.
My question to the noble Earl is: does he really believe that the Government are dealing effectively with the problems that face this sector, which is dysfunctional—I thank the noble Baroness for reminding me that I said that—and places insecurity in the hearts of some of the most vulnerable and eldest members of our communities? If all the things that he listed the previous time we discussed this were working, why would we return to this and say that those safeguards are clearly not working? Asset stripping is clearly still taking place. There are huge dangers to this sector and the noble Baroness has brought this back to the House because of them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has brought us back to issues that we debated in Committee and I understand her concern about propriety in the deployment of public funds. I have no problem with the idea that Ministers and public servants should do all they can to ensure that public money is used effectively for the greater good. That is what they are obliged to do anyway. However, I do not feel that this duty is best served by accepting the amendment, even though it has been newly worded.
In my answer in Committee, I described how during the pandemic we learned about the importance of speed and flexibility in the way that we respond to a crisis. I suggest that this amendment would impede the Government’s ability to provide emergency support to critical providers. That does not mean handing out money willy-nilly. Any use of the power will be subject to the usual scrutiny and safeguards around the use of public funds, as set out in Treasury guidance on Managing Public Money and Accounting Officer Assessments.
There is a fundamental problem with the proposition that the noble Baroness has advanced. The amendment refers to “day-to-day operations” but there is no single accepted definition of that term. Any company could find itself excluded from receiving critical funding depending on how its accounts and finances are structured. For example, there are potential scenarios where the Government could ask providers to carry out activities at pace which may involve them in creating unavoidable debts, for which they would need reimbursement. In that situation there would be nothing improper in any government funding being used to repay that debt, but even if there were no such debts involved, the problem remains that any private company would be prevented paying dividends, as it would be logically impossible to disassociate the long-term effects of the assistance from the ability of the company to pay such dividends. I understand the concerns of the noble Baroness about unscrupulous people and fraud, but the amendment as worded is not well conceived.
Turning to Amendments 146 and 147, again, nobody can be comfortable with the idea of rogue investors or unscrupulous care providers. However, I made clear in Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring that we have a sustainable care market. We have already set out a number of planned actions, most notably in the People at the Heart of Care: Adult Social Care Reform White Paper, to achieve this objective. Noble Lords are aware that the adult social care sector is complex, as it contains both the public and the private sector. One thing that the two sectors have in common is the need to maintain not only quality of care but financial stability. To ensure that these businesses provide the care that they are required to, local government and regulators, such as the Care Quality Commission, monitor, regulate and support the sector.
As I mentioned in Committee, the CQC has market oversight responsibility, and in discharging those responsibilities, it performs comprehensive financial sustainability analysis for each provider in the scheme, including some private equity ownership structures. Debt leverage and capital structure are important components of this work, but consideration is also given to current and future trading trajectories, cash headroom and market positioning.
We also have in place the CQC-operated market oversight scheme, which monitors the financial health of the largest and most difficult-to-replace providers in the adult social care sector, ensuring that people’s care is not interrupted due to provider failure, which must be a proper concern. Since its establishment in 2015, there have been no major business failures of care providers that have resulted in the cessation of care.
We have always been clear that fraud is unacceptable. We are acting against those abusing the system; 150,000 ineligible claims have been blocked on the Covid-19 schemes, and £500 million was recovered last year. The HMRC tax protection task force is expected to recover an additional £1 billion of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, even if cash is diverted fraudulently, there is still the ability of the authorities to recover such cash.
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government will continue to keep the measures which I have outlined under review but, at present, we do not believe that the proposed and very prescriptive amendments are either proportionate or necessary. I hope she feels that she can come back to this matter at a future date. With that, I am clear that these amendments should not be accepted.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and the Minister for his typically comprehensive response. It is interesting that the Minister very much focused on the issue of fraud and fraudulent transactions. I go back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who referred to what is happening as “legalised theft”. None of these amendments seeks to deal with things that are illegal; they seek to deal with things that are now an established part of our financialised, privatised system, which has all this simply built in.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, particularly, who provided a pre-answer in advance of the Minister’s response to Amendment 145, by saying that it was very difficult to separate out day-to-day operations and debts versus financialised debts. In demonstrating what the Charity Commission has done, the noble Baroness showed an effective example of how that can be done and different kinds of debt can be identified. The Minister said that you might need to create some special new financial structure to deal with an emergency situation. I think we know the practical reality of the financial-type structures that we are talking about, and that they are not created under those sorts of situations; they are created in a way to hide where the money is going—to ship the money offshore. That is not something that you would do in a situation where you are simply trying to rescue something.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, about the inherent instability really brings home the point that what we are talking here, with regard to care homes, is people’s homes. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is in his place, because in another discussion I raised with him the fact that people who are forcibly moved when homes are closed can actually die as a result of it happening. I hope he has made himself more aware of that situation and the risk it presents to people’s lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, focused on some of the difficulties that the National Audit Office has had in scrutinising this whole situation. She highlighted the facts that I was talking about—how, when the National Audit Office is able to scrutinise situations, all we get is complaint. The noble Baroness highlighted how it is not even able to conduct scrutiny in this sector because of the kind of financialised structures that we have.
I am pleased that the Minister finished by noting that I am likely to come back—he perhaps even invited me to come back on these issues. It is something that I certainly intend to do. These are very complex areas, as I acknowledge, and this is an attempt to take on some extremely well-funded organisations and professional groups. Just to conclude, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, as I did, contrasted the Russian kleptocrats we will talk about on Wednesday versus what we are talking about here. Of course, it is possible that they are not two groups and there might be some overlap. I invite any investigative journalists listening to have a look at whether we might be able to see an overlap there.
At the moment, it is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but I do not regard this issue as in any way dealt with or finalised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others to Schedule 18, ensures that foods that can be advertised as “low sugar” and “high protein” under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods are exempt from the restrictions on advertising proposed in that Schedule.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148, I will also speak to Amendments 150 and 152 in my name. There are a number of interesting amendments in this group but I intend to stick to my last, broadly, and speak only to the ones in my name.
I had a number of amendments to this schedule—it has been renumbered; it was Schedule 17 but is now Schedule 18—in Committee, but I have decided to stick with just these three. I apologise that there are three; there is only really one, of course, but the schedule is drafted in such a way that everything has to be said three times. This amendment effectively relates to high-protein, low-sugar bars. Noble Lords may wonder why I have developed an interest in such bars; to answer that, I will tell them a story. That is all I am going to do. I will tell noble Lords a story about a real business; I will then ask my noble friend the Minister a question.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend on these amendments. Of course, this is an extension of the debate that we had on the eighth day in Committee on the Bill. I want to look at the central problem behind the case history that my noble friend has outlined so clearly this evening. We need to remind ourselves that we are dealing with the food industry, one of the largest industries in the United Kingdom.
To the best of my knowledge having contacted all the trade associations, all parties want to reduce childhood obesity. There is no argument about that anywhere and, in the case of this industry, there are several areas of trade association activity, through ISBA, the IPA, the Food and Drink Federation and—of particular relevance to digital advertising—the IAB, which has worked very closely with DCMS. In a sense, that is part of the problem, because my noble friend on the Front Bench is not speaking on behalf of DCMS but about the Health and Care Bill on behalf of the DHSC.
The IAB, representing all food manufacturers dealing with digital advertising, has worked very closely with DCMS. It has kept it up to date on the latest developments, but DCMS has not engaged or worked with the industry in finding a solution. The industry has worked constructively for a long time to propose a tech-based solution that would achieve the Government’s objective of a further reduction in the number of HFSS advertisements that are viewed by children. This proposed solution would use proven, targeted technology and includes an element of advertising campaign evaluation which would be future-proof—this is important—and ensure that it continues to improve. The irony is that the industry wants to work with the Government on this matter, but so far the Government are sadly ignoring this industry’s expertise and dismissing its proposals.
I had the privilege of working in the advertising industry for 25 years, and I have seen these sorts of developments in other fields. When you have an industry working with government on an area that is important to both parties, it is a tragedy that Her Majesty’s Government, through DCMS, are not working. Yes, it is new technology, and the Government might feel happier if there was some experimental work in special test markets or whatever, but the sad thing is that this technology is there, and is proven, but still Her Majesty’s Government are refusing to use it and are seemingly—perhaps I am being too critical from the outside—unable to understand whether it will work. This is hugely frustrating for any company in this market.
I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench is aware that the Prime Minister wants this country to lead digitally, and here we are on the frontiers of this area where we are leading, yet we cannot move forward. If the Government have reservations—and it is difficult for someone from another department, in this case the Department of Health and Social Care, who has therefore not been party to what has been going on—would it not be more sensible to have another look and evaluate it properly with those who really understand how it works and how it is developing? If the Government are still not convinced, I suppose we will have to try again later. As someone who comes from that industry—I have no involvement now and am not speaking for any particular party—I want to see companies in this area, like the one my noble friend described this evening, to be able to succeed in future.
Finally and frankly, the Government’s blunt and disproportionate advertising ban will not be effective. When there is another system on the table, my noble friend ought to take it back, have another look at it and see whether it will help everybody.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 151A in my name and to four other consequential amendments which relate to the responsibility of online platforms for enforcing the ban on HFSS advertising. The amendments have been signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, a cross-party group which underlines how important the issue is, and I am grateful to them.
I declare an interest as a director of the Advertising Standards Board of Finance and deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, and note my other media interests as set out in the register. I am also a vice-chairman of the APPG on ITV.
I intend to be very brief as these issues were discussed at great length in Committee. Indeed, over a marathon three-hour session, when many noble Lords raised concerns about the implementation of the proposed ban, they noted that it would not be effective as structured: it was not proportionate, it was an infringement on freedom of expression, and it was unfair and unbalanced because it penalised broadcasters and publishers and did not provide for any enforcement by the platforms—Google, Facebook, and others—where the vast majority of HFSS advertising sits.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 149, 151 and 153 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Boycott. The amendments refer specifically to a deadline for the implementation of the junk food advertising restrictions.
I completely applaud the Minister for the approach of bringing in government amendments to try to refine the terms of the Bill; it is a collaborative approach, which I think all of us have really appreciated. However, in this matter, a government amendment has, I think, overshot, by removing the previous deadline in the first draft of the Bill. These amendments seek to rectify that.
I will not speak at length, but many have said, both in Committee and at Second Reading, how urgent it is to address the issue of obesity in this country. We cannot have any delay or rolling procrastination around these measures, so it is entirely right, proper and suitable for there to be a deadline in place in a Bill such as this.
It is also right to have certainty. I have huge consideration for Grenade and its low-sugar, high-protein bar. I will certainly look out for its excellent product when I am next in the gym, and I think the uncertainty it faces, which my noble friend Lord Moylan has described, is heartbreaking. That is why it is important to start the mechanisms now for answering its quite reasonable questions and to put a deadline on when those answers should be delivered.
I am not blind to the fact that many in the industry have voiced concerns that the deadline is too tight. I have looked at it and I do not accept those concerns. I think the bans have been around and on the books for a very long time and preparations have been in place. I worked in publishing during the tobacco ban: the turnaround for that was quite tight, but it was quite transparent and it happened without too much trouble. I think that a deadline is entirely right and suitable and that the deadline proposed is reasonable. I would like to hear reassurance from the Minister that there will be clear scheduling for these measures.
I would also like very briefly to address Amendment 151A, from my noble friend Lord Black, and the related amendments. On this, I feel utterly conflicted. The harms caused by online advertising have been mounting over several years. They are currently far too damaging and they are set to grow, both in scale and sophistication, without any clear sight of regulatory control. That is of grave concern, and the points made by my noble friend were very persuasive: I think he was right about bringing in compliance by the platforms. On the other hand, I accept that government regulation in this area is so off the pace; the online harms Bill is so far behind and the online advertising review has taken so long that the Government are just not in a position to implement the measures in this amendment.
I shall not be supporting these amendments in any votes that might happen, but my sentiments are very much along those lines. I ask the Minister to say very clearly what the Department for Health and Social Care and the Government will do around these concerns, not just on junk food advertising but on the advertising of alcohol, betting and non-surgical cosmetics, which all face similar concerns around the explosion of complex and persuasive online advertising which is underregulated.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to which I have added my name. I do not really need to say anything more than has already been said. We know that this country, according to the World Obesity Atlas published last week and supported by the World Cancer Research Fund, is now top of the European league table for projected levels of female obesity by 2030 and joint top for projected levels of male obesity. Sadly, it is probably already too late to stem this trend, but by acting now on these measures we might be able to protect the next generation. That is why I support the idea of having a firm deadline by which time the measures will be introduced.
I actually wanted to speak in slightly more detail about Amendments 148, 150 and 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. As he explained, they are really just one amendment.
I promise you that this was not set up, but I have in my hand the very Grenade bar to which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred. I wish to explain why this Grenade bar should definitely not be excluded. I am grateful to Dr Emma Boyland, of the University of Liverpool’s Institute of Population Health, for giving me a briefing on the Grenade Carb Killa bar—this particular one is high-protein, low-sugar, white chocolate and salted peanut. I bought it at the weekend from Holland & Barrett, in its health food section; it is marketed and advertised as a healthy product. Is it a healthy product? The answer is no.
First of all, no age group in this country is short of protein. We simply do not need to eat more protein. So the fact that this bar is high-protein is completely irrelevant in terms of health benefits. Secondly, remember that HFSS is high fat, salt and sugar. The bar may be low-sugar, but what about fat? It contains two-thirds of the recommended daily limit of the intake of saturated fat; it is definitely high in fat. It also contains more salt than a bag of salted crisps. Is it right to exclude something that is fatty and salty from the definition of HFSS? I am convinced it is not right, and therefore I completely reject the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. These products should not be excluded from the measures proposed in Schedule 18 to the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group—Amendments 154 and 155—though they are rather different from those discussed in the debates that we have just heard. I declare my interest as the president of the Hospital Caterers Association.
We have heard a lot about the risk of obesity, but we also know that many patients coming into NHS hospitals come in with nutritional issues, where good food and good nutrition could very much help them on their way to recovery. The research has indicated problems where patients are not feeding properly.
We are very grateful to Ministers for the meeting we had with the Hospital Caterers Association and the National Association of Care Catering, with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We are very grateful too that Clause 161 sets out specifications for hospital food standards.
There are just two quick points I want to make. First, it is a great pity that we do not have a similar process in relation to the care sector—care homes, in particular. One of the amendments relates to that: we want to see the provisions extended to the care sector. We also want to ensure that staff working in the care sector are suitably trained and that there is a suitable framework to ensure there is a high level of professional staffing.
My second point relates to the National Health Service. Although lip service has always been paid to good standards of hospital food and nutrition, unfortunately the boards of NHS organisations have often found it difficult to provide the resources to enable that to happen. The suggestion in my first amendment is, in fact, that a board-level director should be appointed to oversee this to ensure that the standards laid out as a result of the Bill, when it becomes law, will be put into practice. Alongside it go similar provisions in relation to ensuring that we have high-quality staff who can take advantage of a focused approach to training, which, at the moment, has been missing because a lot of the national infrastructure for training for staff in the NHS in the ancillary services has been neglected.
I hope that, following the discussions we had with Ministers, the noble Baroness will be able to be positive in relation to this tonight.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black, has put a convincing and comprehensive case for his amendments, which I have signed. He has knocked back nearly every argument made by the Government in this House and in correspondence against a level playing field being established for platform liability.
In his letter after Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, said:
“The scale and speed of advertising online, as well as the personalised nature of advertising and the lack of transparency in this system, makes it difficult for platforms to have control over what is placed on them.”
They have far more control than the broadcasters. They run their own digital advertising agencies. Facebook and Google have massive market share in their own individual digital markets.
It is extraordinary that the Government are buying these arguments from the social media platforms. They are on extremely thin ground. If the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, pushes these amendments to a vote, we will support him.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in his amendments demanding a timescale for the ban on such adverts. Advertising is the only business in the world that spends an enormous amount of money and then suggests that it does not work. It is a curious state of affairs that the advertising industry, as well as the food industry, which spends upwards of £0.5 billion a year on advertising HFSS food, says that advertising does not work, but the fact is that it does.
Research has shown that half of all food ads shown in September on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky One were for HFSS products. That number rose to nearly 60% between 6 pm and 9 pm. Ofcom research also suggests that children’s viewing peaks in the hours after school, with the largest number of child viewers concentrated around family viewing time, between 6 pm and 9 pm. People in food policy have worked, as I have worked, for a very long time for this ban. We thoroughly applaud the Government for doing it. I also applaud my noble friend Lord Krebs for taking apart that protein bar, because it illustrates the way in which the food industry works. I have heard all too often, especially when I first came into this House—albeit not so much now—people saying, “All you need to do is exercise to get rid of the excess weight.” We know that that is a line put out by the industry. The industry is very clever. Yes, they have managed to sell the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, their protein bar, but they have not sold it properly. I hope that, with this ban, the Government will look at all the other sneaky ways in which food companies put things through, whether it is high-energy drinks or whatever, that are incredibly destructive to our health. As my noble friend Lord Krebs, said, we have an unenviable first position in the scale of obesity around the world, and we need to end it now.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I should declare that I am chairman of the Communications and Digital Select Committee. I support Amendment 151A and the others in the name of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. I do so because this is a matter of fairness.
Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said, the broadcasters have accepted that a pre-watershed ban on junk food advertising is coming. They and I also understand that the online platforms face a complete ban. However, once again, the legacy or heritage media businesses are the only ones which will face serious financial penalties if they make a mistake and, for whatever reason, allow a non-compliant piece of advertising to slip through and appear on air. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will emphasise that the difference between the online platforms and broadcasters is only therefore about regulatory burdens and sanctions, but that is the point, and it is why this is unfair.
Why should the media businesses which will be significantly disadvantaged commercially by the ad ban be the only ones fined if something goes wrong? Why should the media businesses which continue to lose ad revenue to online platforms stand by and watch as those same platforms—Google, Facebook, YouTube—are not yet subject to any statutory regulatory regime to prevent their unfair market dominance? How can it be right that they shrug their shoulders when it comes to liability for the ads they profit from? They profit from them to a much larger degree than the broadcasters profit from the ads they run.
When I spoke in Committee, the Minister said in reply that all this would be dealt with via the online advertising programme and that a consultation would start shortly. Any progress on that will be welcome, but there is a limit to how much consultation the media industry can take. What it needs is action, which means legislation to deal with these various digital market and competition issues that currently favour big online platforms and are detrimental to everyone else, including consumers. To fail to do that while prioritising legislation that hits the traditional broadcasters more harshly than online platforms is unfair.
As I have said, those of us who support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Black do not want to delay the ban on junk food advertising, but in introducing it, we should make sure that liability for mistakes and failures to comply with regulations is fair. The Bill as it stands is not. I am very grateful to the Minister for the time she has given to hearing these arguments, but urge her to reconsider the merits of these amendments, especially bearing in mind that we are still a long way from new legislation that will finally level the playing field across the media sector. If my noble friend divides the House, I will vote with him.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I too am very pleased to support Amendment 151A and the following amendments. I also read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, to Peers following the debate on this in Committee. He said that it was
“difficult for regulators to keep pace with advertising code breaches without the cooperation of platforms who hold significant data on the process, and host the services”.
That seems to me a recognition of their responsibility in the ad process. As the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, ads create the vast majority of the platforms’ revenue and so they are responsible for controlling their content.
I read a recent survey on the effect of online advertising on young people, which was carried out by the healthy living charity, Global Action Plan. It showed that the average teen sees on Instagram alone one ad every eight seconds. That is the equivalent of 444 ads per hour. The survey also revealed that Facebook’s ad manager directly targeted young people with risky and unhealthy advertising, including for fast food and alcohol. It was the platforms’ data and algorithms which directed these ads, and they need to be made responsible for any restrictions on HFSS advertising as quickly as possible. There are other, more insidious forms of online advertising, such as product placement in digital content, especially among influencers. All these should be made the responsibility of the platforms to control. I hope the amendments will do just that.
I was glad to hear that the Government are looking at the online advertising programme, but I, like many noble Lords, am concerned by the laggardly start. Can the Minister say when she thinks the consultation will conclude? I hope that will happen quickly, because every day, thousands of young people are going to be harmed by the delay. I also ask the Minister to guarantee that platform liability for hosting product placement and others sorts of insidious advertising will be in scope of the consultation.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, at this late hour, I simply want to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and Amendments 154 and 155 in his name by making three simple points. First, we are learning all the time about the importance of nutrition and health. We are also understanding increasingly how poor nutrition can have a devastating effect on recovery and health inequality. It is therefore remarkable that in both hospitals and, more particularly, care homes we have no standards or training for the people involved in the preparation and delivery of food. That is a serious omission.
Therefore, it is time for us to move away from the traditional way in which care catering has developed, which is by scandal and omission, turning it round into a positive by developing new standards of training. We also need to try to get particularly teachers in colleges to get young people to understand that catering in care settings is far more complex then catering in restaurants. Within the NHS we have the opportunity to drive some world-beating standards on nutrition and care, and that is all that we are asking for by asking for this framework and these amendments.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I am tempted to express my concern that the computer of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, may have been hacked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, with the coincidence of the Grenade bar being at the heart of their contributions to this debate.
That said, I offer a word of warning about the imposition of a hard deadline for the implementation of the advertising ban. However desirable a deadline, it is actually impractical. I do not seek here to delay anything; I accept totally that the argument about the futility of an advertising ban has been lost, and we move on to the implementation. A deadline of 1 April—and all the delegated powers—creates a huge number of time-related consequences following that. Advertising, as well as the delegated powers and the need to produce and consult on guidance on secondary legislation, is a consequence of this. Companies will have no time to assimilate what the new rules mean for their advertising campaigns. Advertising campaigns can take up to a year from conception to final production. The Government have yet to publish the secondary regulations consultation, which will lay out exemptions, such as how SMEs are defined for the purposes of the restrictions.
Once the Bill becomes law, which will not happen for several months, Ofcom—that wonderful organisation —will then need to delegate to the relevant regulator, which, according to the amendments, will not happen until two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The designated regulator—most likely the ASA, as we heard—will then need to hold a consultation on the details of the guidance and process the consultation responses before putting out final guidance, which will then take several months. Only once this final guidance is published will brands be able to implement it when it comes to their marketing campaigns.
Some noble Lords may argue that the Government have already made clear what are permissible and what are not identifiable HFSS products and that industry and businesses can prepare around this. The questions and detail of the guidance are far more complicated than that. Industry has a plethora of unanswered questions that need to be resolved and which will take time, covering everything from how liability will apply to third-party delivery companies to the definition of transactional content and what rules might mean for loyalty apps. I hope that your Lordships will reject Amendments 149, 151 and 153 to avoid a chaotic transition to the new rules.
I finish by speaking in support of my noble friend Lord Black’s Amendment 151A and the resulting amendments. My noble friend laid out the case extremely well and I hope he will seek the opinion of the House on this matter. I can add nothing to the arguments that he and other noble friends have laid out. If there is a vote, the simple choice of the House is: do we want to let these monolithic, monopolistic platform giants carry on getting away with murder in this country? They have been allowed to get away with stealing copyrights, they do not regard themselves as publishers, and they create more harm—which, one hopes, the online safety Bill will seek to amend.
This is discriminatory legislation, which makes a difference between two people doing the exactly the same thing: the broadcasters, who will be liable, and the online platforms, for which there is no parity at all. It is about time we recognised that we must deal with these people and regulate them properly and sensibly. This is a perfect opportunity, and I hope your Lordships will support the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I wish to briefly reinforce a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about how so much food is advertised as being healthy when it is clearly nothing of the sort. I want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I will not advertise any further a particular brand of allegedly healthy food for athletes, but these foods are presented as though they are consumed by people who have just done extraordinary physical efforts—as exemplified in your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who, I can attest, I saw at the APPG for Running, looking like he was appropriately involved in the acts that he was supporting. However, more than half the calories consumed in the UK are in ultra-processed foods. That figure rises to 65% for children and teenagers. We need action urgently. This is a health crisis; it is an epidemic.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I wish we were talking about restricting the advertising of gambling; that would have more effect on the health of the country than this. However, these are very important measures. Before I talk about the three major groups in this grouping of amendments, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lady Barker for raising the really important issue of nutrition to patients in hospital and people living in residential care homes.
The rest of the amendments fall into three broad groups. First are the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. While he was telling us the very sad story about the manufacturers of the Grenade bar, about how much protein it has and how little carbohydrate, I was wondering: what about the other major nutrient, fat? Noble Lords will remember from their biology lessons that, gram for gram, fat has twice as many calories as either carbohydrate or protein, and if you eat an awful lot of those bars, you will get fat—the “F” in HFSS foods. Of course, one “S” in HFSS foods stands for salt, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has now told us exactly what is in that bar—far too much fat and far too much salt.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises a point which I raised in Committee: the nutrient profiling model is 11 years old. I asked the Minister whether there are any plans to update it, because companies really need up-to-date information about exactly what will fall within the ban and what will not. So I ask the question again: are there plans to update that 11 year-old guidance? We really do need it, because then companies such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and many others, will really know what they are dealing with. It certainly does not sound to me as though that bar will fall outside the restriction on advertising.
I have added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I remember when, in Committee, the Government introduced this power to extend the deadline—they did not say how long for—and I asked what this was for and why the Government needed to extend the implementation of these restrictions. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, said it was just in case there were any hitches with the consultation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is right and there is certainly a hint of long grass in what the Government were trying to do. I was a bit suspicious about it in Committee, and I still am. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is trying to do.
All the industries concerned with these measures have had plenty of notice of what the Government wanted to do, and I think, once the detail comes forward, they will have had plenty of time. Perfectly reasonably, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is asking for that power that was taken to extend the deadline to be limited to just three months. That is quite enough.
As for the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Black, I agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, although not necessarily for the same reason. Of course, there is a fairness issue here, but I think that, if the responsibility for implementation and making sure there was compliance was extended to online platforms, it would strengthen the objectives of these measures from the Government, which I support. Therefore, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we will vote for him.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a considerable debate on these issues, in Committee and this evening in your Lordships’ House. From these Benches, we absolutely support the provisions to tackle obesity. The reasons have been gone over many times, but I make one point in respect of children—that children with obesity are five times more likely to become adults with obesity, and increase their risk of developing a range of conditions, including type-2 diabetes, cancer and heart and liver disease. It is incumbent on us to take the steps that are necessary.
Given the lateness of the hour—and I know that noble Lords wish to get to the question whether there is to be a Division—I shall focus my comments on the amendments relating to advertising, Amendment 151A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black, and the subsequent amendments, to which I have put my own name. There has been a great clarity of argument as to why those amendments deserve favour, but the one that sticks out for me is about ensuring the effectiveness of the legislation that we are speaking about.
We already know that legislation can have a huge impact. For example, the soft drinks industry levy has led to manufacturers reducing 44 million kilograms of sugar each year from drinks in the UK. We also know of the support for the measure of the watershed for advertising of high-fat sugar and salt products—in other words, to protect children from those influences. We know that the measure is supported by organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, the Food Foundation and many other experts as being able to make the difference, because children are influenced by advertising. We should really be ensuring that children see adverts for healthier food and drinks.
Should the will of the House be tested on these amendments, these Benches will certainly be in support, because we feel that the Government should make sure that the proposed pre-9 pm ban on advertising unhealthier foods on TV, with a total ban online, has to be implemented effectively and appropriately across all media and platforms. If it is not and remains as it stands, it will not do the job that it is intended to do, and we will miss an opportunity, which we hope the Minister will reflect on, as the case has been made so clearly and directly.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this debate. I will turn first to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell. As noble Lords are aware, the Government introduced an amendment in Committee to enable adjustments to the date of commencement of the HFSS advertising restrictions, should emerging issues require it to be moved.
We will continue to work with regulators and businesses to ensure that guidance is produced promptly to support timely implementation; our intention remains to implement restrictions from 1 January 2023. We think that date balances ambition with the importance of sufficient time for business to prepare. However, limiting this flexibility to a period of only three months, as proposed by my noble friend’s amendment, would be counterproductive, as that timeframe may not allow us to respond adequately to any unforeseen challenges or ensure smooth delivery of this policy.
Turning to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, I seek to reassure him that our current approach provides an overall assessment of the nutritional content of products, as it accounts for nutrients of concern as well as beneficial nutrients. As such, we consider it to be an effective mechanism for permitting healthier products to be advertised, while still restricting those which are less healthy overall. The detail of the products in scope will be underpinned by secondary legislation, which can provide the necessary detail and be adapted in response to future changes to products on the market. The Government will consult soon on this and other definitions included in the draft regulations, such as the small and medium enterprise exemption.
I turn now to the amendments on platform liability. The Government believe that the online advertising programme remains the best way to address such issues on an industry-wide basis, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the DCMS consultation, which should launch in the next fortnight, will examine the harms associated with paid-for advertising online and consider the measures that could apply to platforms and others in the supply chain in order to increase accountability and transparency.
It is our intention to legislate on those conclusions in this Parliament, as we share the view that it is the right time to put in place holistic measures to tackle platform liability. However, it is also right to bring forward powers in this Bill now, so that we can begin to tackle obesity via restrictions to TV, on-demand programme services and online, in line with current enforcement frameworks for advertising that are familiar to industry. Platforms are not able to pre-vet adverts in the same way that broadcasters can. We recognise that there is a need to address that issue, but to do so in the round.
Amending this Bill in relation to online platforms without wider consultation and at a late stage risks unintended consequences. Those could include undermining the clear responsibility of advertisers to adhere to the restrictions that we are debating; interfering with the competitive dynamics that apply across the online advertising supply chain; not addressing accountability and transparency issues that apply elsewhere in that ecosystem; the danger of the restrictions applying to a wide range of internet service providers beyond those intended, including intermediaries and publishers; and not providing regulators with the right tools, funding or structures to regulate effectively. Were this amendment to pass, the Government would need to consider very carefully whether implementation from 1 January 2023 remained possible. The risks posed by creating a more complicated regulatory framework are likely to result in a delay.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. Do the Government understand the difference between mass brand advertising on free-to-air linear television and the direct addressability to individuals online, where they have all the data—the address, postcode, email address and phone number—of the kids they are advertising to? The Government seem not to understand the pernicious nature of advertising online.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in our 2020 consultation on advertising, we outlined our concerns about online targeting of adverts, so we did look at the approach suggested by my noble friend. There is no evidence to suggest that targeting online does not account for the use of shared devices and profiles between parents and children, the communal viewing of content or false reporting of children’s ages. This—combined with concerns around the accuracy of internet-based targeting and other behavioural data as a way of guessing a user’s age and a lack of transparency in reporting online—shows why the Government believe that we need to introduce these advertising restrictions online in the way that we have.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, especially at this time of night, it is very taxing to try to summarise what is a complex debate raging across a number of issues, and in particular to thank everyone who has spoken. If I fail to thank everybody by name, I hope I will be forgiven in the interests of brevity, but I thank my noble friend the Minister again, not only for her remarks but for the attention, care and hard work she has put into addressing all these issues with me and many other noble Lords who have spoken on the various topics we are addressing.
I have to thank one or two other noble Lords. In particular, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who went out, no doubt at considerable personal risk and with some arduousness, to purchase an example of the Grenade Carb Killa. I had never seen one in captivity or in nature until he produced it in the Chamber today. That in itself is something I am very grateful for. He chose the one that I think is called “white chocolate” or something like that.
Here the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has been helpful to me. I believe there are 14 different flavours of Grenade Carb Killa. It is the view of the confectioner that manufactures them that some will comply with the profiling model while others will not. Perhaps next time the noble Lord could try a different flavour and have it tested in Liverpool, I think it was, and that would generally help to advance things. The difficulty for the company, though, is that this is not a game. It needs to know which of these products has to be reformulated and how for it to remain compliant and stay in business. This was a very helpful illustration of the difficulties.
One other noble Lord I will mention is my noble friend Lord Bethell, who referred to the tobacco advertising ban as if it were some sort of comparison. There is no comparison. Nobody had to carry out a profiling exercise to decide whether something was a cigarette: it was a cigarette or it was not. There was no question of putting it through a model to discover it was a cigarette. Nobody in the cigarette manufacturing business had to reformulate their product and market test it to make it compliant with regulations. What you can do with a tobacco ban very quickly is simply irrelevant to the hurdles the Government are setting in front of businesses.
Apart from that, the many noble Lords who spoke on other aspects of the Bill, some with great knowledge and experience, have illustrated something that I hope everyone in the House can agree on, with the possible exception of my noble friends on the Front Bench: it really is a crying shame that issues of such importance and complexity should be rammed into a major Bill in a schedule when in fact it must be clear to us all now that this schedule should really have been a Bill in its own right, and should have received the attention and scrutiny these complex commercial and nutritional issues deserve. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments to Schedule 18 hold both advertisers and online platforms responsible under statute for compliance with the online HFSS advertising restrictions in the Bill, enforced by a statutory regulator with meaningful sanctions for non-compliance. The concept of “market, sell or arrange” is one already adopted by Ofcom for its statutory regulation of online advertising on some Video Sharing Platforms (VSPs), so it is already well established.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the comments she made, but I am afraid I am wholly unconvinced by them. I do not think she has understood the point made by so many in passionate speeches that action is needed this day, not at some future point. The regulation of the platforms is an issue of principle on which this House should be proud to take a decisive stand. I would therefore like to move the amendment and test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
“LICENSING OF COSMETIC PROCEDURESIntroduction
1_ This Schedule is about the provision that may be made by regulations under section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures).Grant of licence
2_ The regulations may—(a) require a local authority not to grant a licence unless satisfied as to a matter specified in the regulations;(b) require a local authority to have regard, in deciding whether to grant a licence, to a matter specified in the regulations.3_ The regulations may make provision requiring a local authority not to grant a premises licence unless the premises have been inspected in accordance with the regulations.Licence conditions
4_(1) The regulations may make provision for the grant of a licence subject to conditions.(2) Provision of the kind mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) may—(a) enable a local authority to attach conditions to a licence;(b) require a local authority to attach to a licence a condition specified in the regulations.Duration of licence etc
5_(1) The regulations may make provision about the duration, renewal, variation, suspension or revocation of licences.(2) The provision that may be made under sub-paragraph (1) includes provision conferring power on a court by which a person is convicted of an offence under the regulations to vary, suspend or revoke a licence.Reviews and appeals
6_ The regulations may make provision for—(a) the review of decisions under the regulations;(b) appeals against decisions under the regulations.Offences
7_(1) The regulations may create offences in relation to—(a) the breach of a prohibition imposed by virtue of section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures)(1);(b) the breach of a condition attached to a licence;(c) the provision of false or misleading information to a local authority in connection with anything done under the regulations.(2) The regulations must provide for any such offence to be punishable on summary conviction with a fine or a fine not exceeding an amount specified, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.Financial penalties
8_(1) The regulations may confer power on a local authority to impose a financial penalty in relation to—(a) the breach of a prohibition imposed by virtue of section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures)(1);(b) the breach of a condition attached to a licence.(2) The amount of the financial penalty is to be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.(3) If the regulations confer power to impose a financial penalty in respect of conduct for which a criminal offence is created under the regulations, they must provide that a person is not liable to such a penalty in respect of conduct for which the person has been convicted of the offence.(4) If the regulations confer power to impose a financial penalty they must include provision—(a) requiring the local authority, before imposing a financial penalty on a person, to give the person written notice (a “notice of intent”) of the proposed financial penalty;(b) ensuring that the person is given an opportunity to make representations about the proposed financial penalty;(c) requiring the local authority, after the period for making representations, to decide whether to impose the financial penalty;(d) requiring the local authority, if it decides to impose the financial penalty, to give the person notice in writing (a “final notice”) imposing the penalty;(e) enabling a person on whom a financial penalty is imposed to appeal to a court or tribunal in accordance with the regulations;(f) as to the powers of the court or tribunal on such an appeal.(5) The provision that may be made by the regulations by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) includes provision—(a) enabling a notice of intent or final notice to be withdrawn or amended;(b) requiring the local authority to withdraw a final notice in circumstances specified in the regulations;(c) for a financial penalty to be increased by an amount specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations in the event of late payment;(d) as to how financial penalties are recoverable.Enforcement
9_ The regulations may confer on a local authority the function of enforcing the regulations in its area.Fees
10_ The regulations may include provision for fees in relation to the carrying out of functions of a local authority under or in connection with the regulations (including the cost of its enforcement functions under the regulations).Guidance
11_ The regulations may require a local authority, in carrying out functions under the regulations, to have regard to guidance published by the Secretary of State. Interpretation
12_(1) In this Schedule—“grant”, in relation to a licence, includes vary or renew;“licence” means a personal licence or premises licence;“personal licence” has the meaning given by section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures)(2);“premises licence” has the meaning given by section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures)(2).(2) Nothing in this Schedule is to be read as limiting the scope of the power to make regulations under section (Licensing of cosmetic procedures).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule sets out some of the things that may be included in regulations establishing a licensing regime relating to non-surgical cosmetic procedures (including provision for the imposition of fees, the creation of offences and financial penalties).
“(10) The Secretary of State may not exercise the powers provided by virtue of—(a) this section to request a water undertaker to enter into arrangements to increase the fluoride content of the water, or(b) section 164 to request modifications to old English fluoridation arrangements,until an impact assessment has been published setting out the impact on health and the environment, including a cost-benefit analysis.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 156 is in my name, and I declare at the outset that I am co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. This is a simple amendment, and I would like to cover ground that has possibly not been covered at earlier stages of the Bill.
I understand from the Bill and, more particularly, its Explanatory Notes that the purpose of the clause to which this amendment relates is to transfer from local authorities the power, which they have had since 2013 through the Water Industry Act 1991, to propose and consult on new fluoridation schemes and variations to or terminations of existing schemes. It transfers that authority to the department, the reason being that local authorities and the NHS, which previously had responsibility for water fluoridation schemes, have faced difficulty in implementing them. This includes, most recently, the fact that local authority boundaries are not coterminous with water flows, which requires the involvement of several authorities in such schemes in a complex and burdensome way.
The first question, to which I will return later is: if this authority is passing from the local authorities to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, where in the scheme of things do water companies fit? Presumably, it is the water companies themselves that will perform the act. In Amendment 156, I therefore ask simply that the Secretary of State does not exercise the powers within the Bill until such time as
“an impact assessment has been published setting out the impact on health and the environment, including a cost-benefit analysis”.
I was very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for arranging a teach-in, if you like, with the officials in the department and my noble friend Lord Reay. We both benefited from that and were very grateful for it. Subsequently, I also thank the officials for providing, in the first instance, a number of responses to my questions. In particular, I query with my noble friend the level of expenditure, which is significant. We know that we are facing a time of additional pressures—not just an energy crisis but a cost-of-living crisis—and the expenditure incurred by each fluoridating local authority in the financial year 2020-21 is not insignificant.
I will pick out those councils that relate to the largest area, broadly speaking: the West Midlands. I will round the figures up, rather than giving each individual figure. Birmingham City Council spent over £290,000 in that calendar—or, presumably, financial—year. Coventry City Council spent over £206,000. Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £198,000. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £188,000. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £56,000. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council spent over £167,000. Finally, the City of Wolverhampton Council spent over £121,000. How is this financing passed on to the consumers in those local councils? If adding fluoride to the water supply is passed in the Bill, it is for the Department of Health and Social Care to pick up the cost, so how will it do so? From which part of the budget will this come? Perhaps I have missed it, but I do not see anything in the Bill or the Explanatory Notes that says how water companies have been consulted and how they are expected to enter fluoride into the water supply.
Clearly, the debate on which I have not reached agreement with my noble friend the Minister and the department is on the extent to which it is legal to add fluoride to the water supply. In the court case that I was involved in in my training for the Scottish Bar, in preparation for joining the Faculty of Advocates, I sat through pretty much the whole of the McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council case. The petitioner could see no benefit from fluoride being added to her water supply because she had dentures and was not in need of fluoride for that reason. In fact, it was deemed ultra vires. I shall quote the relevant passage of the judgment:
“In my view the word ‘wholesome’ falls properly to be construed in the more restricted sense advocated by the petitioner as relating to water which was free from contamination and pleasant to drink. It follows that fluoridation which in no way facilitates nor is incidental to the supply of such water is outwith the powers of the respondents. The petitioner therefore succeeds on this branch of her case.”
If my recollection is correct, although they lost on the ultra vires point, the Scottish Government—I cannot remember whether it was in the UK Parliament or the Scottish Parliament—reintroduced a water Act that made legal provision in Scotland that gave them the authority. However, and as my noble friend Lord Reay rehearsed in Committee, I understand that Scotland has chosen not to go down that path. I will come on to that in a moment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the hour is late and I shall be brief. The findings of the systematic review of the subject need to be taken into consideration. Screening of over 3,000 papers resulted in careful analysis of 254—quite a large number for a systemic review. Going through this, there are overall benefits. The benefits outweigh any documented harms, and I welcome the clause.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am also aware of the hour, and offer Green support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. We are talking here about a cost-benefit analysis. Some of the costs on which I would focus, and their impacts, go beyond the narrowly medical impacts of the people who consume the water. The question I raised in Committee was whether people today actually consume tap water, and whether they will continue to do so. I made the point that 90% of people drank tap water in 1978, but that figure had fallen to 73% by 1998. I do not believe that there have been detailed national figures since then.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for writing to me in response to that debate and providing a set of figures which the Government had researched. I will note two of the figures which the Minister cited in that letter. One was a 2010 Ipsos MORI survey in the West Midlands showing that two-thirds of surveyed people supported water fluoridation if it was going to improve dental health. That, of course, shows that a third of people are not supporting it. This is the group about which I am concerned—a group which I have encountered many times and in many parts of the country. I do not agree with all their concerns, but that is a fact.
I noted that the Minister also cited a north-east survey from 2021 where 60% of people backed water fluoridation. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, we are talking about people not having a choice about consuming that water, unless they choose to buy bottled water. Anyone going to a supermarket in Sheffield, particularly in its poorer areas, will see people buying bottled water in very large quantities. One of my concerns, and where I hope the cost-benefit analysis would come in, is looking at the sociological issues. The Government should be doing a great deal more to promote the consumption of tap water and to discourage the use of bottled water. However, as the Bill currently stands, it risks pointing us in the opposite direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, talked in Committee about how Liverpool City Council had very successfully engaged in a targeted programme to address the most vulnerable communities and ensure that dental health was improved. It demonstrably was improved.
The Minister said, “Oh well, any local authority can do the same thing.” I point out to him that local authorities’ budgets are enormously overstretched—something we have addressed in the social care elements of the Bill in particular. Would the Government consider perhaps taking the money that might be spent on fluoridation and giving it to local authorities for targeted campaigns to reach the children who need it most?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for moving this amendment. I feel that we have discussed these issues at considerable length at previous stages of the Bill, so I do not wish to go over old ground, other than to say that the Royal Society for Public Health, the British Dental Association, the Chief Medical Officer and many others are very much in favour of greater fluoridisation because, on balance, there is strong scientific evidence that it is an effective public health intervention. In other words, it is the single most effective way to reduce oral health inequalities and tooth decay rates, especially among children, and it is, as your Lordships’ House knows, recommended by the World Health Organization. On all these positive points, I am very much inclined to agree, and do not feel that the amendment before your Lordships’ House would be helpful to support that intervention.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her clear introduction to Amendment 156. The first thing for me to underline is the point she made: the water fluoridation provisions in the Bill will simply transfer the power to initiate fluoridation schemes from local authorities to the Secretary of State. The Bill does not compel the expansion of fluoridation. Any future proposals to establish new schemes would be subject to funding being secured and public consultation, and I will come on to both those things in a second.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Merron, are quite right that the evidence is strong that water fluoridation reduces the incidence of tooth decay for both adults and children, but nobody is complacent about public health. We will continue to be under a legal duty to monitor the health effects of water fluoridation on populations with schemes and to report no less than every four years. Monitoring the evidence is a continuous process and involves colleagues from multiple disciplines, including toxicology.
The law here is explicit. Water companies are required to comply with legislation to protect employees, consumers and the environment from harms. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and other legislation set out the thresholds and criteria for which an environmental impact assessment is already required in relation to developments. The installation of water fluoridation plants in some areas may fall within scope. Furthermore, the Environment Act 2021 will, when brought into force, place a duty on Ministers of the Crown to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles in our policy-making; hence new and revised policies will need to take into account their impact on the environment. I would like again to reassure your Lordships that the evidence is kept under review.
My noble friend referred to the case of McColl v Strathclyde, in which I think she said she was involved. Perhaps I could just state for the record that the plaintiff’s arguments in that case about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation were all explicitly rejected by Lord Jauncey, who found that there was no convincing scientific evidence supporting that position. Since that ruling by Lord Jauncey, 38 years ago, it remains the case that there is no convincing scientific evidence of water fluoridation being harmful to health. Indeed, were we not to have any fluoridation, there would still be areas of the country where fluoride is naturally present in drinking water at a similar level to that achieved by a fluoridation scheme.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have spoken and to my noble friend for the reassurances that he has given. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for pointing out the importance of the cost-benefit analysis. It is disappointing that we have not been told the relative cost-benefit of supervised toothbrushing, particularly since a number of experts, including the adviser to the Select Committee in the other place, have argued that it would be a much better route to go down. I take great comfort from my noble friend saying that the situation will be kept under constant review and that this will continue as more evidence emerges from Sweden, the US and other places outside the UK. I shall, obviously, watch very carefully the secondary legislation to which my noble friend referred. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage.
Lord Kamall
“Child safeguarding etc in health and care: policy about information sharing
(1) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report describing the government’s policy in relation to the sharing of information by or with public authorities in the exercise of relevant functions of those authorities, for purposes relating to—(a) children’s health or social care, or(b) the safeguarding or promotion of the welfare of children.(2) In this section, “relevant functions” means functions relating to children’s health or social care, so far as exercisable in relation to England.(3) The report must include an explanation of whether or to what extent it is the government’s policy that a consistent identifier should be used for each child, to facilitate the sharing of information.(4) The report must include a summary of the Secretary of State’s views about implementation of the policy referred to in subsection (1), including any views about steps that should be taken to overcome barriers to implementation.(5) The report must be published and laid before Parliament within one year beginning with the date on which this section comes into force.(6) In this section “child” means a person aged under 18.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a report describing the government’s policy in relation to information-sharing by or with authorities with health and social care functions, for purposes relating to children’s health or social care or the safeguarding or promotion of the welfare of children.
“Licensing of cosmetic procedures
(1) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of reducing the risk of harm to the health or safety of members of the public, make regulations—(a) prohibiting an individual in England from carrying out specified cosmetic procedures in the course of business, unless the person has a personal licence;(b) prohibiting a person from using or permitting the use of premises in England for the carrying out of specified cosmetic procedures in the course of business, unless the person has a premises licence.(2) In this section—“cosmetic procedure” means a procedure, other than a surgical or dental procedure, that is or may be carried out for cosmetic purposes; and the reference to a procedure includes— (a) the injection of a substance;(b) the application of a substance that is capable of penetrating into or through the epidermis;(c) the insertion of needles into the skin;(d) the placing of threads under the skin;(e) the application of light, electricity, cold or heat;“licensed premises” means premises in respect of which a premises licence is in force;“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England;(b) a district council in England;(c) a London borough council;(d) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(e) the Common Council of the City of London (in its capacity as a local authority), the Sub-Treasurer of the Inner Temple or the Under Treasurer of the Middle Temple;(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;“personal licence” means a licence, granted by a specified local authority under the regulations, which authorises an individual to carry out a cosmetic procedure of a description specified in the licence;“premises licence” means a licence, granted by a specified local authority under the regulations, which authorises premises to be used for the carrying out of a cosmetic procedure of a description specified in the licence; “specified cosmetic procedure” means a cosmetic procedure of a description specified in the regulations;“specified local authority” means a local authority of a description specified in the regulations.(3) The provision which may be made by regulations under this section by virtue of section 166(1)(a) includes—(a) provision amending Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (investigatory powers);(b) provision repealing, revoking or amending provision made by or under any local Act.(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) Schedule (Licensing of cosmetic procedures) makes further provision about regulations under this section (including provision for the imposition of fees, the creation of criminal offences and financial penalties).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause confers power on the Secretary of State to establish a licensing regime in connection with non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 16th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-IV Marshalled List for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
16:39 - Division on Amendment 158 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 158 agreed.
17:03 - Division on Amendment 162 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 162 agreed.
20:14 - Division on Amendment 170 - Ayes: 145 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 170 disagreed.
Lord Crisp
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after this Act is passed, consult and report on the desirability of making a scheme (referred to in this section and section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) as a statutory scheme) for one or more of the following purposes—(a) regulating, for the purposes of improving public health, the prices which may be charged by any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products for the supply of any tobacco products;(b) limiting the profits which may accrue to any manufacturer or importer in connection with the manufacture or supply of tobacco products;(c) providing for any manufacturer or importer of tobacco products to pay to the Secretary of State an amount calculated by reference to sales or estimated sales of those products (whether on the basis of net prices, average selling prices or otherwise) to be used for the purposes of reducing smoking prevalence and improving public health.(2) The consultation must ask for views on a draft statutory scheme (or alternative draft schemes), which may, in particular, make any provision mentioned in subsections (3) to (6).(3) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount representing sums charged by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, for tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(4) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount representing the profits, in excess of the limits determined under the scheme, accruing to any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies in connection with the manufacture or importation of tobacco products covered by the scheme to be paid by that person to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(5) The draft scheme or schemes may provide for any amount payable in accordance with the scheme by any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(6) The draft scheme or schemes may—(a) prohibit any manufacturer or importer to whom the scheme applies from varying, without the approval of the Secretary of State, any price charged by the manufacturer or importer for the supply of any tobacco product covered by the scheme, and(b) provide for any amount representing any variation in contravention of that prohibition in the sums charged by that person for that product to be paid to the Secretary of State within a specified period.(7) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out in detail any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause, along with others, would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures to deliver the Government’s ultimatum for industry to make smoked tobacco obsolete by 2030 and for England to be smoke-free with smoking rates 5% or below.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 158 and note that the other three amendments in this group are consequential on this one.
These amendments would require the Government to consult on a statutory polluter pays scheme imposed on tobacco manufacturers to fund measures to reduce smoking prevalence and improve public health. In 2019, when the Government announced their smoke-free 2030 ambition, they promised to consider just this sort of polluter pays approach to raising funds for tobacco control. The amendments require the Government to fulfil this commitment by consulting on a statutory scheme and reporting back to Parliament within six months of the Bill’s passage. The scheme consists of two distinct parts: a levy raised from tobacco sales volumes, which would raise an estimated £700 million a year, and a price cap on tobacco products to prevent tobacco companies simply passing these costs on to smokers.
The amendments propose that funding from this scheme be used to pay for the tobacco control measures needed to achieve the smoke-free 2030 ambition. This includes greater investment in stopping smoking services, mass media public education campaigns, targeted support for disadvantaged groups, tackling the sale of elicit tobacco and preventing young people taking up smoking. There are three sets of arguments in this regard, which are all compelling. The first is the impact of tobacco on public health. The second, bluntly, is that this is in line with government policy. The third is the need for a pragmatic approach to where we are today and how we can achieve funding.
Let me just make a few points about the first of those, the impact of tobacco. First, smoking is, of course, the largest single risk factor in ill health and early mortality. Secondly, it is not a lifestyle choice; it may have been originally—as an ex-smoker, I know that—but it is also addictive, and addiction normally starts in childhood. That is why it is really important that we target younger people. Two-thirds of younger people who start smoking carry on into adult life. The current rate of decline is insufficient; smoking prevalence is coming down around the country but, currently, it would take until at least 2047 for the most disadvantaged communities to achieve the level required. Indeed, inequality is a big issue here. Given that so many noble Lords have spoken about inequalities in relation to other amendments to the Health and Care Bill, I just draw out that smoking is responsible for half of the 10-year difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest parts of society. Whether one smokes or not has a far greater impact on life expectancy than a person’s social position in society.
This is a fundamental health issue—and there are costs. There are costs to the individual: it is estimated that the average smoker spends about £2,000 a year on smoking; and half a million households, a third of a million children and 183,000 pensioners are living in poverty because of the costs of smoking. There are also costs to the system. It is not just about mortality; it is very much about morbidity. We know, for example, that smokers are more than five times as likely as non-smokers to have microbiologically confirmed influenza and twice as likely to develop pneumonia. Similarly, we know that smokers who quit smoking have better treatment outcomes from day one for everything from cancer to cardiovascular disease, diabetes to dementia, maternity to mental health, stroke to surgery—to the benefit not just of those smokers, but the NHS that provides the service and, frankly, the economy by ensuring that people of working age can be more productive and not take so many days off sick.
Finally, in talking about the impact, I note that there is now enormous public support for these measures. In a recent survey, some 77% of the public supported making tobacco manufacturers pay a levy or licence fee to government for measures to help smokers quit and prevent young people taking up smoking. Nobody in your Lordships’ House will be surprised to know that a levy on tobacco manufacturers has also been endorsed by around 50 health organisations of many different sorts.
As I said at the beginning, there are arguments for these amendments that are about the impact of smoking, which are compelling in themselves. There are arguments that this is fundamentally in line with government policy and that the smoking target will not be hit in 2030 without something of this sort. There is also the very pragmatic argument that in a time of financial difficulty such as this, it is very often the longer-term measures that get cut. There is nothing longer term than making sure that we stop children smoking at an early age. We have, therefore, in this levy a very practical way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 158 and the others in this group, to which I have added my name. Last Wednesday was national No Smoking Day, and there was an excellent event in a Commons dining room hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health—I declare an interest as an officer of that group—to celebrate the 50th anniversary of ASH. The star speaker was the Public Health Minister, Maggie Throup. She reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to achieving a smoke-free England by 2030 and rightly said that stop-smoking services would be at the centre of the forthcoming tobacco control plan.
NICE has estimated that, for every £1 invested in stop-smoking services, £2.37 will be saved on treating smoking-related diseases and reduced productivity. However, cuts to local public health budgets have disproportionately hit stop-smoking services. They have lost a third of their funding in real terms since 2015, accompanied by a decline in the number of smokers setting quit dates.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lords Lord Crisp and Lord Faulkner in support of these amendments, which replicate the amendment I moved in Committee. They set out proposals for a statutory smoke-free 2030 fund, based on the polluter pays principles, to pay for measures to end smoking. We are grateful to both Ministers for the time that they spent with us on a Zoom call last week, when we sought to persuade them of the merits of these amendments, and time alone will tell whether those representations bore fruit.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Naseby, whom I see in his place, suggested that these proposals had been consulted on in 2015, and that the Government had concluded they were not workable, a conclusion which he said had been reiterated by the Exchequer Secretary on 10 January 2022. While my noble friend was right to say that the Government consulted on the levy in 2015, they did not consult on the proposals before us today. What was consulted on then was an additional tax, and the decision was taken not to proceed because tobacco manufacturers and importers would pass the costs of a levy on to consumers; the Statement by the Treasury in January merely reiterated that conclusion. Back in 2015, the regulation of tobacco prices to prevent the costs of a levy being passed on to consumers was prohibited by the rules of the European Union. That is no longer the case, so the 2015 objection to the levy no longer holds true. The Government can now put the financial burden firmly where it belongs, on the polluter—the tobacco manufacturer— and not the polluted—the smoker.
Our scheme enables the Government to limit the ability of manufacturers to profit from smokers, while protecting government excise tax revenues, which is a win-win for the Government and for smokers. The scheme is modelled on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, the PPRS, which has been in operation for over 40 years and is overseen by the Department of Health and Social Care. It has teams of analysts who already have the skills to administer a scheme for cigarettes, a much simpler product to administer than pharmaceutical medicines.
Unlike corporate taxes, which are based on reported profits and can be—and indeed are—evaded, the levy would be based on sales volumes, as is the case in America, where a similar scheme already operates. Sales volumes are much easier for the Government to monitor and much harder for companies to misrepresent. Implementing a levy would not require a new quango to be set up, as the Department of Health and Social Care has all the expertise needed both to supervise the scheme and to allocate the funds raised. We would not be averse to the consultation mentioned in the amendment including other options, as long as it included careful consideration of our proposals.
The Government have said that they accept the polluter pays principle. My party has form in implementing that proposal through the landfill levy, the tax on sugar in soft drinks and requiring developers to pay for the costs of remediating building safety defects. Indeed, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, the Government promised to consider this approach to funding tobacco control nearly three years ago in the prevention Green Paper. Surely they should now welcome this opportunity to consider how it can be put into practice.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name, and which are in accordance with my party’s policy.
In Committee, there was almost universal support for dealing with health inequality issues, and there was widespread recognition that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest people in this country is caused by smoking. There are many ways in which we can further reduce the prevalence of smoking, and those of us who are members of the APPG on Smoking and Health set them out during the course of our debates.
However, we are concentrating today on just one key principle which is necessary if the Government’s target of reducing the prevalence of smoking to 5% or below is to be achieved by 2030. That principle is finding the funds to support smoking cessation and tobacco control measures through a levy on the tobacco companies. This would help to ameliorate the terrible damage done by their products, which includes shortening the lives of half the people who use them.
The funding for local authorities to pursue tobacco control policies such as smoking cessation services and enforcement and for national mass media campaigns has been cut significantly. Without the proposed levy, the NHS will face greater costs in future in dealing with the many issues, such as lung cancer and heart disease, which arise in part because of smoking tobacco.
Last month, together with other officers of the APPG on Smoking and Health, I had the pleasure of meeting Javed Khan, chair of the Government’s independent review into smoking. He listened carefully to all our proposals, particularly on the levy, and certainly understood the necessity of funding being found. The Government have asked him to say what the most impactful interventions that could be taken forward in the new tobacco control plan would be. He told us that if nothing different is done, the Government’s smoke-free target will not be met. He promised that his recommendations would be “bold and brave”, as I hope they will.
I expect that we will soon get some soothing words from the Minister. But before he replies to this debate, I ask him to consider how, in “Hamlet”, King Claudius has to admit that
“words without thoughts never to heaven go”.
I hope the Minister will give us not just warm words about tobacco control but confirm that the Government have thought about the tobacco levy and will undertake a formal consultation on it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I hasten to say to your Lordships that I do not smoke and have never smoked. In considering the amendments before us this afternoon, it is worth giving some of the official statistics rather than the aspirational ones. Smoking rates in England continue to decline year on year and that has been a trend for the last 30 years. According to the Office for National Statistics in 2021, smoking rates in England have declined significantly, from 20% in 2011 to 12% in 2020. The decline in the number of smokers has resulted in a reduction in the cost to the NHS of treating the impact of smoking. In 2015, Public Health England estimated that the total smoking-related cost to NHS England was £2.6 billion a year, when 18% of the population smoked. This figure and the corresponding cost to NHS England over the last five years have declined further, given the 12% smoking rate in England in 2020. According to NHS data published in 2019 on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people, the number of young people aged 11 to 15 smoking has declined dramatically, from 16% to just 5% in 2018. According to the Office for National Statistics in 2021, only 12% of 18 to 24 year-olds in Great Britain smoke, a major reduction from 26% in 2011 and the lowest smoking rate across all age groups except the over-65s.
By way of background, according to the most recent HMRC tax gap data, illegal smuggling and consumption of illicit tobacco cost Her Majesty’s Government £2.3 billion in lost revenue in 2019-20, a figure that remains unchanged from the fiscal year 2016-17, which reinforces the fact that the Government’s anti-illicit tobacco strategy is not working. It ought to be working, when you have a situation where a group of companies is working with the Department for Health and has done over many years. Frankly, it is a sad reflection on the status of HMRC that this illicit tobacco importation is increasing. You have only to look at what is happening in Dover or any of our other ports today to see why it is increasing. It is a pathetic and embarrassing performance at Dover at the moment, the net result being not just tobacco but illegal alcohol and so on coming in.
Now we look at the idea of a levy, something that has never been in the manifesto of a Conservative Government to the best of my knowledge. A levy on any company prescribed by government, even companies trading locally, certainly does not fit into the basic elements of our financial and economic strategy. If it was just a levy on cigarettes, there might be half a case, but this is on anything to do with tobacco. Most of all those other products have no effect on people’s health—they are a matter of enjoyment—but this idea goes across the whole lot. It has not been thought through.
It is all very well my noble friend Lord Young on the Back Benches saying that there was a consultation in 2015 on a levy on tobacco manufacturers’ profits and the Government concluded that it would be unworkable, but that was because we were in the EU so it has all changed now. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench: I would have thought he had enough on his hands without introducing a complicated levy, but that is my personal view. There was an exchange between the Exchequer Secretary and the then shadow Exchequer Secretary, confirming
“that our position regarding the 2015 consultation stands. A levy would be a complex”—
this is not going to change—
“and costly way of raising money to fund tobacco control measures and would be unlikely to provide a stable revenue stream.”
I say to my noble friends on all sides of the House that tobacco manufacturers already invest hundreds of millions of pounds every year in R&D and highly skilled jobs to bring to market alternative smoke-free nicotine products. Some of your Lordships may use e-cigarettes, nicotine pouches or heated tobacco products. Further tax increases on manufacturers as a whole will have the effect of reducing that investment, which is not a very clever way forward.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments; my name was on an amendment at an earlier stage. I hope that the Minister will have managed to persuade other parts of government that they will not achieve a smoke-free 2030 in the UK unless they move further and faster on tackling an industry built on promoting ill health and death—the reverse of what the health service seeks to do.
The Department of Health has come a long way in this area, with much cross-party working, and I know that the noble Earl himself has been part of that cross-party support in tackling the terrible health consequences of smoking. I have a sense of déjà vu, as I think others might. Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has been a rather lone voice on the other side. From time to time FOREST, which makes it plain that it is funded by the tobacco industry, kindly sends me its brief, no doubt inadvertently, and I recognise some familiar phrases that have just been voiced. I noted the rueful expression of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, took apart what he had said about the levy.
The Government say that they are committed to delivering a smoke-free 2030, but keep putting off the action required. Not all parts of government are fully aligned to this in the actions taken. The steps proposed in the amendments are designed to help the Government achieve what they say they wish to do. I therefore commend them to the House.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I want to make just a small factual supplement to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. In fact, it was a Conservative Government in 1957 who introduced the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme or PPRS, and that scheme has been sustained ever since by Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential and life-saving, it does not seem too far a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene, but I was prompted to do so not least by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham. That the PPRS has been sustained by Governments, albeit amended from time to time, should not lead us to the conclusion that all products should have their pricing and regulation controlled by government. I do not think that the analogy runs at all, so we should ignore the PPRS for these purposes.
My noble friend on the Front Bench whom I believe is replying to this debate and I were in a coalition Government with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and we were pretty clear then. I remember a decade ago creating a bit of a storm by saying that I wanted to end up with a smoke-free England. We have reached a point now where there are tobacco companies which think that we are going to arrive at that position, and so we should. I do not think that this debate is about whether we achieve that; it is about the mechanisms by which we do so.
If my noble friend reiterates the Government’s intention, willingness and sense of urgency about bringing forward measures, as I hope he does, I would not bind the hands of the Government with these amendments. Frankly, even if they were passed, nothing would happen unless and until the Government bring forward legislation for the purpose. It would be better for us to have the debate and make the position clear. I do not disagree with the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others—when we were in government, we implemented things such as the ban on display in shops and preventing the availability of cigarettes to youngsters through vending machines, which I think was one of the most important things we could do. We made progress; we need to make more. We need the Government to come forward with proposals for that, but these amendments are not necessary if the Government say that they are willing to make progress.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but I wanted to counter the point made to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that he was simply rehearsing lines from FOREST, the pro-freedom to smoke group. I also inadvertently receive communiques from ASH, the anti-smoking lobby group—I think it has me muddled up with someone else—and I have heard many of its lines rehearsed here as well on the other side of the argument. I thought it might be worth noting that.
Secondly, I have to declare an interest: I smoke. I appreciate that this means that I am beyond any redemption—goodness knows, I am controversial enough on a range of other things, but that is probably the worst.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Well, good. I have got a few “hear, hears”.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Does the noble Baroness accept that a crucial difference is that organisations such as ASH are funded by organisations concerned with public health, including Cancer Research UK and people who deal with trying to save lives, while FOREST is funded by the tobacco industry, which kills half its customers?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I was coming on to that point. I would really appreciate a dose of honesty in this House. If those people who are so hostile to smoking a legal product believe that it is the killer they allege, they should call for smoking to be made illegal and be done with it. At the moment, tobacco companies are legal companies. People talk about them with such distaste, as though they should be abolished. It would be better and more heartfelt if they argued that tobacco should be illegal; then we would have a different debate. Public health is not always neutral when you talk about public health lobbyists, in my opinion. The freedom to choose to do something that is bad for your health is still allowed in a free society, despite some people wishing it was not.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I do not recall anybody suggesting in the debate that tobacco companies should be made illegal. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is not suggesting that, just because the number of smokers is going down, nothing more should be done. I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, suggest that, if we carry on at this rate, it will be another 25 years before we get to where we need to be.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I was suggesting that we do carry on because the evidence is there in government data, not in a forecast from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, or some minor operation that he—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I remind noble Lords that only short questions of elucidation are allowed on Report.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Many thanks. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that a lot more people will be dead from tobacco if we carry on at this rate. He suggested that, just because this measure was not in the Conservative Party’s manifesto, perhaps we should not carry it forward. Well, the Conservative Party does not have all the best ideas, although I congratulate the Government on the sugary drinks levy, which has been highly successful. We support the polluter pays amendment introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I might call it the killer pays amendment because, make no mistake, this is a killer substance.
I happen to live in Wales so I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned yet. I am glad that the Welsh Government have committed to a smoke-free Wales by 2030. However, although England announced its intention to go smoke-free by 2030 two years before Wales did, Wales has leapt ahead as regards action, which is why I hope that the Minister will either accept Amendment 158 or give adequate assurances. In the Green Paper of July 2019, the Government said:
“Further proposals for moving towards a smoke-free 2030 will be set out at a later date.”
Approaching three years later, still nothing has happened. There are no further proposals and no funding has been announced. In contrast, Wales has published concrete proposals, but many of the interventions require action from the UK Government. Examples include the polluter pays funding mechanism, which could help to fund tobacco control in Wales; raising the age of sale; and putting warnings on cigarettes and pack inserts. I am concerned that, by being so slow, the UK Government are undermining the ability of the devolved Administrations to achieve their smoke-free ambitions. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, if he chooses to put this amendment to a vote.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and for putting forward this group of amendments. In introducing Amendment 158 and the consequential amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined that they would establish a consultation on a polluter pays levy whereby funds are raised by the scheme to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures to deliver a smoke-free 2030. This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved.
We know from this debate and many previous debates that tobacco use carries huge health risks, and disproportionately so for the most disadvantaged in society, whose likelihood of smoking is four times higher in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived. If ever there was a case for levelling up, this is it. My noble friend Lord Faulkner rightly highlighted that we have seen cuts to stop-smoking services, and this group of amendments seeks to redress the situation in a practical way. It is vital that we motivate and support more smokers to quit, while reducing the numbers of children and young people who start to smoke. Greater action is clearly needed now.
The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and in the informative debate we had in Committee, on which I have reflected carefully. Let me first remind the House of what we are doing in this area.
We are committed to making England smoke free by 2030 and will set out our approach in a new tobacco control plan to be published later this year. As part of that work, we are exploring a number of regulatory proposals and have launched an independent review into smoking. The review, led by Javed Khan OBE, will make a set of focused policy and regulatory recommendations to government on the most impactful interventions to reduce the uptake of smoking and support people to stop smoking for good. It is in that context that I turn to the detail of these amendments.
As mentioned in previous debates, while I speak for the Government as a whole, tobacco taxation matters are ones for Her Majesty’s Treasury. As noble Lords will know, the tobacco industry is already required to make a significant contribution to public finances through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. Through these finances we are able to fund local authority stop-smoking services through the public health grant and provide extra resources as part of the NHS long-term plan commitment to help smokers quit. As part of the annual Budget process, Her Majesty’s Treasury will continue the policy of using tax to raise revenues and encourage cessation through continuing with above-RPI duty increases on tobacco products. It is a proven and effective revenue-raising system.
I am as keen as anyone to find new ways in which to bear down on the prevalence of smoking and I am proud to have been instrumental in bringing some about. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment as it stands. The proposal may look simple on the surface but it is complex to implement. It may also take several years to materialise. Our strong preference is to continue with high tobacco taxation and excise as the best means and the most efficient process through which to generate revenue that can be put back into public services. However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—I hope that this will at least be of some reassurance to him—that the department’s officials will continue to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury to explore whether there are other innovative financing models that can be applied to the tobacco industry to support Smokefree 2030 and be as effective and efficient as the current taxation system. It may be—I do not know—that Javed Khan will come forward with recommendations in this area. We should allow him the necessary time to conduct his independent review.
I realise my reply will be disappointing to the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Faulkner, and my noble friend Lord Young, who are understandably passionate about this issue. I hope they will realise that we are very much on the same page regarding the overriding objective to reduce and eliminate the practice of smoking in this country. I hope I have provided some reassurance that the Government have listened and thought carefully about this proposal, even if we have not felt it right to proceed with it, in the end. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would expect, we will set out our financial plans to support smoke-free 2030 in our new tobacco control plan. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, first, I thank those noble Lords who added their names to this amendment and spoke so eloquently in this debate, which covered a range of important issues that between them present a compelling argument for what is only a consultation. Secondly, I thank the other noble Lords who spoke during the debate, including those who spoke against the amendment, because having a proper debate allows us to pull out some important issues. I will return to that in a moment. Thirdly, I thank the Minister for the time that he and his colleagues gave to meet with us, and for our helpful discussions. I very much accept the noble Earl’s statement about us being on the same side and pushing in the same direction, but we need to get there.
That takes me to picking up some of the points that were made. I thought the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, was very helpful. The point he made about how the numbers are coming down was terrific. It is great news—so let us accelerate it. We can get behind that and really shift it. There is a problem here, as with so much in public health, in that people talk about aggregates and averages. There is a real trap in aggregates and averages. The aggregate could come down to 5%, but 20% of people in the lowest socioeconomic group could still be smoking. That is the problem when you deal in gross numbers. I said in the debate that, according to Cancer Research UK, which is a reasonably reputable body, it would be 2047 before we saw that level of achievement among the lowest socioeconomic group in the country. Aggregates and averages are real traps in public health.
I understand the good faith of the Ministers in this House. However, and I think I speak for my colleagues on this amendment, we note that the Green Paper in 2019 promised to consider the idea of polluter or perpetrator pays—whatever is the right language for that. Almost three years on, we have not yet seen that happen. Not surprisingly, we are rightly suspicious of how these things can be kicked into the long grass and continue for a long time. If we are to achieve the 2030 outcomes for all the people for whom we want to achieve them, we need to accelerate. I believe the proposals put forward here are practical and implementable, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, spelled out.
In our discussions with Ministers, we offered a number of concessions, including the idea that it did not have to be precisely this scheme that was implemented, as they could consult on others. I am sorry the Government have been unable to accept that. On the basis of everything that has been said today, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Crisp
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary
(1) The Secretary of State may make any provision he or she considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme of the type mentioned in section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), or(b) the determination of the provision to be made in a proposed statutory scheme.(2) The provision may, in particular, require any person to whom such a scheme may apply to—(a) record and keep information;(b) provide information to the Secretary of State in electronic form.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) store electronically the information which is submitted in accordance with this provision;(b) ensure that information submitted in accordance with this provision is made publicly available on a website, taking the need to protect trade secrets duly into account.(4) Where the Secretary of State is preparing to make or vary a statutory scheme, he or she may make any provision he or she considers necessary or expedient for transitional or transitory purposes which could be made by such a scheme.”
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: enforcement
(1) The provisions of this section apply if, following consultation under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), legislation is enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme.(2) Regulations may provide for a person who contravenes any provision of the scheme, including any regulations or directions made under the scheme, to be liable to pay a penalty to the Secretary of State.(3) The penalty may be—(a) a single penalty not exceeding £5 million;(b) a daily penalty not exceeding £500,000 for every day on which the contravention occurs or continues.(4) Regulations may provide for any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State by virtue of any provision in the scheme reflecting section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) (4) or (6)(b) to be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent.(5) Regulations may provide for any amount payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of any provision in the scheme reflecting section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) (3), (4), (5) or (6)(b) (including such an amount as increased under subsection (4) of this section) to carry interest at a rate specified or referred to in the regulations.(6) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and importers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of the scheme, section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary), and this section.(7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, reading—(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision, and(b) in subsection (5) of that section, the references to interested persons as references to any persons and the reference to any decision to take enforcement action as a reference to any enforcement decision.(8) In subsections (6) and (7), “enforcement decision” means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—(a) require a specific manufacturer or importer to provide information to him or her,(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or importer, any price or profit,(c) refuse to give his or her approval to a price increase made by a specific manufacturer or importer, or(d) require a specific manufacturer or importer to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to him or her,and in this subsection “specific” means specified in the decision.(9) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section.(10) Subsection (9) does not apply to any action by the Secretary of State to recover as a debt any amount required to be paid to the Secretary of State under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation) or this section.(11) The Secretary of State may by order increase (or further increase) either of the sums mentioned in subsection (3).”
“Tobacco products statutory scheme: controls: supplementary
(1) The provisions of this section apply if, following consultation under section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), legislation is enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme.(2) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State by legislation enacted which enables the making of a statutory scheme, and by section (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) may be exercised by—(a) making regulations, or(b) giving directions to a specific manufacturer or importer.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may confer power for the Secretary of State to give directions to a specific manufacturer or importer; and in this subsection “specific” means specified in the direction concerned.(4) In this section and sections (Tobacco products statutory scheme: consultation), (Tobacco products statutory scheme: supplementary) and (Tobacco products statutory scheme: enforcement)—“tobacco product” means a product that can be consumed and consists, even partly, of tobacco;“manufacturer” means any person who manufactures tobacco products;“importer” means any person who imports tobacco products into the United Kingdom with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, and contravention of a provision includes a failure to comply with it.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Appropriate consent to transplantation activities when travelling abroad
(1) Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in human material for transplantation) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country where explicit consent is not required for the legal donation of controlled material which does not meet the criteria in subsection (1A)(a) to (c) and receives any controlled material, for the purpose of transplantation, without—(i) the free, informed and specific consent of a living donor, or(ii) the free, informed and specific consent of the donor’s next of kin, where the donor is unable to provide consent;(g) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country where explicit consent is required for the legal donation of controlled material and receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation where the material was obtained without—(i) the free, informed and specific consent of a living donor, or(ii) the free, informed and specific consent of the donor’s next of kin, where the donor is unable to provide consent;(h) travels outside the United Kingdom to a country or part of a country and receives any controlled material for the purpose of transplantation for which, in exchange for the removal of controlled material—(i) the living donor, or a third party, receives a financial gain or comparable advantage, or(ii) where the controlled material comes from a deceased donor, a third party receives financial gain or comparable advantage.”(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of countries where, explicit consent is not required for the legal donation of controlled material, determining whether each of those countries—(a) provides a formal, publicly funded scheme for opting out of deemed consent for donation of controlled material,(b) provides an effective programme of public education to its population on the deemed consent system and the opt-out scheme which delivers a high level of public understanding of both, and(c) is not considered to be committing Genocide by resolution of the House of Commons.(1B) In paragraph (h) in subsection (1), the expression “financial gain or comparable advantage” does not include compensation for loss of earnings and any other justifiable expenses caused by the removal or by the related medical examinations, or compensation in case of damage which is not inherent to the removal of controlled material.(1C) Subsection (1E) applies if—(a) an act which forms part of an offence under subsection (1) takes place outside the United Kingdom, but(b) the person committing the act has a close connection with the United Kingdom.(1D) For the purposes of subsection (1C)(b), a person has a close connection with the United Kingdom if, and only if, the person was one of the following at the time the acts or omissions concerned were done or made—(a) a British citizen;(b) a British overseas territories citizen;(c) a British National (Overseas);(d) a British Overseas citizen;(e) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 was a British subject;(f) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act;(g) an individual ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom;(h) a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom;(i) a Scottish partnership.(1E) Where this subsection applies, proceedings for the offence may be taken in any criminal court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.”(4) In subsection (3), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.(5) In subsection (4), after “subsection (1)” insert “(a) to (e)”.(6) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(f) to (h) shall be liable—(a) on summary conviction—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,(ii) to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or(iii) to both;(b) on conviction on indictment—(i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 9 years,(ii) to a fine, or(iii) to both.”(7) In section 34 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (information about transplant operations), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) must require specified persons to—(a) keep patient identifiable records for all instances of UK citizens who have received transplant procedures performed outside the United Kingdom; and(b) report instances of transplant procedures performed on UK citizens outside the United Kingdom to NHS Blood and Transplant.(2B) Regulations under subsection (1) must require NHS Blood and Transplant to produce an annual report on instances of UK citizens receiving transplant procedures outside the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is aimed at ensuring that in relation to organ tourism, there must be informed consent with no coercion or financial gain for the donation of organs. Thus prohibiting organ tourism which involves either forced organ harvesting or black market organ trafficking.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this was debated two weeks ago, but I know that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, wishes to say a few brief words to your Lordships’ House. With the permission of the House, I will say very briefly, without seeking to open the debate, what the amendment does. It is to amend the Human Tissue Act to prohibit UK citizens from travelling to countries such as China, although the wording in the amendment is not country-specific, for the purpose of organ transplantation. The restrictions are based on ensuring that there is appropriate consent, no coercion and no financial gain.
Forced organ harvesting in China is the crime of forcibly extracting organs from prisoners of conscience, killing the victim in the process. The harvested organs are sold to Chinese officials, Chinese nationals or foreigners for transplantation. This is a very modest amendment, doing our bit to try to prevent this obnoxious habit. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for allowing me to say in a few sentences why the Government advise noble Lords not to support the amendment.
Reason number one is the effect on patients. In my submission, very sick patients who may be taken overseas for a transplant but are not fully made aware of how their organ was sourced should not have to face prosecution when they return to the UK. The existing legislation rightly targets those who buy and sell organs, not recipients who may have been quite unaware of any commercial dealing taking place. If we target the organ recipient, we will find that those who legitimately receive organs overseas—incidentally, individuals who are more likely to come from ethnic-minority backgrounds—will be deterred from seeking follow-up treatment for fear of being treated like a criminal suspect.
Reason number two is that the mischief the amendment seeks to address is dwarfed by the considerable burdens it would impose on the NHS. All the information indicates that we are dealing, at worst, with tiny numbers of illegal transplants performed overseas. The amendment would require officials, whose focus should be on promoting legitimate donation, to research and write a report every year on the status of every other deemed consent system in the world and on the public understanding of each scheme. That is not a drafting criticism but a necessary consequence of what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. In my view, it is an unreasonable ask and a hugely disproportionate use of resources.
To address the issue at first base, we will take forward the excellent suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to work with NHS Blood and Transplant. My noble friend Lord Kamall has already instructed officials to engage with it on how we can help clinicians make their patients aware of the health risks, the risk that they may be exploiting others and the risk of breaking the law if they travel abroad in search of an illegitimate transplant. I truly think that is a better way forward, and I invite the noble Lord to change his mind about pressing his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the House. It is time for the House to make a decision. I am very grateful to the Minister for picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in relation to NHS Blood and Transplant. In the end, it may be a small gesture but it is an important gesture—a mark against this obnoxious habit. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“Alcohol labelling
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than one year after this Act is passed—(a) publish a report on alcohol labelling, assessing which elements should be mandatory on labels to improve consumer knowledge, and this should include, but not be limited to—(i) warning about alcohol harms,(ii) calorific and other nutritional information,(b) lay the report before Parliament, and a Minister of the Crown must arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on alcohol labelling to improve consumer knowledge.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we now come to an amendment on alcohol, and I declare that I chair the Commission on Alcohol Harm. This amendment is designed to get the Government to produce a report on labelling, which is long overdue. Some people in this Chamber have been asking for it for 20 years or so, and nobody can quite understand the delay.
My amendment looks at the feasibility of putting information on labels about the harms and calorie content, and it runs completely in line with the Government’s strategy on trying to do something about obesity across the nation. I know that some people in the alcohol industry have suggested that they would like to put a QR code on, but it seems almost impossible to imagine people going with their mobile phones along a supermarket shelf looking at all these QR codes. If they can put some printing on the QR code, they could put on some printing with proper health information, harms information and calorie information in a way that one can read it in a reasonably sized font.
Alcohol is the leading cause of death and ill-health among 15 to 49 year-olds. It is linked to more than 200 health conditions. Alcohol is highly calorific: two glasses of wine can contain almost the entire daily recommended sugar limit. If you have two glasses of some wines, you will have a calorific intake that is the same as that of a big burger. This is not small numbers of calories.
Currently, the only legal requirements on alcohol labels are alcohol by volume, the volume itself and the common allergens that may be present. This does not match up with other food and drink. Alcohol labels do not list ingredients, calories or other information such as health impacts. There is more information on a bottle of orange juice or a carton of milk than there is on a bottle of wine.
The Government have committed money for the drugs strategy. That is most welcome, but I hope it will not all get diverted into drugs of addiction and that it will actually be used to support alcohol treatment services. We know that, in the last few years, only about one in five dependent drinkers have been able to access treatment services for their alcohol addiction.
The problem for consumers when they start out is that they do not know what they are consuming. They do not realise how calorie-laden the drinks are, and they cannot make informed choices about their health. Nor can they make informed choices about the dangers they pose to others, which includes other people with whom they interact when they are intoxicated as well as the dangers in driving.
Voluntary labelling has failed. We have seen again and again that consumers will not get the information they need on alcohol labels unless it is required in legislation. Seven in 10 people think that the warning should be displayed on alcohol labels as a legal requirement. Even the symbol not to drink in pregnancy is so tiny that it is not getting the message across, and foetal alcohol syndrome featured on the “Today” programme just this morning.
I remind the House that we took forward the Domestic Abuse Act, and one in five people are harmed by other people’s drinking.
As for driving, the road death figures show that problem drinkers are responsible for many of the 2,000 seriously injured or killed each year in alcohol-related crashes. The long-awaited consultation on labelling must also look at lowering the blood alcohol limit to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, with its potential to reduce fatal alcohol-related crashes by 11%. There is good evidence that those with blood levels between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres are six times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than people who are alcohol free.
The Government’s intention to consult on including more information on alcohol labels is welcome if it is realised, but we have been waiting almost two years for the announced consultation to be launched. During this time, alcohol harm has increased, and deaths from alcohol reached record highs in 2020. Can the Minister tell us when the consultation’s report will be formulated and when it will appear? We cannot leave this unattended to, with consumers not knowing what they are taking whenever they take a drink. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has emphasised its importance to improving personal and public health. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on alcohol labelling, with the aim of improving consumer knowledge about the contents and potential harms of alcohol products. Surely it is in the interests of consumers for labelling on alcoholic products to meet the standards we have come to expect from food labelling.
The context really matters. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, alcohol is the leading risk factor contributing to ill health and death for 15 to 49 year-olds, and it is the fifth leading factor across all age groups. Drinking a bottle of wine is, for example, the equivalent of smoking 10 cigarettes, yet a packet of cigarettes must carry a health warning. Surely consumers should be entitled to know how many units of alcohol, how many calories and how much sugar is in a bottle or can. It is very clear that the alcohol industry’s self-regulation has failed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. Commitments were made a decade ago that labelling would improve in line with Department of Health recommendations, yet that has not happened.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support what has already been said and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I also declare an interest in that I was a member of the commission she so ably chaired.
I have been on this, along with others, for a decade. Back in 2011 we had The Government’s Alcohol Strategy, which was very good but regrettably fell by the wayside. I was heartened back in 2019 when the Government, while they are prepared to give details about sugar and calorific effects on almost anything we eat or drink apart from alcohol, were given cause to think about consulting on extending it to alcohol too.
We had a short debate last autumn with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who was then the Minister responsible, on calorie and labelling regulations. I was persuaded not to divide the House on the basis of promises given of change coming. The Minister said:
“I give the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and all those who have expressed concern about the issue this commitment: the Government will be consulting shortly on whether calorie information should be mandated on prepacked alcohol and alcohol served in pubs and restaurants. Covid-19 makes it more important than ever to support the nation to achieve a healthier weight, and the Government are taking action to help people to lead healthier lives.”—[Official Report, 22/7/21; col. 456.]
It is now 2022 and we still have not got the consultation, so the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has posed a fairly simple question.
I think in their heart of hearts the Government know they have to do something on this; it is quite ludicrous that alcohol is out of step with almost all other drinks and food. It is time we brought it into line. Can the Minister please tell us when we are going move on this issue? When are we going to have some definite dates and when will the consultation be concluded?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I declare my interest as my wife is a director of Diageo. There is no doubt that mandatory calorie labelling of alcohol is one of the most basic steps we need to take to make this country healthier. We have a moral obligation to give people the information they need to make an informed choice. We must take reasonable steps to prevent illness so that we can keep our spiralling health costs down. We must address the health inequalities the Minister has spoken about so thoughtfully on previous occasions. We should do all we can to nudge drinks companies to bring down the calorie levels of some drinks.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, these measures have been promised for years. They were made in Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives, published in July 2020. In October 2020, the then Minister responded to a Written Question, saying:
“we are committed to consult before the end of the year on our intention to make companies provide calorie labelling on all pre-packaged alcohol they sell. The consultation will also cover introducing calorie labelling on alcoholic drinks sold in the out of home sector, for example bought on draught or by the glass.”
The then Minister wrote on June 21 2021:
“We are committed to consult shortly on our intention to make companies provide calorie labelling on all pre-packaged alcohol they sell. The consultation will include further details about the proposed timescale for implementation of the policy.”
In the debate on calorie labelling regulation on 22 July 2021, when alcohol labelling was left off at the last minute by the then Minster, he said—well, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said what the Minister said and I will not repeat it, but it was pretty emphatic.
As the Minister who said and wrote all those words, I ask the current Minister to make the very specific time commitment the amendment seeks.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, there is a sheer impracticality to this suggestion. Whatever the need to get people to drink less, there is the actual practicality of getting millions of bottles of wine shipped from all over the world pre-packaged with this label stuck on them, quite apart from the number of drinks, as has been mentioned, served in carafes or over the counter freely. This is not the way to tackle the problem. It goes to the heart of people’s freedom of choice. They may be overdoing it, but labelling like this is expensive, impractical and it does not work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I feel I have to respond immediately to that. I intended to speak anyway, having attached my name to an amendment on alcohol advertising in Committee. I would have attached my name to this amendment both in Committee and on Report, had there been space.
The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, talked about freedom of choice. I do not know how many people know that a bottle of wine can contain anywhere between zero and 59 grams of free sugar per bottle. Surely the public do not have the freedom of choice to decide which wine they consume and which level of sugar they consume.
The noble Lord made a point about the difficulty of labelling. Bottles of wine are shipped to many different countries with labels in different languages. We have computers these days which can cope with these things quite simply and easily. It is clearly not beyond the wit of producers to achieve this.
The Government often like to talk about being world-leading. I point them to an editorial in the Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology titled Shining a light on international alcohol industry lobbying, showing just how powerful this incredibly wealthy industry is in influencing and damaging public health messages around the world. Would the Government not like to be world-leading in standing up against this industry lobbying, in the interests of public health?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, at the risk of being boring, I am one of those people who has been asking for this for the last 20 years. I started off asking for the number of units of alcohol in a bottle of wine. Every manufacturer of these alcoholic drinks knows exactly what goes into them. On the issue of labelling products from abroad, there are a lot of foodstuffs that come from abroad and they have to abide by British rules on labelling, so why not wine and spirits? It is time we did this. It is terribly important for public health, and I hope the Minister will say yes.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing forward Amendment 163, and thank other noble Lords for outlining their support for or concerns about it. The amendment refers to publishing a report on alcohol labelling to improve consumer knowledge.
Government data comparing pre-pandemic and post-pandemic figures has shown that sales of alcohol increased by some 25%. This is, as we know, a booming market and consumers need to be equipped with the right information to make informed choices. They have a right to know what is in their drinks and decide what and how much to drink. The consultation promised by the Government, with this in mind, remains something of a consultation in long-overdue waiting.
Currently there is no requirement for alcoholic drinks to include health warnings, drinking guidelines, calorie information or even ingredients. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, this is very much out of step with any other information on what we consume. There is, as always, a balance to be struck between health improvement measures, consumer information and industry regulation, but this amendment supports a necessary move in the right direction and I hope the Minister will agree to it.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, as a doctor and a wine drinker, I have serious concerns about this amendment, particularly, for example, when it comes to the use of fine wine—I think there is broad understanding in the House of what that is—where, in every case, those bottles are labelled with the amount of alcohol. One has to accept that labelling bottles in this way does not change behaviour. We have had committees looking at behaviour change, and the only time we managed to induce behaviour change was with smoking—certainly never with labelling. That is the only time it happened and there were all sorts of reasons for that.
Much of the evidence for alcohol being harmful in minor doses is still dubious and, more importantly, there is real concern that a lot of the so-called evidence is not being put to the real test of whether it makes a difference to behaviour. I must say to the House that I think the noble Lord—I am afraid I do not know his name; my eyes are bad enough not to have been able to see his name on the screen—is right that this is unworkable. It would probably do all sorts of untold damage to what is, for me and no doubt many others, a very fine drink. We need to look seriously at whether we can simply label all bottles.
I just remind the House that there is one amendment that I could have put down. In in vitro fertilisation, embryos are cultured in culture media, which are in fact commercially made and a commercial secret—nobody knows exactly what the composition of those media is. My laboratory is looking at this at the moment. It is really interesting, because some of the products in those culture media may indeed be quite dangerous in terms of epigenetic effects. To me, that seems far more important to regulate than what we are trying to do here with bottles of wine, which is probably not really workable.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this is an important topic, so let me start with an immediate reassurance to the House, which I hope will enable to the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment. The amendment calls on the Government to publish a report on alcohol labelling. The Government already plan to report on alcohol labelling, as it is a key part of our overall work on reducing alcohol harm. In no sense do we propose to ignore it and I undertake today that we will report on it. Part of what is taking the time is formulating what the proposals should look like, but I will come on to that.
As part of the Government’s tackling obesity strategy, published in July 2020, we are committed to consulting on whether mandatory calorie labelling should be introduced on all pre-packed alcohol as well as alcoholic drinks sold in the out-of-home sector. In addition, as part of our public consultation, respondents to the consultation will be able to provide suggestions and evidence for additional labelling requirements that they would like the Government to consider, including warning labels and nutritional information. In that sense, the consultation will be even more of a two-way process than perhaps noble Lords might have been expecting. Naturally enough, we make no assumptions in advance about any such proposals; they will have to be looked at on their merits. The consultation will be launched in due course and I can assure noble Lords that the Government will feed back the results to this House. Although, for reasons beyond my control, I have not been able to provide definitive news on the timing of the consultation—much as I would like to—I hope nevertheless that the firm commitment that I have given on the Government’s intention to carry out the consultation and on its scope will have provided the noble Baroness with sufficient reassurance to enable her to question whether she wishes to press her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken and I note the tone with which “in due course” was uttered, which is really disappointing. Some very important points have been made, particularly about people really having the choice to know what they are taking into their bodies in the name of alcoholic drinks. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that I really do not believe that fine wines will be sacrificed on the altar of public health? Very few people drink fine wines; most people drink drinks bottled and labelled in this country—the obesogenic effect is really important.
However, I am a realist and I am aware that the chance of this being thrown out when it goes to the other place means that it would not remain in the Bill. I hope the Government will take the message back to the Secretary of State to empower him to grasp the nettle, provide leadership in public health and, for the first time, proceed to make sure that people know what they are drinking and what the harms are—they might prefer to go out with their family and eat a large burger than have two glasses of wine. Given that, and the reality of the situation we are in, we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire over what “in due course” means; I hope it is a very short course. On that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Vaccine damage payments
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must establish an independent judge led review into the operation of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and the adequacy of payments offered to persons seriously injured, or bereaved, consequent upon vaccination against any of the specified diseases to which the Act applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Vaccine Damage Payment Act is now more than 40 years old and the aim of the amendment is to ensure that a judge led review takes place into the operation of the Act.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to my Amendment 164 but I also strongly associate myself with Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
In Committee, I raised concerns about a small number of individuals and families who have paid the highest personal price for the success of the Covid vaccination programme, suffering bereavement or serious injury as a direct consequence of adverse reactions to vaccination. We have the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, which was intended to provide a safety net for such individuals by providing a modest ex-gratia payment to those injured or bereaved in recognition of the fact that their injuries and losses flowed directly from “doing the right thing” by having the vaccine for the benefit of society as a whole.
The scheme is 40 years old and no longer fit for purpose. The maximum payment is capped at £120,000, which is far too little to provide proper financial support for families who have maybe suffered the death of a main income earner. The current scheme also requires that all eligible applicants in the UK must meet what is called the 60% disablement criterion. This criterion is antiquated, counterproductive and unfair: many applicants could have significant injuries and may be disabled up to 59% and yet, on the basis of the current scheme, they would have no access to funds.
The current system takes far too long to provide the payment. The causal connection between certain injuries and Covid vaccination is now accepted, I believe, by clinicians and regulators. However, despite providing death certificates that identify Covid-19 as a cause of death and medical reports confirming Covid-19 as the cause of injury, the scheme still estimates that it will take more than six months to begin to process claims submitted under the scheme more than 12 months ago.
In Committee—I thank Ministers for another meeting yesterday to discuss this further—the noble Earl explained that responsibility for the operation of the scheme has transferred from the DWP to his department and the NHS Business Services Authority has taken over the operation of the scheme. This is very welcome and I am glad that it has happened. However, this is not an issue that will disappear any time soon—Covid is not an issue that is disappearing. Further vaccinations will come along and there will unfortunately be adverse effects for a very small group of people, in the interest of the greater good.
I believe that the scheme offers too little, too late, to too few and I have three asks of Ministers. First, I ask that Ministers and the NHS Business Services Authority engage with the families affected. It would be valuable if Ministers and senior executives at the NHS Business Services Authority were to meet some of the families. I know that Sarah Moore of Hausfeld will be happy to facilitate this, and I pay tribute to her. Secondly, I ask that everything that can be done is done to speed up the process of meeting claims. Thirdly, on behalf of the families and individuals, I ask the Government to consider undertaking a review of the scheme in the light of current experience and particularly look at the 60% criteria bar and the £120,000 limit which has not been updated for a number of years.
The vaccination programme has been a wonderful success both in this country and globally. It is very unfortunate that inevitably there will be a small group of people damaged in the process. I think we owe it to them to have a generous scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is grouped with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose persistence I admire concerning those who have suffered vaccine damage. My amendment is slightly different, but it is along the same lines in that it is about unintentional outcomes and redress for those who have suffered.
My amendment requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for redress schemes to help those who have suffered avoidable harm linked to the three medical interventions that were examined in the report from the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, which I chaired. These are hormone pregnancy tests—the most common being Primodos—the epilepsy drug sodium valproate and pelvic mesh, which was used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.
I will be brief, but I make no apology for bringing this before your Lordships’ House again because the case for these schemes is so compelling. These are people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered terribly and had their lives changed for the worse and in some cases completely ruined—all because of mistakes, errors of judgment, oversights and a refusal to listen across the healthcare system. In each case—Primodos, valproate and mesh—harm could and should have been avoided. If that does not underline the moral and ethical case for providing some help, then I really do not know what does.
I believe that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues are genuinely sympathetic to the plight of these women and their children, but I sense that they are hesitant. I urge them to overcome some of this reluctance and act now. The suffering is immense, it is continuing even today, and very sadly people are dying before they receive the help they need. I remind my noble friend that these redress schemes are not the same as compensation. We are not talking about large sums of money. We are talking only about modest funds to help with the challenges of daily life: to pay for mobility aids, a respite break, travel to hospital. This is help that they do not and cannot access at the moment from the NHS, social services or elsewhere.
In Scotland, the Government there have acted. A scheme was set up to provide help to women suffering from mesh complications. It is modest: it was given a £1 million budget and women had to apply to it to be eligible. But it was welcomed, and it has helped. That is the kind of help I have in mind. Sums of that scale are barely noticeable in the context of the hundreds of billions we spend on health and social care, yet these small sums would mean so much to so many.
Are there concerns that this might set a precedent and that before we know it dozens of other groups of people who have suffered will all want the same? I do not believe so. That has not happened in Scotland. Thalidomide did not lead to an avalanche of other groups requiring help. We have existing schemes to help others who have been harmed. If the Government really believe that compensation is the better way for these people to get help, they are mistaken. The fact is that many have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. It is time-consuming, costly, stressful, adversarial and, worst of all, it simply has not worked.
The three groups that Amendment 180 is designed to help are small in number—not millions of people, not hundreds of thousands. I do not believe that an unwelcome precedent would be set. I do not believe that these schemes would cost the earth. The cost would be modest and can be contained and managed. I believe the benefits will outweigh the cost and that we have a moral and ethical duty to help these people. They have suffered for years and in some cases for decades. Surely the measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially where that harm could and should have been avoided.
I have met hundreds of people who have suffered; even today I get a lot of emails, phone calls and letters. We have heard from many more people. I am clear that help is both needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak from these Benches to support both amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, introduced his Amendment 164 on vaccine damage payments, explaining that the current law as set out in the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 is now over 40 years old. The amendment asks for a judge-led review on what parts of the Act need to be updated, especially the maximum payable as a result of vaccine damage.
The amendment proposes a small and focused review that will assist those who have been damaged by vaccines and will help the NHS, Government and Parliament ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose in the 21st century, especially for the families of those damaged by the Covid vaccine and of the very few who died. They may be an infinitesimally small percentage of those who have been vaccinated but their lives have been turned upside down because of doing the right thing.
Amendment 180 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is an important pillar of delivering the recommendations from her First Do No Harm review, which outlined routes to assist those who had been harmed by an avoidable harm as a result of using certain HPTs, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. The victims of this avoidable harm are not to blame for it either, but are living out the consequences, including needing additional care for the rest of their lives. I know that the Government have been very supportive of the First Do No Harm review. I hope that they can be persuaded that now is the time to introduce schemes that will help these people. While I fear that there may not be movement on these two amendments today, I hope that the Minister can outline when there is likely to be progress on these two financially modest but essential areas that could right some long-term wrongs.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has returned with his amendment on the need for an expert-led review on the 40 year-old Vaccine Damage Payments Act, and I am pleased that the meeting he sought with the Ministers has taken place. The amendment is a timely reminder for all of us that while the vaccination programme against Covid has been hugely successful, for a small group of people suffering very serious adverse effects and deteriorating health as a result of having the vaccination, the experience has been devastating, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, underlined. The current legislation dealing with compensation arrangements is not fit for purpose: in the words of my noble friend, it offers too little, too late and to too few people. I hope the Minister acknowledges the need to meet and engage with the families of those affected, and that he looks urgently at the ways in which claims under the current system can be speeded up, and he also accepts the need for the review of the scheme and the next steps that have to be taken on this.
My noble friend has also added his name to Amendment 180 from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on her unrelenting campaign for separate compensation schemes to meet the cost of care and support for the victims highlighted in her First Do No Harm report. Once again, we have heard convincing and forceful contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Brinton, which we on these Benches strongly support, calling for an independent redress agency for the three patient groups covered by the First Do No Harm report. The Government’s positive response to another key aspect of the First Do No Harm report, to improve patient safety for the future, including establishing the patient safety commissioner, is a welcome and necessary development. But the redress agency needs to be there to provide care and support for the thousands of women who suffered, and whose needs will not be met by the healthcare system, social care support or social security benefits support.
I hope the Minister has considered the matter carefully since Committee, and will report positively to the House on the ongoing discussions and progress which will ensure the strongest recompense possible for the people we are concerned about.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will turn first, if I may, to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, and start by thanking him for his campaigning on this issue, and for the informative debates we have had today and in Committee.
As we discussed in Committee, since the NHS Business Services Authority took over responsibility for the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme from the Department for Work and Pensions in November 2021, we have started to find ways to improve the operation of the scheme. The most important thing the NHS Business Services Authority is looking do to is to improve the claimant journey on the scheme, and that means making engagements with claimants more personalised, as well as giving claimants access to more general support. The crucial part of this drive is to reduce response times, which the authority knows has been a cause of dissatisfaction, particularly during Covid; in other words, the whole process is being modernised.
The NHS Business Services Authority has done its best to hit the ground running. Since taking over in November, it has already contacted all applicants to update them on their cases and it has also allocated additional resource to the operation of the scheme. I can assure the noble Lord that the department will further engage with the NHS Business Services Authority to ensure that these service improvements, greater digitisation in particular, really do make headway. There is already regular dialogue on this.
With all this enhanced activity happening, I do not think this is right time to establish an independent review into the VDPS. As the noble Lord will know, reviews take significant time and they carry substantial costs to the organisation, not just financial but in terms of leadership focus and energy. Instead, we think it is a better use of resources to focus on making the changes that we know need to happen; that is, to improve the claimant’s journey, and to modernise the process for claimants, as well as scaling up the capacity of the VDPS. We will keep the progress on these under regular scrutiny, and I am sure we will report regularly to this House as we do so.
I will address the noble Lord’s three key questions. First, I should be happy to facilitate a meeting with representatives of the families, and my honourable friend Maria Caulfield, who is the Minister with direct responsibility for the scheme, will be pleased to see them. Secondly, as I have already indicated, reducing response times is one of the NHS Business Services Authority’s key objectives. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether the Government would undertake a review of the scheme. I simply remind the noble Lord that the scheme has been revised many times since its inception, which shows that it is reviewed regularly as a matter of course, but perhaps it is worth my making the point that the VDPS is not a compensation scheme; nor is it designed to cover all expenses associated with severe disablement, which are catered for from the public purse in other ways. I hope that is helpful to the noble Lord, and that on the basis of those assurances he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Before I address the detail of Amendment 180, I would like to again put on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for her continued commitment to the issues she has so powerfully spoken about, and the diligence and dedication of the IMMDS team, and the brave testimonies of those who contributed to the IMMDS review. As my noble friend knows, the Government have accepted the majority of the report’s nine strategic recommendations and 50 actions for improvement, and are taking forward work to improve patient safety. This includes establishing specialist mesh removal centres, the ninth of which opens in Bristol this month, and work to improve the care pathways for children and families affected by medicines during pregnancy.
We remain committed to delivering improvements in patient safety across the board. We are focusing government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety. For this reason, the Government have already published their decision that redress schemes will not be established for people affected by hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate or pelvic mesh. I realise that was a disappointing decision for my noble friend, and I am always very sorry to disappoint her, but, for the reasons I have given, I ask her not to move Amendment 180 when it is reached.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler for their support. I empathise with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her report, which was far-reaching. Having met some of the women who were affected, I know how keenly the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, feels about these issues. It is disappointing that the Government have rejected this particular request, although they have accepted many of her recommendations. It leaves the groups of women whom we have met to continue with their long, hard campaign, but they will continue, and one day a Government will agree to give them some of the support that they deserve.
On my own amendment, I pay tribute to the work of the NHS Business Services Authority. I am very glad that it took over responsibility for the scheme, and I wish it well in speeding up the process of claims. I am grateful to the noble Earl for facilitating a meeting between representatives of the families and the Minister—that is very welcome indeed. All I would say is that as the Business Services Authority continues its work, it is bound to come across issues in relation to the operation of the scheme, and I hope the Government will reflect on that and look at further improvements to the scheme. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Secretary of State: Duty to promote and ensure the full integration of self care for minor ailments within the health system
(1) The Secretary of State, in exercise of his or her functions, must promote self care for minor ailments and prepare a national self care strategy to integrate self care fully into the wider health system.(2) The national self care strategy referred to in subsection (1) must include measures to—(a) improve inequalities in health literacy,(b) enhance the understanding of primary and secondary age children on how to self care,(c) introduce self care modules in healthcare professionals’ training curricula and continuing professional development,(d) make best use of, and expand, the Community Pharmacist Consultation Service,(e) improve access to effective self care treatments,(f) enable community pharmacists to refer people directly to other healthcare professionals,(g) ensure better support for Primary Care Networks (PCNs) to deliver self care,(h) evaluate the use of technologies developed during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote greater self care, and(i) accelerate efforts to enable community pharmacists to populate medical records.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State promotes self care for minor ailments and publishes a national self care strategy to fully integrate it into the wider health system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 165 requires the Secretary of State to
“promote self care for minor ailments and prepare a national self care strategy”.
I hope that Ministers will just agree to this, without very much debate.
Self-care is defined as
“the actions individuals take for themselves, on behalf of and with others, to develop, protect, maintain and improve their health.”
It is an important but often overlooked part of the primary care pathway.
Given all the pressures that there are on the health service and that there are going to be over the next 30 to 40 years, surely we should do everything we can to encourage self-help for minor ailments. During Covid, the importance of self-care in reducing the burden on GPs and A&E became very self-evident. Since the outbreak started, people with minor ailments were not able to visit their GP in the traditional manner and learned, or at least practised, self-help behaviours instead. A survey carried out by PAGB, the consumer healthcare association, during the first national lockdown indicated that the pandemic has had an impact on people’s attitudes to self-care. Some 69% of people who would not have considered practising self-care prior to the pandemic said that they were more likely to do so after their experience of lockdown.
Interestingly, if the Government were prepared to run with this strategy, there are all sorts of behaviours that they could start to encourage. They could ensure that individuals understand or are willing to practise self-care; ensure a cultural shift among healthcare professionals toward well-being, enabling people to self-care; ensure that the system is supported to encourage self-care where appropriate, with pharmacies, of course, playing a big role in that; encourage the use of digital technology; enhance the national curriculum on self-care for schoolchildren; and introduce self-care modules in healthcare professionals’ training curriculum.
I come back to the point that the Minister and noble Lords know that the health service is currently under huge pressure, not just because of the backlog. Already before the pandemic, the health service was really struggling to meet its targets. The demographics, the growing older population and all these factors suggest that the NHS will struggle hugely to cope with the pressure on it over the next 20, 30 and 40 years. Surely some part of the strategy to deal with this is to encourage all of us not just to look after our own health more but, where we can, to self-help. I would have thought that message would have been accepted with alacrity on the Government Front Bench. I hope the Minister will be able to say that this is very much taken to heart and that the Government really will start to drive the new strategy. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 165, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and thank him for putting it forward. Self-care has an important role to play in supporting people to manage their own health needs, and also in alleviating an unsustainable demand on GP and A&E services. As the noble Lord described, prior to the coronavirus pandemic there were some 18 million GP appointments and 3.7 million visits to A&E every year for conditions which people could have looked after themselves or sought advice from a pharmacist. It is estimated that this was costing the NHS in the region of £1.5 billion a year.
During the coronavirus, again as the noble Lord described, surveys have shown a much greater willingness among members of the public to self-care for these self-treatable conditions. But it is vital that appropriate policies are put in place to ensure that, as we emerge from the pandemic, people who can self-care continue to do so. It is evident now that self-care can help address many of the challenges we face in the NHS today, but to do so we need to address some of the system barriers to self-care, as described in this amendment, and unlock the important behavioural shifts that enabled people to self-care during the pandemic.
In particular, I will highlight how the NHS can make much better use of digital technologies and community pharmacists to enable people to self-care. We need to make better use of the technologies that the NHS has embraced over the course of the pandemic, such as the Covid-19 symptom checker on the NHS website. The digital triaging technology should be used to support the expansion of the community pharmacist consultation service to enable people to follow an algorithm online to get a referral for a consultation with a local pharmacist. It is critical, if we are to optimise the role of pharmacists—I am a big supporter of community pharmacists—that we give them the digital tools and information they need to support people. At present, a pharmacist cannot routinely record the advice or medication they give people, despite receiving training. The NHS must address the question of interoperability in IT systems, so that pharmacists can have access to read and to input into people’s medical records and enable pharmacists to be a core part of an individual’s primary healthcare team.
6.15 pm
The pandemic has highlighted how quickly the NHS and patients can adopt technological and digital changes. Realising the Potential: Developing a Blueprint for a Self Care Strategy for England, a document launched last October, is an excellent blueprint for this. A whole range of organisations, including NHS clinical commissioners, the RCN, pharmacy organisations, the Self Care Forum and, of course, the PAGB, have worked together to develop this blueprint for a comprehensive national self-care strategy to support the introduction of self-care policies throughout the NHS in England. It contains policy proposals and case studies, in particular in relation to digital technologies, which set out how the NHS can fully embed self-care and pharmacy into primary care.
I hope the Minister today will outline how the Government are ensuring that the NHS can adopt these proposals, which learn from the pandemic, and will expand them to support individuals to enable self-care.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we had a good debate in Committee on the issue of self-care and the management of health conditions, particularly on its importance as a key part of the primary care pathway. This was underlined in diabetes care and, as I also emphasised, in the care and treatment of people with rare diseases, most of whom are living with lifelong conditions. As vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance of charities supporting this key group of patients, I know that they often do not feel sufficiently supported in terms of care and support and health and system information, and with physical and daily living.
As the two noble Lords have stressed, the Health Foundation’s research on the effective self-management by patients has shown a significant reduction in the need for emergency admissions to hospital and in A&E attendances, and fewer GP appointments. In this context, Amendment 165 makes a great deal of sense. If patients with, for example, rare diseases receive appropriate support to manage their less intensive care needs, then promoting self-care has the potential to help them prevent their conditions from deteriorating, to improve their lives and to reduce demands on the NHS, as the noble Lords have stressed.
We therefore strongly support the need for the development of a national self-care strategy, starting with awareness raising among primary and secondary children on how to self-care, and with appropriate staff and management training of healthcare professionals. Improved technologies, as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, especially those developed during the pandemic, will have a key role in broadening access to effective self-care and ensuring the better support from primary and community pharmacists that we all want to see. I hope the Minister will respond positively to this amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing forward a debate on this issue. I reassure him and other noble Lords that the Government absolutely agree that supporting people to maintain their health and well-being and to manage self-treatable conditions is a vital part of delivering a comprehensive health service. Indeed, much of what the amendment seeks to achieve is already government policy. However, I do not agree that requiring the Secretary of State to prepare a single national strategy would add value. Instead, we are threading self-care through a wide range of work, reflecting the range of areas that it impacts upon.
A good deal of work is already under way. The community pharmacy contractual framework for 2019 to 2024 five-year deal sets out how community pharmacy will support the NHS long-term plan. Community pharmacies, which provide easy access to the NHS, are already required to support patient self-care, signpost to other parts of the NHS and local services as necessary, and help people to live healthily.
I am especially aware of the interest the Proprietary Association of Great Britain has shown in this area. The Department of Health and Social Care officials have met with it to discuss its blueprint for a self-care strategy in England and will continue to engage with it about further supporting self-care throughout our healthcare system.
We do not think placing an additional duty on the Secretary of State would be the right way to support this work, as it would take it out of the NHS long-term plan, where it belongs as part of a holistic approach to the provision of a health service. It could risk making it more disjointed rather than integrated in its approach, but noble Lords made a really important point about demand on our health service and the role that self-care has in this. Prevention was a key theme of a speech by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State last week and, clearly, elements of self-care and prevention go hand in hand with each other, particularly in the use of new technology.
Noble Lords also made an important point about how we can use self-care, particularly at community pharmacies, to reduce pressure on GPs and A&E departments. All community pharmacies are required, as I said, to provide support for self-care. To ensure that people get directed to the right support for their health needs, we have introduced referral systems from NHS 111 and GPs to pharmacies for advice and treatment for minor illnesses. We are also exploring expanding referrals from other settings, including urgent treatment centres and A&E to community pharmacies.
I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance that we place an importance on self-care, as part of our health service. That will only increase in future and work is under way in multiple areas of the health service to do that. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Wheeler for their support, and to the Minister. I am glad to hear her recognition of the importance of community pharmacy, and about the meetings between officials and the PAGB. That is very welcome.
I agree that the interrelationship between self-care and prevention is important—as is, may I say, personal responsibility. I also agree that the pressure we face in the system is such that this is important for the future. The Government may not want a strategy but, at some point, setting out their aim in this area and giving the right signals to us as individuals, but also to the system, would be very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Guidance on Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish national guidance making the appropriate prescription of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy a priority within pancreatic cancer care in the NHS through the implementation of national targets.(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of this Act being passed and every year thereafter, publish data on the prescription of Pancreatic Enzyme Replacement Therapy for pancreatic cancer patients.”
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, pancreatic cancer is a terrible disease, as noble Lords know: 10,500 people in the UK a year are diagnosed with it, 9,000 people a year die from it and five-year survival rates in the UK rank us 29th out of 33 countries with comparable data. The Government recognise that this is not good enough, so they are commissioning an audit of existing services as a first step to improvement. That is wholly welcome but it is turning out to be a very slow business, with the first data expected in 2023 and no timetable for action to follow.
Amendment 167 in my name is intended to add a sense of urgency to that. I am grateful for the support it has received from the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. However, I turn my attention this evening principally to Amendment 166 in my name, which is also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. It relates to improving the treatment of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and can be delivered immediately.
The end-of-life experience of pancreatic cancer sufferers includes huge difficulties in eating and digesting food, because of the lack of an enzyme normally produced by a healthy pancreas. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, or PERT, is a simple tablet costing only £7 a day. It is fully approved by NICE and allows sufferers to eat, but it reaches only about 50% of pancreatic cancer sufferers. Why is that? The truth is that we do not know exactly and, pending the audit, may not be able to say exactly. But a likely reason is that diagnosis of pancreatic cancer occurs so late because the symptoms present so late that a prompt decision has to be made about those who might be saved by surgery and those for whom nothing can be done. The former go to specialists, who tend to be aware of PERT and prescribe it. The latter, on the whole, move into more general palliative settings, where it seems that knowledge and understanding of PERT is less widespread.
Amendment 166 obliges the Government to make increasing prescription rates for PERT a national priority, without waiting for the outcome of the current audit. It was tabled in Committee and got a somewhat dusty answer from the Government Front Bench, hence its return today. To say that emphasising PERT should await the outcome of the audit would be to condemn literally tens of thousands of people to unnecessary suffering at end of life so I think these amendments, especially Amendment 166, will find general support across the House. Happily, I understand that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer certain assurances when he speaks that would make any such Division unnecessary.
Before I conclude, there is one extra step that the Government could make early progress on that would be welcome. It is in disaggregating the data about the prescription of PERT, which can be prescribed for conditions other than pancreatic cancer. While the Government and the National Health Service are able to point to figures showing slowly increasing PERT prescription rates, what they cannot do at the moment is to say whether it is being prescribed for pancreatic cancer or some other condition. Disaggregating that data will be an important job for the Government to do, even to make progress with their own audit. Some comments on that today would also be welcome so, for the moment, I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendments 166 and 167 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, addressing pancreatic cancer, to which I have added my name. I shall be brief as he has already made the case for these amendments so strongly. Both amendments include deadlines: for guidance on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy to be published within six months; for data on PERT prescription to be published within a year, and yearly thereafter; and for a report on the audit of pancreatic cancer services to be laid before Parliament within six months and updated six-monthly. The reason for these deadlines comes down to a single word: urgency.
On average, pancreatic cancer sufferers live for only six months following diagnosis and more than half of the 10,000 a year will die within three months. That is hardly enough time for them to say proper goodbyes to their family and close friends, let alone to put their financial and other affairs in order, so the usual government timescales of “in due course” or even “shortly” are nowhere near fast enough for action to improve their treatment. I hope we may hear something more encouraging from the Minister.
Some such improvements may help extend their lives, even if only by a matter of months, but others equally important, such as PERT, may make a significant difference to the quality of the time remaining to them, however short. PERT enables pancreatic sufferers to digest their food; in some cases, it may even help them to gain the strength needed to undergo life-saving surgery. It is recommended by NICE and widely available. It costs just £7 a day per patient. I find it shocking that, as the noble Lord told us, half of patients who need PERT are not being prescribed it, mainly because of lack of awareness among non-specialist staff. Surely the Government can and should investigate and address this with urgency, as required by Amendment 166.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was glad to have been able to put my name to Amendment 166 about PERT. In this Bill, the Government have introduced a milestone in changing the care of people who are facing serious illness at the end of life.
The reality, as we have already heard, is that the majority of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed late, because it comes in the head of the pancreas. The pancreas has two parts—the head and the tail. But, because it can grow without causing much pain in the initial stages, it often goes undetected until it is fairly advanced. That means the outlook is poor. The other thing it does, as it grows, is block off the flow of enzymes into the gut. Without replacement, these patients get a malabsorption syndrome; they can get terrible diarrhoea and muscle wasting, because they are not absorbing the nutrients they need.
This amendment is very important. It could quite easily build on the network that will now be in place to commission specialist palliative care services. The move the Government have made has been welcomed across palliative care in this country and is being seen as a way to dramatically change the care of patients. With data information flows now integrated and networked across the NHS, we will be able to get accurate data on how many patients with pancreatic cancer are getting replacement therapy when they need it. Some people do not need it; some need it later on. This is part of building on the important foundation the Government have laid. It was that which persuaded me to put my name to Amendment 166.
Another point I would like to make is about improving things for the lowest quartile of the population. Incidence of pancreatic cancer is highest in the most deprived areas and it is higher in women than in men. Part of levelling up, to help people to live well for as long as they can, is making sure they get the enzyme replacement they need.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have in my hands the latest cancer waiting time figures. It is very unfortunate that, despite the hard work of NHS staff, every single metric was worse in January than in December. It therefore seems a great pity that not all patients who have a diagnosis of this dreadful disease of pancreatic cancer can get this medicine, which can improve and even extend their lives.
I well remember a senior, well-loved and well-respected Member of the Labour Benches who died of this dreadful disease. We lost him far too early, because this disease takes people very quickly. Anything at all the Minister can say to encourage us that this effective and approved medicine can be made fully available to everybody who needs it—depending on the conditions, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—would be helpful.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I say how much I support this suite of amendments? I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling and speaking to them. This most lethal of killers has been defying science—or we at least have not had enough investment in the science—for many years. This means the survival rate is still not as it should be and as it is for other cancers. Anything that pushes the NHS and research community to tackle this and to set the targets that are needed to do so is very welcome. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for bringing forward this further debate on the subject of pancreatic cancer services. I begin by confirming that the pancreatic cancer audit is included in the national cancer audit collaborating centre tender, which is currently live. Reporting timelines are included in the specification for this audit, developed in partnership with NHS England and NHS Improvement. However, I hope noble Lords will understand that, during a live tender, the document is commercially sensitive and cannot be shared beyond the commissioning team, as this would risk jeopardising the procurement process. While I recognise that it may be disappointing that I am unable to confirm the timeline for the pancreatic cancer audit until the procurement process is completed, I can say that the future contract to follow the procurement process in relation to the clinical audits is anticipated to start this autumn.
The normal process for a new national audit is a year of development and set-up, followed by data collection and analysis. The publication of the data would then follow. However, on a more positive note—and I hope my noble friend Lord Moylan considers this response less dusty—I can confirm that, alongside the audit of cancer services, important actions are being taken to ensure that clinicians are able to take informed decisions. NHS England and NHS Improvement have ensured that guidance on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy is shared with cancer alliances to disseminate to clinical teams in their area. NHS England and NHS Improvement will also continue to work with Pancreatic Cancer UK to raise awareness among the clinical community about the value of PERT for many patients with pancreatic cancer.
Noble Lords will be aware that NICE has a clinical guideline, NG85, recommending that PERT should be offered to patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer, and that NICE has also included PERT in its quality standard on pancreatic cancer. NICE clinical guidelines are developed by experts based on a thorough assessment of the available evidence, but they do not replace the judgment of healthcare professionals. They are not mandatory, but they represent best practice. The NHS is expected to take them fully into account in ensuring that services meet the needs of patients. Ultimately, the use of PERT in individual cases is for clinical decision-making, following a discussion between doctor and patient. As such, national targets would not be appropriate.
My noble friend asked another question on data. PERT prescription data is already published online through the English prescribing dataset. This shows that levels of prescription have been rising. The data does not currently differentiate between prescription for pancreatic cancer patients and for people with other conditions. However, NHS England and NHS Improvement will consider PERT prescription data during the scoping of the pancreatic cancer audit.
I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Moylan for his constructive engagement and for pushing the Government on this. But I hope that the reassurances I have given are sufficient to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton. I know that support for the principle behind these amendments is widespread throughout the House. The Minister has also taken that on board, and I am grateful to him not only for his engagement before this short debate but for the words he uttered from the Dispatch Box. He will be in no doubt that noble Lords will be paying attention to these prescribing rates in the future, carefully following what is happening, monitoring and asking questions to ensure that the information is getting to clinicians and that the medicines are getting to the patients who will benefit from them.
Before I sit down, I want to say a word of thanks to the excellent charity Pancreatic Cancer UK, with which I have worked on this and which I know also works with officials at the department to improve treatment for pancreatic cancer patients. I will test my licence a little further by saying that it is not only pancreatic cancer; there are also conditions such as bile duct cancer, which are just as devastating and which we, as a nation and a National Health Service, need to bring to the fore so that people get better treatment, better care and early diagnosis. We really can do this.
With that, I express gratitude to my noble friend the Minister and the other noble Lords who have spoken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, I inform the House that the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham of Ilton and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, will take part in the following debate remotely.
Amendment 170
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
“Assisted dying
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill to permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives with medical assistance.(2) In preparing the draft Bill and any accompanying documents and in making arrangements to lay them before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take account of the need—(a) to respect that this is a matter of conscience, and(b) to enable Parliament to consider the issue.”
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, we are on Report and I know that a number of colleagues have engagements and want to see this matter resolved as speedily as possible, so I will be brief and stick to the substance of my amendment.
This amendment has nothing whatever to do with the rights and wrongs of assisted dying, and I apologise to colleagues who have received many letters and emails urging them to vote against it from people who have been told that it does. The amendment would simply enable a Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying to be properly considered by Parliament at a time when the courts and the vast majority of the public are crying out for this to be done.
Time and again, private Members’ legislation on assisted dying is destroyed in Committee after enjoying strong support at Second Reading. The Bill from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and, most recently, the Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suffered this fate. The noble Baroness’s Bill was subject to more than 200 amendments, many of them tabled by Members who expressed complete opposition in principle to it at its Second Reading. It is hard to escape the conclusion that their purpose was to ensure that the Bill ran out of time. They succeeded; it is dead. A particularly egregious example was an amendment requiring a terminally ill person to give 12 months’ notice of a diagnosis of having only six months to live. You do not need to take my word for it that some people are using these tactics, which are deliberately intended to subvert the democratic process and prevent Parliament coming to a considered view.
This is what Care Not Killing, as it calls itself, had to say in an email sent to its supporters on 24 January 2022 at 6.29 pm about new subsection (2), proposed by my amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to treat this issue as “a matter of conscience” and enable Parliament to consider it:
“It must be opposed because”—
horror of horrors—
“point 2 would force the Government to give parliamentary time and prevent it from instructing its MPs on which way to vote.”
It goes on:
“This in turn would open the way for MPs and Peers to pass a new law.”
How shocking that that should be allowed to happen.
I regret to say that, even though the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are rightly allowing a free vote on this amendment, the Government are instructing colleagues to vote against it—despite my offer to the Front Bench to withdraw it in return for an undertaking to provide time in future for a Private Member’s Bill to allow Parliament to reach a considered view. Everyone knows that Private Members’ Bills, unless they are government handouts or are utterly uncontroversial, have little chance of clearing the parliamentary hurdles unless they are given government time and assistance. It is fatuous for the Government to say that they are neutral on assisted dying while, at the same time, refusing to allow time for it to be considered. Without government time for private Members’ legislation, many controversial and important social reforms, such as the decriminalisation of homosexuality or the abolition of the death penalty, would never have reached the statute book. Passing by on the other side is not neutrality. It is a failure to come to the aid of the democratic process on an issue of the highest importance.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, many people are fearful and dismayed about the disastrous, inhuman situation in Ukraine. The threat of a nuclear attack and a third world war frightens many people. Added to this, many disabled and elderly people here in the UK are also frightened. Many vulnerable people feel that, if the assisted dying law is changed, they could be pressured into assisted dying because they feel that they are a nuisance and because they need looking after. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says, this Bill should be about care, not killing. There should be compassion and palliative care for all those people who need it.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has introduced his amendment very clearly, so I will be brief and say that I will also support him if he chooses to call a Division.
The majority of the British public support the legalisation of assisted dying. In a Populus poll of more than 5,000 people in 2019, 84% of respondents said they supported giving dying people the right to an assisted death. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has managed to praise the Scottish Parliament system that has enabled my colleague Liam McArthur to have time for his Bill in its Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, it is important to note that the amendment would not actually change the law on assisted dying. What it would do is to ensure that some proper parliamentary time is made available, as in Scotland, within 12 months of the Bill passing into law, to ensure that there can be a planned and proper debate with the wider public and with MPs and Peers that is just not possible in the Private Members’ Bill process that we have in our Parliament.
It is important to note that the amendment does not require government to support the legislation through Parliament, merely to ask for the time, and that this procedure has happened before with Section 16 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I hope that the Minister will change the Government’s mind on this so that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does not have to call a Division.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in moving this proposed new clause, superficially so bland, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, beckons us along a path which leads towards constitutional and moral anarchy.
What is dangerous constitutionally about this amendment is that it would undermine the way we do parliamentary government. Forcing the Government to lay a Bill before Parliament and to enable Parliament to consider the issue, as the proposed new clause requires, would be a coup. This Back-Bench amendment would usurp control of the parliamentary agenda from the democratically elected Government. In the last Parliament we saw Back-Bench MPs, with the collusion of Mr Speaker Bercow, contriving to set aside Standing Order 14(1), which gives precedence to business tabled by the Government, in order to substitute their own agenda on Brexit. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very much opposed to that.
Parliament proceeds by precedence, and these are dangerous new precedents, as any noble Lord who sees their party as a party of government must surely agree. While it is for Parliament to interrogate government and hold it to account, it is not for Parliament to claim for itself the role of the Government. Parliament is incapable of governing and it should not dictate the parliamentary programme. If Parliament makes exceptions to that principle to gratify a faction of its Members in either House, and if the principle that it may do so becomes established through reiteration so that the Government no longer control the legislative agenda, the ability of Governments to govern will suffer. Our system of parliamentary government is battered and unsteady as it is; we should not injure it further.
The moral anarchy that lurks in this new clause is that it would legitimise in a new way the taking of human life by other human beings. I readily acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and other proponents of what they call assisted dying are motivated by compassion and kind intentions. I profoundly believe, however, that their approach misreads human nature and that legislation to permit assisted suicide would create more suffering than it would alleviate. The offspring of this compassion would be a coarsening of our society and a diminution of the value we place upon life.
Some people make a moral case for assisted suicide on the basis of personal autonomy. I understand the appeal: I want, or I think I would want, such choice and control for myself at the end of my life. But that is not a good enough argument. Our responsibility is not just to ourselves, or even to those individuals we love the most, but to our community. For a community to be healthy, it must have norms. It has been a norm in our culture to place an especial value on human life. We reaffirmed that value when we abolished capital punishment. Since then, we have subjected our society to decades of laissez-faire ideology and chaotic individualism, and among the consequences of that have been a dissolution of community bonds and new harshnesses.
If we continue to dissolve our traditional norms, we are at risk that there really will be no such thing as society. As we look at our society now, at lethal child abuse and domestic abuse, at murderous assaults on women, as we look across the world at the millions consigned to death in the pandemic by the refusal of rich countries, including our own, to share intellectual property and technology to enable poorer countries to have vaccines, and as we witness increase discriminate mass killing in Ukraine and Yemen and genocide in Xinjiang, do we really think we should be preparing to sanction a new class of killing?
The new clause requires that a vote in Parliament on the intended legislation must be a matter of conscience. Let us examine our consciences very carefully indeed as we consider the proposal the noble Lord has put before us.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 170 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to which I have added my name.
As the noble Lord made clear, there is no realistic prospect of a Committee day for my Assisted Dying Bill. This makes the point that the current procedures limiting Private Members’ Bills to Fridays do not enable important legislation such as the Assisted Dying Bill to reach the statute book.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, introduced his amendment brilliantly. It leaves me only to reiterate that we are not discussing the pros and cons of assisted dying this evening. The House is expected to rise at 1.30 tomorrow morning. I hope for the sake of everybody in this House that noble Lords on both sides of the assisted dying debate will resist the temptation to get into such a debate—that is not as what this amendment is about. We are debating whether it is acceptable that there is no procedure at present to enable the Westminster Parliament to test the willingness of both houses to pass such a significant and popular piece of legislation. We know that not only Scotland, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, but Jersey and even the Isle of Man have procedures to enable them to pass an assisted dying law, and all those three are likely to pass such legislation within the next one to three years.
We therefore ask noble Lords: do we really think it is satisfactory that the Westminster Parliament is hamstrung without a procedure for Parliament properly to debate a Bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people who are mentally competent and who are suffering unbearably? For Westminster to be upstaged on such an important and popular human rights issue by our much smaller neighbours is surely unconscionable. Amendment 170 from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, deserves our support.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Much as I admire my noble friend Lord Forsyth and fully understand the reasons why he has brought this before your Lordships’ House, it is not a good precedent to bind the Government in one Bill to introduce another a year or so hence. We should think very carefully about the constitutional issues.
We should remember Silverman and we should remember Steel: those Bills began in the other place—an elected House. An initiative of this sort should come from the elected House and not be imposed upon it by an unelected House. I do not think anybody would question my devotion to this House. I believe passionately in it. I believe passionately in an appointed House, as we are. I admire enormously the variety of expertise and experience that is in your Lordships’ House. However, we are not the elected House. I agree that it would be entirely reasonable in the elected House for time to be sought from government. The last time they debated this there was a fairly emphatic result, and it was not in favour of having an assisted dying Bill.
Much as we can admire the total sincerity of those who are committed to the principle of assisted suicide—I happen not to be of their number—it is very dangerous for us to begin in this House changing constitutional precedent by obliging government to introduce a Bill. Therefore, I urge your Lordships not to support this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have been informed that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would like to participate in this debate remotely. I invite her to contribute.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Not remotely but present, which is very good indeed.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I am so thankful to be here tonight. It is a rare appearance but an important one and I am glad to be here in your Lordships’ House to oppose Amendment 170, which repeats the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, tabled in Committee. I apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first sentence of his contribution—I always enjoy his contributions and I am sorry to have missed the very first part.
This is a complex and highly contentious ethical issue. Opening the door to what is effectively assisted suicide would be a monumental change in the criminal law with potentially lethal consequences. If we get it wrong, it will result in some vulnerable people needlessly taking their own life.
The current Bill on assisted dying needs to be examined with the utmost care on the basis of highly informed opinion, robust evidence and a deep understanding of why hundreds of disabled people fear it. I do not think that we understand this cohort. I wish we did but we do not. We have seen a range of legislative developments in recent years in the UK and abroad, all of which demand detailed analysis.
Using this Bill to force the Government’s hand and the pace of deliberation on a matter specifically covered by an existing Bill is, I believe, as others do, a blatant manipulation of the parliamentary process. It sets a dangerous precedent and should be resisted. This is the wrong Bill, the wrong time and the wrong way in which to debate one of the most fundamental issues that we face as a society. I beg—yes, beg—noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, whose contribution to the debate on assisted dying over many years is the admiration of all. I pay tribute to her and I know that the House thinks that as well.
I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is proposing for the following reason. We are trying to deal with an issue of conscience in Parliament. Issues of conscience generally have a bad time in Parliament because the major parties are not interested in such issues. You have to fight under our parliamentary procedures in order for issues of conscience to get dealt with. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, that this is a complex and difficult issue, but it is one that requires parliamentary time and, above all, Parliament to address the issue and make a decision.
I cannot convey adequately the mess that the law is now in. The law does not have the stomach to be enforced. Nobody wants a decent person who helps a loved one to die because they are having a terrible death to be the subject of prosecution, conviction and a possible sentence of 14 years. The law has been stood on its head and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been given the power to say that he will not prosecute if certain guidelines are followed. That means that the most basic principle of English law is subverted. It is not the judge and jury any more who decide whether you are guilty of the offence but the well-meaning and admirable Director of Public Prosecutions. If he says that you are not to be prosecuted, you are in the clear. If he says that you are to be prosecuted—remember you have assisted somebody to take their own life—you are guilty. He is making the decision. That reflects the way in which our society is trying to deal with the issue.
What we need is proper parliamentary time for parliamentarians to address this exceptional issue. I was a remainer, tragically, and was very much against all the strange ways in which Parliament operated. But this is an exceptional matter. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with respect, is not talking sensibly when he says that that we are sticking this matter on to the Commons. The Commons will have to decide whether they agree or not.
I urge this House to adopt the amendment, not because noble Lords agree or disagree on the issue of assisted dying but because they take the view that Parliament should properly address issues of conscience. Please do not be swayed one way or the other by the issues on assisted dying, because everybody knows that there are strong arguments in favour and against—I feel as passionately as those who are against. Address the issue on the basis of whether Parliament should be able to deal with issues of conscience.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it would be perfectly possible for someone in the House of Commons to raise this issue and deal with it there. What concerns me—I pick up what the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Howarth, said—is that this seems to be a constitutional issue. I am not going to say a word about the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide or assisted dying. However, I shall just read a few words of the amendment. It asks us to agree that the
“Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months … lay before Parliament”
not just the possibility of a Private Member’s Bill being given time, which was what was suggested earlier, but a draft Bill. That is telling the Government what legislation they have to pass. This is a matter that transcends issues of compassion or whether one is on one side of the argument or the other, because what we in the Lords are telling the Commons is that they have to support us telling the Government to put forward a Bill with which they may not agree. But they do not have any choice if this amendment is passed. That Bill has to,
“permit terminally ill, mentally competent adults legally to end their own lives”.
The amendment is not asking the Government to please give time—I could understand that. It is telling, not asking, the Government to put forward a draft Bill in support of one side of the argument. Whichever side I was on, I would feel absolutely impelled to resist this amendment.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I have repeatedly opposed assisted dying and it is well known that I feel, and have felt, strongly about it. I also feel that this is quite a different situation. I do not want to argue my case here, but serious issues are raised by the amendment. I am not persuaded that voting for it would make a difference, because the Commons can still consider what we have said this evening. However, it is clear—I completely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—that we as a Parliament have to discuss this issue.
I remember, when I first came into this House 27 years ago, in the Prince’s Chamber there was a notice recording an Act of 1620, I think—under Charles I—that argued that we should not use intemperate language in the Chamber. In this situation, I believe this is inevitably important. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, spoke in the terms he did. I do not think it is helpful to the argument. I think it probably destroys his argument to some extent. What the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says is a very different matter—and I regard the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as a friend. Above all, it seems that as a Parliament we have to discuss this, and this is something burgeoning in the public. Therefore, it is a duty to discuss this in Parliament. If we happen to introduce this Bill, which the Commons can then consider, whether it is passed at this stage or not, that would be utterly justifiable, and I support this amendment.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment surely goes to something of importance to all of us in this House, whether we support assisted dying or not, because it is about the role of Parliament and the proper exercise of the duties of an elected Government. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that Parliament, and not the courts, should consider whether in some circumstances assisted dying should be legal. But so far, this Government have fought shy of doing so either of their own volition or by giving Private Members’ Bills time. There is now clear evidence that the public opinion has changed and wants Parliament to face up to this question and express its will. Yet the door is effectively being shut in the face of that opinion.
Dying is surely an issue of general public importance as it concerns every single one of us. Yet this subject is consistently and currently being starved of the oxygen of time in Parliament in order for the Government to avoid a controversial topic. This amendment does not require the Government to take sides or promote a Bill themselves; it merely requires them to prepare and lay a draft to enable Parliament to consider any possible change properly. I shall support this amendment, and I would hope that noble Lords, whatever their views on assisted dying, do the same, because this amendment is essentially about democracy.
Baroness Davidson of Lundin Links (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I do not do so lightly, because in 10 years of parliamentary politics, despite sometimes being seen as a bit of a rebel or trouble-maker, I have never actually broken a Whip before, that I can remember. It does help that I was a party leader for eight years and wrote the Whip, but it is still quite a big step for me. But for me here tonight, I have to, because I cannot believe, or understand why, the Government have whipped this in the first place, particularly when the amendment from my noble friend Lady Sugg, which is equally an issue of conscience, tonight is not whipped.
The reason I cannot believe this has been whipped is the reason that has been given—that of neutrality. I am absolutely content for the Government to be neutral on the issue of assisted dying. That is not just defendable but completely understandable, but not allowing time for discussion is not a neutral act. When contentious Private Members’ Bills attract clear tactics from oppositional Members to affix a deluge of wrecking amendments to slow progress through the House, denying such discussion time is not neutral. This is a convention that previous Governments have understood, and they have acted. The decriminalisation of homosexuality, the repeal of the death penalty, the legalisation of abortion: none of these measures would have passed without the Government of the day allocating suitable parliamentary time for their debate and discussion. To deny that time here is not a neutral act. It is to guarantee that this issue is killed by procedure and killed by practice. It is a de facto opposition to change.
For these reasons, I will break the Conservative Whip this evening. I encourage all people, no matter which side of the argument they happen to be on, who want us to have the deep, broad and considered debate we need on an issue as important as this to do exactly the same. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and I urge him to press it.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I feel I have to remind the House that we have had 95 hours of debate in recent years on this topic; and the implication that we have not debated this is a misrepresentation. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has asked us not to talk about assisted dying but then actually did talk about some aspects. We are being asked to test the willingness in both Houses, but I remind the House that the Marris Bill started in the Commons, was debated there and was defeated there by 330 votes to 118. That is where a Bill like this should start.
It is true that, historically, there have been major changes. Those have been in Bills that started in the House of Commons, when the public understood what they were about. The public knew what capital punishment was, and they know what homosexuality is. These Bills started in the elected House, and they then came to this Chamber. That has been our procedure.
I would, though, like to challenge the claim that there is overwhelming support among the public. I think it is questionable. In the poll, when asked a bit more detail, 57% of the public did not understand what assisted dying is; 42% think it is your right to stop treatment, which is already a legal right; and 10% think it is hospice care. Dignity in Dying has said it wants to have the largest record of public support, yet to date it has less than 0.5% of the population of England and Wales signed up to this list. So I do think we have to look at some of the claims being made and think about them.
Whatever noble Lords think about assisted suicide and euthanasia, this amendment would set a dangerous constitutional precedent for any Government. It is surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with his deep respect for parliamentary processes and Governments being able to govern, has taken this approach, because this amendment would set a precedent enabling any Back-Bencher from any pressure group to disrupt a Government’s agenda. Does the noble Lord plan to bring judicial proceedings if his proposal is not tabled in a year? That is the criterion in the text of his amendment. A draft Bill leads to a Bill, assuming and forcing government support, before exploring evidence of the complexities of licensing doctors to provide lethal drugs.
We do indeed already have a Bill before us, and it is awaiting debate. The amendments laid are not vexatious. Based on the extensive evidence from abroad, they expose the problems with the proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. Where assisted dying is legal, palliative care has dwindled, legislation has widened, the safeguards have been seen to fail, and non-assisted violent suicide rates rise disproportionately. Post-event reporting, as in her Bill, does not work because it relies on the clinician. I could go on, but I will not.
Yet surprisingly, no request was made for Committee until months after Second Reading, and no one seems to have sought to discuss the amendments that have been widely criticised by those who have spoken today. Some Members openly want the prognosis requirement to be dropped from the Bill to make legal drugs available on request. We have to at least know what the content of the Bill is even before we proceed. An 18 year-old with severe anorexia is already eligible under the Bill that is currently before the House. The answer to harrowing accounts of inadequate care is not to force the Government to draft a Bill that would allow doctors to supply massive overdoses of unevaluated lethal drugs to patients. Good, holistic, palliative care has been made a right in this Bill by this Government, and people should ask for it and insist on it.
This amendment is not the way to seek a careful analysis of the complexities of assisted suicide and euthanasia. It creates a constitutional headache for any future Government’s ability to govern. The procedure is to debate a Private Member’s Bill properly in Committee; and that Private Member’s Bill should start in the elected House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I hate to disagree with the noble Lords who have spoken against this amendment, almost as much as I loathe supporting the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on anything. But, for me, this is a matter of democracy. Public opinion is constantly moving on this, and it becomes more and more supportive as the public understand the issues involved. It is partly the duty of the Government to explain exactly what it is about. Having a proper debate like this is something we should all support.
Personally, I want this on the statute book before I need it. I have five grandchildren, and I try to talk them all into pushing me over a cliff if I were to get too ill. As soon as their mothers told them that it was illegal, they refused me. The idea remains that this is something which many of us want for ourselves, because we fear being incapable. Therefore, I support Amendment 170.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to put a point to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. He said that his amendment simply provides time for Parliament to consider an assisted dying Bill. I note that proposed new subsection (2)(a) also says that the Secretary of State should
“respect that this is a matter of conscience”.
But a draft Bill is a draft Bill. It will be prepared by a government department; instructions will be given by solicitors, after consultation with Ministers, to parliamentary counsel; and that Bill will eventually be approved by Ministers in the relevant department and put before Parliament. There will be a Minister in charge of the Bill. Whatever mechanism is chosen—maybe a Joint Select Committee of both Houses—to consider the draft legislation, the Minister will be in charge and will be seen by the public to be driving through a Bill. If the noble Lord had said in his amendment that more time should be given for the Private Member’s Bill, I would have supported it. Businesses managers clearly need to take account of the obvious wish of this House to have more time to debate it—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not want to prolong the debate but, for the sake of clarity, I will say that the issue here is that this is a complex subject—as has been pointed out. It is a Private Member’s Bill, and the Government would provide support for that. It is not a government Bill, and it is not being piloted by the Minister. This is clear from the amendment. It could not be, because the Government then would not be neutral, as they should be, on a matter of conscience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, his amendment says:
“The Secretary of State must, within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a draft Bill”.
In my book, a Minister laying before Parliament a draft Bill is in charge of that Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I agree with those who have already spoken opposing the amendment. First, the amendment is not appropriate as a use of the legislative process accompanying this Bill through your Lordships’ House. There is a question of purpose. If opportunity for debate is the goal, we must underestimate neither the significance of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in October and the thorough, careful and considered debate, nor the possibilities of calling for Committee. I would also support that time being given in this House. There are important constitutional questions which arise if the amendment enacted by this House does in fact instruct the Secretary of State in the other place to propose and introduce a draft Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just outlined. If that is not the case—and if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is not advocating for this draft to be introduced—what is the purpose of the amendment?
Secondly, I am aware that the language of the amendment has some real problems. One example is “terminally ill”. We debated the importance of language at Second Reading of the Assisted Dying Bill. The phrase “terminally ill” is understood in a whole range of different ways in different parts of the world. Is there any guidance offered on the definition or scope behind the language in the draft Bill attached to the Secretary of State’s instruction?
The complexity of the issue in question is so great—and the lives of the people who are facing a personal debate of this kind, and feel that they would be particularly impacted, are so important—that this cannot be how we legislate on their behalf. We are on Report, so I was disturbed that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened when he did.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, ordinarily I would not support a novel procedure which overrode the precedence of the ways in which we normally do business and in which the Government expect to direct how business is taken in both Houses of Parliament. But I have been increasingly concerned that the Private Member’s Bill processes, both here and in the other place, simply do not work. They do not work for controversial Bills. It is simple to thwart the progress of a controversial Bill both here and in another place—but particularly so in this House through the mechanisms which we have seen used.
This issue is so important: it is clear that there is strong body of opinion within the British public wanting to see this issue addressed in some way. We must find parliamentary time to make a proper decision on it. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says about the unusual nature of a Minister having to lay a draft Bill which is not government business. But sometimes things are so important that we must find practical ways through them. I believe that my noble friend’s amendment is a practical way through a very difficult problem, and I urge all noble Lords on my Benches to ignore the Whip.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in Committee, I asked whether the Minister—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was responding on that occasion—had thought about giving parliamentary time to the Private Member’s Bill. The proponents of the current amendment are suggesting that this is not about the Government bringing forward a piece of legislation, even though—as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out—that is exactly what the amendment says. If the intention of the amendment is to request parliamentary time—and we really are looking only at proposed new subsection (2)(b)—could the Minister, in replying, consider whether parliamentary time could be given to the issue without damaging neutrality in any way? The amendment, as drafted, would require the Government to bring forward legislation in favour of assisted dying. An amendment which gives parliamentary time to the issue would be very different.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. First, I rise to challenge the view that all bishops and religious leaders are against assisted dying. I changed my mind some seven years ago.
Secondly, we are discussing the Health and Care Bill. It so happened that this week I received a letter from two doctors—husband and wife—from Colchester. I will read a part of it because they asked me to intervene on their behalf. Their experience comes from within the National Health Service; they worked in the NHS all their careers. One of them says:
“I visited P a little more than two weeks before he died. Alone with me, he explained that he was beyond misery, from the pain of his condition and from the effects that drugs were having. The time had come, the patient asked, to request something that would allow him to slip away. The look of disbelief and horror as I explained that I could not do this haunts me still.”
The doctor goes on to say:
“The Health Service which has done everything it could to involve the patient in their care and comply with the patient's wishes waits until they are at their most vulnerable and incapacitated, to impose a course diametrically opposed to the wishes of the patient.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the accusation that lots of the amendments to the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, were a sort of Machiavellian plot to subvert the democratic process. I want to point out that I had tabled one of those amendments, about mental health, partly because I thought that that was our job here, that when a Bill was before Parliament, we followed it through—to every Bill that I have followed through here, there have been myriad, endless amendments. I thought that our role was to scrutinise proposed laws, to debate the merits and demerits and so on. I was therefore disappointed that there was no Committee stage of that Private Member’s Bill. So I do not accept the suggestion that those who put down amendments did so somehow to avoid debate; in fact, it was the opposite.
My general view on the problems of parliamentary and democratic process was best summed up by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I also feel queasy that there is a kind of subverting of the parliamentary process by an amendment on assisted dying or assisted suicide being put down on the Health and Care Bill. It is totally inappropriate. It is hijacking a Bill. Whatever else assisted dying and assisted suicide is, it does not contribute to improving anyone’s health. It requires ending a life; it is not a healthcare matter, and it will require a major change in the criminal law, so this is the wrong Bill.
However, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and feel his frustration. I feel all the time that there are lots of laws I want to change; there are lots of things I want to change about the country; there are lots of times when I feel as though the public think one thing and the Government ignore them. What one therefore needs to do is to lobby the Government—the noble Lord probably has closer access to them than a lot of us—or, as maybe I would do, to organise a demonstration or a protest, unless the Government had got away with banning that by the time we got there. In other words, in a democracy, there are lots of frustrations that need to be expressed if you want to change the law. Using our position as unelected legislators to add an amendment to an inappropriate Bill seems to be completely wrong on a matter of such huge importance.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, because it is important to recognise that she is quite right. We should be able to debate all the amendments that Members wish to debate, in both Houses, on a Bill of this sort—a Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, said, addresses one of the most fundamental social issues facing society.
However, I disagree that this amendment is nothing to do with health. The last days, weeks and months of your life, the healthcare that you receive, and the options open to you are part of the healthcare provided throughout the NHS and elsewhere. So I believe that it is appropriate to discuss this here.
It is a novel procedure. It is not a procedure that mandates the Government to support the draft Bill that would be brought in. The amendment is precisely designed not to do that but to ensure that a proper and full debate is held. I normally follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, closely and often agree with him, but I do not accept that we are imposing something on the other House by passing an amendment to a Bill which is going to have lots of amendments made to it and will go to the other place, where those amendments will be debated and accepted or not accepted.
Most of all, I support this amendment because it is now nearly 20 years since I served on the Select Committee on the Joffe Bill. There have been numerous attempts since then to resolve this most important issue. They have all run into the sand one way or another. Our legislature has not found itself able to produce a result that satisfies everyone that there has been full debate and resolution found to how we should go ahead as a society. In that time, 20 other jurisdictions have managed that task, because they have found a way of providing adequate time so to do. For those reasons, I support this amendment.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I want to add my support particularly for what my noble friend Lady Hayman has just said. This has gone on for a long time. I have been involved in it throughout my time as a Member of this House and I do not intend to repeat what I have said before. I want just to say that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, offers a useful way forward so that assisted dying is given time in both Houses to be debated properly. It must be given serious consideration. Whether one is for or against changing the law on assisted dying, we all surely agree that this is a very serious issue worthy of serious scrutiny and debate. It is unacceptable that, once again, my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Private Member’s Bill risks being lost, due not to lack of support but to not enough time being allowed to take the Bill through all its stages.
Assisted dying is very much related to health and care, and it is appropriate that this amendment should be included as part of this Bill.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, this is the second occasion on which I have spoken on assisted dying in your Lordships’ House. Five years or so ago, I supported the Bill in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and voted for it. I did not speak on the Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but I was ready to vote for it. However, as we know, the vote was not called because the opponents of the Bill feared that, if there was a vote, there would be an even larger majority in favour of the Bill on that occasion than there was earlier, because the arguments against assisted dying are shrinking year by year.
This House has now accepted on two occasions a Second Reading for a Bill to ensure that assisted dying is placed on our statute book. That is the political and democratic decision of this House, yet it has now been thwarted twice, and the thwarting is most extraordinary.
We managed to survive constitutionally in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries without trying to kill legislation by tabling so many amendments. It was a device invented by Conservative Back-Benchers in the 1970s to prevent a Bill passing through the House of Commons that prevented the hunting of foxes by dogs. A small number of devoted hunters devised this trick. The Member of Parliament was Marcus Kimball; older Members might remember it. It was a political trick which has been used in this House on three occasions: on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on hereditary Peers; on the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer; and on the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
I remind your Lordships that the only way in which we as Back-Benchers in the House of Lords can effect personal influence on social change is through Private Members’ Bills. There is no other way in which we can effect a policy—we are all controlled by the agenda of the Government—yet we are being denied this. The democratic choice of this House in passing the Second Reading on two occasions is very clear, and it is being thwarted. That is very unfair.
I told my Whip three weeks ago that I was going to come in and support my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s Bill and vote. He said, “It doesn’t matter; it’s a matter of conscience”. He confirmed that in an email to me last week and in a conversation I had with him on Monday. I do not believe my Whip was lying—it was the Government’s view—but suddenly the Whip was changed last night, right at the last minute. Somebody must have spoken to people in the House of Lords, because the view has been very clear since my noble friend Lord Forsyth tabled his amendment. It was clear that the Government—a Conservative Government—were going to be asked to prepare a Bill on assisted dying and, in a reasonable amount of time, find time for it to be debated.
The great social reforms we have had in the last 50 or 60 years all started with the Government of the day being prepared to find time for them. The Wolfenden report in 1957 recommended the decriminalisation of homosexual activity. That was opposed by many Conservative Back-Benchers, yet the Conservative Government of the day made time for it to be debated. When David Steel produced his Abortion Bill, the Government of the day—I think it was the first Wilson Government—made time for it to be debated. Thirdly, when Roy Jenkins as Home Secretary introduced a Bill to abolish hanging, the Government of the day found time for it to be debated.
That is the principle, so I expected that we were going to have a free vote tonight. I am simply amazed that the Government have now suddenly changed the Whip. Someone has spoken to them. I do not expect the Minister to accept that, but somebody from the other House has certainly spoken to the Government and said, “We don’t want to be in a position to have to draft a Bill on assisted dying and find some time in the not-too-distant future for it to be debated”.
We are not suggesting that the Meacher Bill should come back and be debated in May or June this year, in this parliamentary Session, but there are other parliamentary Sessions in which it could be introduced: 2022-23, 2023-24 or 2024-25. If it has not been decided by the next election, I very much hope that all of the four major parties in our country—the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberals and the Greens—have a clear undertaking in their manifestos that, if they were elected, time would be found for the two Houses of Parliament to make up their minds whether they wanted assisted dying on our statute book. I am quite happy to leave that decision to the British people because, unlike the noble Baroness here, I happen to believe that the argument has moved decisively as far as the people of this country are concerned. There are now far too many people who have seen relatives or friends die long, lingering and miserable deaths.
The original argument against assisted dying was sanctity of life. I found it extraordinary that in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not one of the Bishops or Archbishops addressed the sanctity of life. Other arguments are now put forward: the vulnerability of people who are dying, with relatives gathering around and wanting to polish them off—things of this sort, all of which can be addressed by amendments to the Bill.
I am very surprised that a Conservative Government should decide to vote against my noble friend Lord Forsyth. He and I go back a very long way. Thirty years ago he was the chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland—that was when we had a Conservative Party in Scotland—and I was the chairman of the Conservative Party in England. I got to know him very well, and I can think of no one who more embodies conservatism in his whole mind and being than my noble friend. Whether it was a question of lower government expenditure, lower taxes, greater freedom of choice on housing or greater freedom of choice for parents, he was there. Conservatism runs in his blood—he has the bluest of blood—and I think it an insult to him and a disgrace that the Whips on my side of the House have said we should vote against him.
I hope that this amendment will be passed and that this House will recover the sense that, without it being passed, your Lordships’ democratic choice, which has been exercised on two Bills, is being totally disregarded by a political trick. That is simply not right.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I do not understand why it is a conscience vote if it is not about the substance or the subject but somehow about parliamentary process. That does not seem to me to be a matter of conscience.
The point is that people want better care at the end of their life. The amendment to this Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is a game-changer. I wonder how many noble Lords understand that something has changed during the passage of this Bill. For the very first time, people will now be eligible and able to have palliative and hospice care at the end of their lives commissioned by the NHS. It is the responsibility of all integrated care boards to commission proper, good palliative care so that the poor care and poor deaths that people in this House are afraid of will be a thing of the past.
This is the wrong time to talk about introducing lethal drugs as a last resort. We should be looking forward with optimism and hope about how things have changed. This is also relevant to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s Bill. Noble Lords have questioned the motives of Peers who have tried to amend that Bill. It needed to be amended and scrutinised. My amendments were all about palliative care—this was before the game-changer of universal palliative care—being available before people are offered the only option of lethal drugs. If lethal drugs are the answer, why was this not an amendment to introduce lethal drugs to enable people to be assisted in their own suicide? Palliative care will reduce the supposed demand for physician-assisted suicide.
I think the statistics have been misrepresented. Only 10 US states have legalised physician-assisted suicide, despite the supposed success in Oregon. Maybe they have recognised that palliative care decreases rather than increases when lethal drugs are available. Some 200 attempts to introduce physician-assisted suicide in the United States have been defeated.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House long. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, told us that this is not to open the debate in favour of or against assisted dying but, as the debate has gone on, there has been an opening up of that debate. We have to look very carefully at what was given to us by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on the constitutional question. This amendment is not saying that the Government must find time to debate this matter but instructing the Secretary of State.
This is a revising Chamber. It is made up of unelected people telling the Government in the elected place that they must produce a Bill and it must be given time. That is my worry. My views on assisted dying are very clear. I will debate it whenever the issue comes back again, but the issue for me now is to avoid what was happening towards the end of Theresa May’s Government, when the Back-Benchers were trying to take control of government business. That led us into a mess.
I am not against speaking in favour of any Government of any colour, because I have never been a member of any party, but I want to observe how the liberalisation of homosexuality actually happened. Michael Ramsey, as Archbishop of Canterbury, began a debate in your Lordships’ House because of what had happened to Turing and many other people. He just thought: is it natural justice that consenting adults should actually be prosecuted and have to go through horrendous treatment, some of them facing horrendous stuff? The debate happened here and what was the result? It was the Wolfenden report. That recommended that this should be debated and a Minister of the Government, and Mr Jenkins on behalf of the Labour Party, joined in the debate and what happened? The law was passed. Where did it start? It started in the elected Chamber.
I have a real concern that we, as a revising Chamber, are not even considering a Bill that has actually come from the Government but instructing the Secretary of State to produce a Bill within a year of this coming into being and saying that it must be debated. Does this respect our position and why we are here? This is not revising legislation, at which all your Lordships do a fantastic job. Without your Lordships, the Bills in this country would be horrendous. However, let us not overreach ourselves and think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring this in. Who is the Secretary of State in this case? is it the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?
May I please ask that we get another amendment or another Statement to give the House a Private Member’s Bill that needs to be given sufficient time to be debated properly? Also, other people told your Lordships that on 21 September 2015, there was full a debate in the other place.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
Noble Lords might say that it was a long time ago, but it was debated. It is not as if this has never been debated properly. It went through all the processes and unfortunately the Bill was lost. Is this another example of once something is lost, you bring it back again and again? I do not want to be like a particular German Chancellor who lost an election and said, “This is really wrong, we must change the people.” Friends, we are a revising Chamber. We need a bit of humility about our position, and should not think that we can instruct the Secretary of State to bring in a particular Bill because time has been lost.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I detect a sense that the House would like to hear from the Front Benches, but I know that all noble Lords have a right to speak and that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is very keen to say something. I am sure she will understand that the House wants to hear the Front Benches and that, if my noble friend wants to bring this to a vote, we should get on with it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken numerous times about my opposition to assisted suicide for many different reasons. It is not, for me, about the sanctity of life. Not everybody who believes that the law should not be changed has strong faith. However, we are continually being asked to vote through the principle and think about the detail later. The devil is in the detail.
Detailed scrutiny is our role as a revising Chamber. The Commons has so many of its amendments guillotined. However, we have to take an issue such as this, which is about ending people’s lives, very seriously and we have to debate some of the detail. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, feels strongly about this and I wish she had pressed much harder and much earlier for a Committee stage for her Bill. In an issue such as this, when we are talking about ending people’s lives, there should be hundreds of amendments, because it has to be debated properly.
I would like to briefly go on the record to thank the hundreds of people who have written in. We are really lucky right now that we live in a democracy and that people are able to freely express their opinions, whether we agree with them or not. Our role in the House of Lords is to deal with those people who write in. Lots of people from both sides have written to me. However, we must also be really careful in our language and not scare people into thinking that assisted suicide is the only option for them.
As a disabled person who sits in this Chamber with a red stripy badge, I have a huge amount of privilege. Many, many thousands—tens of thousands or more—of disabled people do not have privilege in respect of protection. This amendment and what it seeks to do will fundamentally change the political and societal landscape for disabled people. If people have not read it, they should look at the article by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, this weekend about how disabled people are encouraged to think that they would be better off dead than live with an impairment. Even in this Chamber, we hear about things such as incapacity and incontinence and all the things that people fear. I push back on that, and I push back on the view that public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of this. On the Dignity in Dying website, 284,881 people have signed the public petition. On the Commons website, asking for a change in the law, 46,483 people have done so. That is not overwhelming public opinion.
I know the frustration of people who want to change the law. I can feel it; we hear it, and I admire the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, says that we are a democratic Chamber. There are plenty on the outside who would not agree with that in terms of the way that we operate. This, however, is a constitutional matter. For all those arguing in favour of this tonight, I really look forward to them supporting my Private Member’s Bills asking for things such as good education, work, social care and access to trains, which are the things for which disabled people are arguing. This is not it: this is not the right time and not the right place. I do not support this amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I think the mood of the House is that the Front Benches—
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, may I just be indulged by the House in following the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson? Exactly seven weeks ago, not just to the day but to the exact hour, I started to feel very ill. I was barely 36 hours out of the operating theatre after surgery that had gone incredibly well and I knew something was seriously wrong. By midnight I was in agony, my bowels totally blocked by the combined effects of the anaesthesia and the pain relief. By the morning, I was passing blood and my haemoglobin levels had plummeted. That was just seven weeks ago. It was at that point that a decision was made to transfer me by ambulance to St Thomas’ A&E so that I could have an urgent blood transfusion. I lived to tell the tale, but tell it I would much rather not have done. I would much rather forget the whole episode—the unbelievable pain, the helplessness and the acute sense of vulnerability. My family do not know any of this; I have not told them. I am hoping they do not read Hansard.
I share it with your Lordships’ House because I believe that my recent experience is directly relevant to Amendment 170. We have been assured that this is not about the merits of assisted dying, but noble Lords should not underestimate the magnitude of what is at stake in this amendment. This is not the start of some cosy conversation about a harmless, anodyne measure. The end goal is assisted suicide and the means is a Bill proposed in this amendment. If this amendment were passed tonight, I firmly believe that in years to come, we would look back and say that today—16 March 2022—was a pivotal moment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, rightly said, the devil is in the detail. That is what Parliament does and it is what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is asking your Lordships to allow Parliament to do.
Like many families across the country, my family has had discussions about the substantive issue of assisted dying. Different views have been expressed and no one has fallen out, but it is not around our dinner table that decisions must be made about an issue as serious as this; that is for Parliament. I trust Parliament, and I do not think it should be—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out—for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make decisions about these issues. Assisted dying is happening and Parliament must decide how or if it should be done.
It has been suggested that this House should not instruct the Secretary of State to do anything. As we have gone through the Bill, we have asked the Secretary of State to do quite a lot of things; in fact, we have voted that the Secretary of State should do a lot of them. What happens to those amendments? They go to the elected House. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I understand how important he feels it is that issues as controversial as this should be decided by the elected Chamber. Well, if we vote for this amendment, those issues will be decided by the elected Chamber. If this novel procedure of a draft Bill being laid before Parliament is used, I trust Parliament; there will be proper debate and I hope that what will come out of it will be a very measured piece of legislation that takes all the concerns into account. The game-changer that my noble friend Lady Finlay has successfully introduced to the Bill will be taken into account by the elected Chamber.
It is very important that people who want to have palliative care to ease their suffering at the end of life actually get it—everyone should get it; there should be no postcode lottery—but even in those situations there may be people who do not want it and instead want to do something else. It is for Parliament, not for my dinner table or anyone else’s around the country, to make that decision and to be given the proper amount of time to come up with something that I hope will reassure those who rightly have fears. They have fears because they do not know what Parliament will decide. If we give Parliament the opportunity, I am quite sure that even a draft Bill, however well drafted, will probably be amended as it goes through the elected House. What will come out at the other end will probably reflect public opinion—genuine public opinion, that is; I am not quoting any polls on either side—as they will have given serious thought to the issue and listened to everyone who wants or does not want this measure on the statute book.
We must give the elected Chamber the opportunity either to accept an amendment that we may pass tonight or to send it back to us, but at least we will have asked them to think again. This House does that very well. We ask another place to think again. I hope we will tonight.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very closely to the many passionate, informed and often personal contributions from noble Lords this evening. This debate has inevitably been about not only parliamentary process and legislative approach but consideration of assisted dying. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for opening the debate on Amendment 170, which proposes, as your Lordships’ House is more than aware, a new clause to bring forward a draft Bill on what the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, described as a complex and difficult issue.
However, for me, the challenge of this debate is encapsulated in the contributions in the middle of it. The first, from the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, was that not allowing time for discussion is not a neutral act. This was followed swiftly by my noble friend Lord Hunt taking a different tack, saying that allowing for this amendment is also not a neutral act, and it is that which your Lordships’ House has wrestled with this evening.
It is indeed a matter of profound moral, personal and legislative importance that we find ourselves dealing with in Amendment 170. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will be seeking a Division and these Benches will approach this on free votes. It is a shame that this is not the case on the Government Benches. Your Lordships’ House heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the importance of principle, whereby matters such as this should be subject to nothing other than a free vote. I certainly share that view. I know that noble Lords will exercise their vote this evening with the greatest of care.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I must tell my noble friend Lord Forsyth that I am not with him on this amendment and nor are the Government. That has nothing to do with the issue of assisted dying, about which we each have our own views, but is about the proper process for bringing forward legislation and the roles and responsibilities of government on the one hand and parliamentarians on the other.
Governments are elected. The electorate then expect the Government to bring forward their programme of legislation, which Parliament then decides on. If alongside that process there is an issue that the Government do not choose to legislate on, but which happens to be close to the heart of an individual parliamentarian, that parliamentarian has the privilege of being able to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill for Parliament to consider. In each of those two legislative processes the roles, rights, responsibilities and privileges of the Government and of individual parliamentarians are separate. It is no more appropriate for a Government to force an MP or Peer to bring forward a particular Private Member’s Bill than it is for an MP or a Peer to force a Government to bring forward a government Bill. That includes a draft Bill. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern observed in Committee, draft Bills are brought forward by Governments only when there is an intention to legislate.
The Government have no intention of legislating on assisted dying; it is not part of our programme, nor was it part of our election manifesto. Equally, it is no part of our agenda to prevent an MP or a Peer bringing forward a Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has done just that because it is something that she feels strongly about. It is for her to persuade Parliament and the Government that her Bill is a good thing.
That is the proper process, and surely that is how it has to be. If it ever became possible for an MP or Peer to use a government Bill as a vehicle for obliging the Government to publish a completely separate Bill, even one on a subject which was in tune with the Government’s thinking, the due process of legislating would thereby be subverted. I ask noble Lords opposite how they would react if under a Labour Administration, an MP or Peer proposed to use a health Bill as a vehicle to oblige the Government to publish draft legislation, the purpose of which was to place all NHS hospitals into private ownership—or one might find an MP trying to use a criminal justice Bill as a vehicle to oblige the Government to publish legislation to bring back capital punishment.
My noble friend might say, “Well, in that circumstance, it would be for Parliament to decide whether or not to accept such an amendment”—but that is not the point. The point is that if one House of Parliament were to approve such an amendment and the other House were to follow suit, Parliament would thereby usurp the role of the democratically elected Government. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and my noble friend Lord Cormack were 100% right: it is for the Government to say what their legislative programme should be, not Parliament.
As the late Lord Simon of Glaisdale might once have said, this amendment is constitutionally offensive and it should be rejected on those grounds.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, does he believe that limiting debate on a crucial human rights issue to Fridays—when, as he knows, certainly in the House of Commons, very few MPs are around, and in the House of Lords too, many Peers are not available—is an appropriate way to consider a matter of very great importance?
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, we gave a full day’s debate to the noble Baroness’s Bill. That is surely not ungenerous.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is late; we have had a very good debate. I have to say, I shall long remember being accused of leading a coup in Parliament.
My purpose was very simple. My noble friend has explained the Government’s position very clearly. I say to my noble friend Lord Baker, who was very kind in his remarks about me, that the Chief Whip made it perfectly clear to me from the beginning what the Government’s position would be. It has been set out by my noble friend Lord Howe. However, there is a problem here. It is all very well for my noble friend to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, “Well, we have the private procedure, and we have the government procedure”, but on a matter of huge importance, Parliament is completely unable to reach a view. My amendment was really an attempt to do that.
There has been some nonsense talked, I have to say, about how we are getting above ourselves and that we are instructing the House of Commons. If this amendment is passed tonight, it will go to the House of Commons and, under our procedures, it will be for the House of Commons to decide.
I have made it absolutely clear to my noble friend the Chief Whip and the Front Bench that if the Government say, “We don’t like this procedure; we think it’s a bit too novel, but we’ll give a commitment that we’ll make time available at some point in this Parliament for the purpose of discussing this really important issue”—I agree with the points made by a number of people that it is a complex and difficult issue; that is why it needs time for everyone to put their point of view and for a result to emerge, which might very well be a conclusion that we do not want to change the law—then I would withdraw my amendment. But, for some reason, the Government are refusing to do so. They seem to think that it is more important to discuss ending the lives of lobsters than addressing this hugely important issue of the end of life for people. There is time for the former, but not for this.
The Government are entitled to their programme, but having listened to the response, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 16th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-IV Marshalled List for Report - (14 Mar 2022)
21:55 - Division on Amendment 172 - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 172 agreed.
22:45 - Division on Amendment 174 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 115 - Amendment 174 disagreed.
“Dispute resolution in children’s palliative care
(1) This section applies where there is a difference of opinion between a parent of a child with a life-limiting illness and a doctor responsible for the child’s treatment about—(a) the nature (or extent) of specialist palliative care that should be made available for the child, or(b) the extent to which palliative care provided to the child should be accompanied by one or more disease-modifying treatments.(2) Where the authorities responsible for a health service hospital become aware of the difference of opinion they must take all reasonable steps—(a) to ensure that the views of the parent, and of anyone else concerned with the welfare of the child, are listened to and taken into account;(b) to make available to the parent any medical data relating to the child reasonably required to obtain evidence to inform the parent’s proposals for the child’s treatment (including obtaining an additional medical opinion);(c) to allow the provider of an alternative treatment that is being advocated by the parent to provide evidence, in person or remotely, to the mediation process and subsequently to the court;(d) to demonstrate the reasons that significant harm would be likely to be caused by the proposed treatment; and(e) where the two parties are unable to resolve their difference of opinion, to allow for a mediation process, acceptable to both parties, between the parent and the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility.(3) Nothing in subsection (2) requires, or may be relied upon so as to require, the provision of any specific treatment by a doctor or institution, and in particular nothing in subsection (2)—(a) requires the provision of resources for any particular course of treatment; or(b) requires a doctor to provide treatment that the doctor considers likely to be futile or harmful, or otherwise not in the best interests of the child.(4) In this section—“child” means an individual under the age of 18;“health service hospital” has the meaning given by section 275 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (interpretation);“parent” means a person with parental responsibility for a child within the meaning of the Children Act 1989.(5) Nothing in this section affects—(a) the principle of the best interests of the child,(b) the law about the appropriate clinical practice to be followed as to—(i) having regard to the child’s own views, where they can be expressed; and(ii) having regard to the views of anyone interested in the welfare of the child, whether or not a person concerned with the welfare of the child within the meaning of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that disputes between parents and doctors will be able to engage effective mediation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the very real problem that relates to the power differential between a doctor and the parents of a sick child. I am most grateful to all who have met me and discussed the amendment, particularly some senior paediatricians and the charity Together for Short Lives, and for support from the Charlie Gard Foundation in redrafting this amendment.
The amendment has been carefully redrafted in the light of comments made on the earlier version. Everyone I have spoken to has recognised that problems sometimes arise. In its 2018-19 review, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics observed common themes behind disagreements—communication issues, differing perspectives on what kind of risks could justifiably be taken, feelings of powerlessness for both parents and staff, and delays in seeking resolution interventions. Among the recommendations is mandatory communications training, as in proposed new subsection (2)(a) in the amendment, and the timely use of effective resolution interventions such as mediation, as in proposed new subsection (2)(e). When parents, as most do, have looked up their child’s condition on the internet, they often come across suggested treatments on different websites or by talking to medical contacts that they have. Clinicians can feel threatened by that.
When parents are worried, they can come across as angry or difficult in their attempt to get information or get something done. All too often, they are labelled as overanxious. Yet, is it normal to be out of your mind with worry if your child, whom you adore, looks as if they might die.
This amendment tries to provide a route for everyone to communicate better, and for the temperature to be lowered. It applies where there is a difference of opinion between the parents and the responsible doctor when a child is thought to be nearing the end of life. When staff become aware of a difference of opinion, the clinicians need to listen to the parents, and others concerned with the child’s welfare, who may have important information to inform thinking. Parents who want to seek a second opinion want to know the results of tests, such as radiology, for example, and, at the moment, they must go through a complex and sometimes slow process to access the information. Sadly, some parents only find out what was in the clinical record after their child has died. Of course, if there is any suspicion of child abuse, subsection (2)(b) would not apply, as it would be outwith the “reasonable steps” criterion.
Where another clinician from a reputable centre is suggesting a treatment, they should be asked to explain it, and the evidence base behind the suggestion, to avoid distortion of messaging—hence, subsection (2)(d) of the amendment. Clinicians, in explaining why they oppose a proposal, need to be able to explain to the parents what the “significant harm” in the proposal is. When taking any clinical decision, harms and burdens are weighed up against potential benefit. If a child is going to be taken into care, the test is whether it is of “significant harm” to leave the child where they are, rather than be taken into care. In some ways, this is similar, because the clinicians are being asked to show that it is significantly harmful for the child to pursue the parents’ proposal, rather than continuing with the current management plan—when it often involves withdrawing treatment and is likely to lead to death.
Some hospitals have excellent ethics committees to involve early. The Nuffield Council report recognises that there are very real difficulties in the concept of best interest when deciding not to treat, as it is often not clear to the parents why abandoning the hope of improvement is in the interests of the child. In an overcrowded NHS, unconscious bias can skew towards wanting a service to clear beds, when prognosis looks poor. However, parents know that the child has no interests once they are dead. Nuffield recommends that the views of parents should be accorded considerable weight in decisions about their child.
When the two parties are unable to resolve their difference of opinion, such a case would now go to the court immediately. This amendment suggests that a
“mediation process, acceptable to both parties”
should be allowed when, and only when, earlier attempts at resolution have failed, as in subsection (2)(e). A mediation process would be between the parents and the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility. It cannot be delegated to a junior in training or to one of the nurses on the ward. If mediation fails, then, as now, the case would proceed to court. The amendment is clear that no doctor or institution would be required to provide a treatment which they do not feel comfortable giving. This is the current law. The amendment is also clear that the overriding principle is the principle, as laid out in current law, of the
“best interests of the child”
being paramount. If the child is Gillick-competent, such an amendment would not apply.
Similarly, the views of others, such as a social worker or health visitor who knows the family may provide important information. As is the case now, that information must be listened to, as it may relate to some safeguarding issues or other information unknown to either the clinical team or the court. The early steps outlined in this amendment should improve the quality of communication between parents and the medical team, thereby decreasing the need to go to mediation. The mediation process is to try to decrease the number of cases going to court. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 172. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling this improved amendment, with important changes since Committee, as she has very helpfully explained to your Lordships’ House. I believe that this helps to find a way to balance the views of the child’s parents and the child’s doctors, and it is reassuring that many of the stakeholders from different perspectives have come to agreement on this.
The amendment also makes it clear that nothing affects the principle of the best interests of the child. This means that no medical professional could ever be forced to provide a medical treatment that they do not believe is in the best interests of the child, and that any other provider of such medical treatment would have to provide evidence during the mediation that this would benefit the child.
Another key reason for the need for this amendment is that at the moment mediation provision across England is inconsistent. While there is certainly excellence, there are also some problem areas. Having in legislation an independent mediation process made available at the earliest stage possible can help facilitate less confrontational conversations while supporting both sides in the argument.
The issue of parent-doctor conflicts will continue to persist frequently unless the Government can consider this amendment, and I strongly urge them to do so. If the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, were to call a Division, we would support her on this, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some positive news.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is also taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 172, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff on her persistence on this important matter of mediation. It is a proven way of dismantling conflicts before they reach the courts.
Over the years, there have been some tragic cases when relationships have broken down between doctors and family members. When this happens in a hospital environment, parents can feel backed into a corner, with no alternatives. Mediation gives the opportunity for the parents to give their views and to hear the doctors’ views too at the earliest stage.
Ending up in the courts costs parents, hospitals and the Government hundreds of thousands in legal fees and causes avoidable distress and concern to all those involved. The only people who win are the lawyers. Parents have to live with grief and the decisions which have been made for their child for the rest of their lives if the results are not good. They want to know that they tried everything possible to give their child the best chance.
I feel that there should be adequate training for doctors, nurses and social workers in the values of mediation so that there is a team approach to treating a child in a life-and-death situation. I hope the Minister understands the need for this amendment and will accept it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. I too have added my name to Amendment 172 and commend the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the way in which she introduced it. This debate could risk sounding technical and legalistic, but it is really about redressing an imbalance of power between doctors and parents when their child is desperately sick and at risk of dying and decisions are being made about how best to care for them.
I will not repeat all that I said in Committee, but my attention was drawn to this issue just over a year ago by listening to Connie Yates describe the ordeal that she and her partner Chris endured through the courts when the Great Ormond Street Hospital doctors disagreed with their decision as parents to seek alternative treatment for their baby. Theirs may be an extreme example of what it means not to be listened to or taken seriously by highly qualified professionals who, because they know more, believe they know best, but it is all the more profound because, as parents, what they experienced was not right, and it certainly was not what they deserved.
While this kind of ordeal might be rare, the wider principle—ensuring that we are all taken seriously when we deserve to be—needs promoting with vigour by those of us who enjoy great power and privilege. We need to go out of our way to redress imbalances where we see them, because the inequalities and unfairnesses that people feel, which have driven the political realignment we have seen in recent years, will not be fixed by infrastructure projects or economic decisions alone.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, my only previous intervention on the Bill came about when I read the proposed clause, and in my capacity as a trained mediator I thought that the original proposed clause was not very sound. The proposed new clause is a huge improvement on that, and I hope it will be looked on with favour. As the noble Baroness said, it is about evening up the power relations.
If you are in a hospital and dealing with anyone who is ill, but particularly small babies, it can be a very difficult experience. My daughter-in-law had two very small twin babies. Gathered around the incubator were one PhD and three decent BScs, and we did not know what to do. We felt quite powerless, but we also felt that it was very difficult to get the doctors to tell us what the prognosis was. In fact, the prognosis was quite good—they recovered and are now both in the school football team—but at the time there was on our part a great sense of powerlessness and a feeling that the doctors did not feel they really needed to communicate with us. That level of powerlessness is what this aims to address.
It is about early access to independent mediation. The first qualification of a mediator is that independence. They will not get a result, and nor should they, unless they have the trust of both sides and unless both sides enter into it in a good spirit, looking for a solution. Finally, if they get a solution, it has to be one that sticks. That is why the amendment refers to
“the senior doctor with overall clinical responsibility.”
This cannot be a mediation where a junior member of the medical staff is sent along, where it has no binding effect and where the senior doctor looks at it and says, “I don’t like that; we’re not going to do that.” There has to be some sort of legislative backing.
However, as noble Lords will have seen, the amendment states:
“Where the authorities … become aware of the difference of opinion they must take … reasonable steps.”
It is all about getting consensus; it is about releasing medical data to both sides, and it is about ensuring that the doctors responsible for treatment are at least obliged to listen to any alternatives that the parents might wish to put forward.
When we last debated this issue, I advised—and indeed this has been done—that we knock out the financial provisions, because we thought that the Government would object and say, “We can’t sign a blank cheque.” However, clearly not all the people listened, because this very morning the Ministry of Justice released its Legal Aid Means Test Review, which states:
“We are proposing to increase significantly both the income and capital thresholds for legal aid eligibility, and remove the means test entirely for some civil cases. These include legal representation for children, and legal representation for parents whose children are facing proceedings in relation to the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.”
It rather shoots the government fox that was running around, does it not? It was said that mediation would encourage litigation, whereas now mediation will discourage litigation, because it will be in the interests of both the health service and the medical profession to make mediation work. In making it work, they will not have days and days in court, but they will have a chance of putting the case to a mediator—having been one, I can tell you that it is a lot cheaper than a barrister—and coming to an agreement without needing the great generosity of our Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, in offering to pay all these costs. I must say that I was surprised by that statement, but if anyone wants to read it, there are multiple copies in the Printed Paper Office, which is where I got mine.
I hope that the Minister will be able complement his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice by taking a positive attitude to curing this particular result. Otherwise, we will be in a position where the Department of Health and Social Care is saying no to mediation, but where we are now going to get free access to the law courts to run up huge bills. What the Ministry of Justice does not say is which departmental budget will pay for this concession. I would not mind placing a little bet as to which one it has in mind.
So I am asking the Department of Health and Social Care to save itself some money, thanks to the beneficent amendment proposed by the four noble Baronesses and supported by me. We are out to save the Government some money, to make it much easier and to build into the system a right for parents to have a more evenly balanced say in what happens to their child at what is a very difficult and distressing time for many of them.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I did not contribute to the debate on this amendment in Committee, but I did sit and listen to the contributions from around the House. What struck me was that in his characteristically sympathetic response, the Minister had not quite understood the purpose of the amendment and the problems it would solve. He stated that the amendment would place the views of parents and guardians above those of clinicians. I do not see that this is the case, especially with the revised amendment that we have before us. Unfortunately, it is a reality that parent-doctor conflict happens. I declare an interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, and I have seen far too often the views of parents dismissed by clinicians. No matter how qualified parents may be, or what their role in life outside the hospital may be, they are consistently referred to only as “mum” or “dad”. Too often there is an imbalance of power with doctors, and too often parents are labelled as “difficult” or “sharp-elbowed”, as if wanting to do the best for your child is an irritant, and such parents should be grateful for what they get.
By the time a family is faced with palliative care, they will undoubtedly have been through the care of many clinicians: specialist, community, hospital and, potentially, hospice teams. The parents are therefore often the one consistent factor, and they are especially important when the child is too young or too ill, or unable to voice their own views. It is when parents feel they have not been listened to by clinicians that they resort to formal complaints or litigation. It is a last resort, but too often it is the only resort that is open to them. This amendment seeks to address this by giving them space for a formal coming together of all interested parties at an earlier stage, and so preventing costly and lengthy legal disputes. It does not place one party’s views above others; it does not, as outlined in proposed subsection (3), require the provision of resources for any treatment or require a doctor to provide treatment not in the best interests of the child. It simply ensures that there is a clear framework in these tragic, difficult cases to guide what happens next.
This amendment is designed to solve a problem currently faced by families and clinicians at moments of crisis. I urge the Government to consider it, and I will listen carefully to the response of the Minister tonight.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the House will want to move on quickly, so I will not make the speech that I intended to make on this issue, but I would very much like to endorse what the noble Baronesses, Lady Fraser and Lady Stowell, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend said in their earlier speeches. I know Connie Yates and Chris Gard, who are the parents of Charlie Gard, who died in 2017 of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome. Indeed, I have entertained them here in the House, arranged meetings for them and travelled with them. I entirely agree with what my noble friend is trying to do. This will make mediation work; it will create a proper balance and equality of arms. No parents should have to face litigation in these often tragic and troubling circumstances, so this is a good amendment and I hope the Minister will feel he can accept it.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was patron of Martin House in York, which is one of the amazing hospices that care for children and their parents. I was invited by the parents of a nine year-old, who was having a very difficult and trying time, to talk to clinicians, because they did not think that they were being heard. As we talked, it became clear that that was not true: the clinicians were on the side of the parents, but their language was not helpful. We had this amazing conversation, and as a result the needs of the child and the aspirations of both the parents and the clinicians matched, and we were able to get very careful care. What the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is trying to do is recognise that in most cases parents have good desires, and clinicians probably know more than they are willing to say but hold back because of the sheer pain and difficulty that they see on the faces of everybody, and another voice can help in these situations.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, this eminently sensible amendment sets out various considerations aimed at ensuring that there can be effective mediation when there is a dispute over children’s palliative care. There has been considerable discussion to bring this amendment to its current iteration and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her efforts around this, having already secured a meaningful amendment to ensure that ICBs must commission the palliative care services they consider appropriate.
Your Lordships’ House is aware that this amendment and debate come out of the heartbreaking situation of Charlie Gard and multiple other cases like his. I therefore know that this issue has to be handled and considered incredibly delicately, taking into account the best interests of the patient receiving care above all others.
Balancing the views of clinicians and parents is intrinsically and incredibly difficult, and particularly challenging to codify in legislation. This amendment is a rational measure to move towards achieving a better balance and keeping matters out of the court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to in her opening. We certainly support its intent and I therefore hope that the Minister’s response gives it due justice.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for having brought forward this important issue for debate and for introducing it in her characteristically informed and professional way. I assure her that I understand the issues she has highlighted and why she has done so. There is no doubt in my mind that the kinds of case that she has cited are extremely distressing and stressful for all involved, and can, on occasions, be contentious.
The Government agree that mediation is often a good route to take when there is such contention. Parents and clinicians should have access to high-quality, independent mediation schemes where they wish to do so. There are many mediation schemes available and we are very supportive of them.
The NHS already ensures access to mediation in many cases, and we strongly encourage it to continue doing so. But, at the same time, we need to ensure that those schemes are effective in the different contexts in which they are needed. Currently, organisations have the flexibility to offer mediation services earlier in a dispute or to prevent such disputes arising. They have the flexibility to tailor services specifically to the unique circumstances in which they are needed.
I hope the noble Baroness would agree that each case is unique. It is essential that everyone is able to have their voice heard, that there is a good understanding of different perspectives and that there is appropriate involvement of parents in decisions about the care and treatment of their child. Naturally, in that process, differences of opinion can and do arise.
The key to progress in this area is something deeply nuanced—human relationships. That is why I believe that, rather than legislation, our efforts are better directed at working together to develop systemwide solutions about how disagreements can be avoided or recognised early and, most importantly, sensitively managed. We need to ensure that in these difficult situations NHS trusts and staff are well equipped, well prepared and well supported to make that sure parents’ feelings and concerns are fully considered and supported, and that the relationship remains positive and constructive. We know that there are already examples of best practice and guidance but we need to do more.
To improve the outcomes of these difficult cases, we need to look at the whole process. We need to look at how best practice can be shared across the system to ensure that parents’ voices are heard throughout the process, not just in mediation, and how we can prevent disputes arising in the first place. In the rare cases when a dispute does arise, we need to focus on the quality of mediation schemes and not just prescribe that mediation is offered by default.
To look at how best we can embed best practice, training and advice on shared decision-making and dispute resolution across the system, the Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care has agreed to chair a round-table event facilitated by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. This will build on the work already being done by bringing together key stakeholders to agree actions that support the creation of healthcare environments that foster good, collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare staff. I have also offered to meet Connie Yates and Chris Gard to hear their experiences and discuss how we can support better collaborative relationships between parents and healthcare staff. I hope this demonstrates that the Government understand the importance of this issue and that we are committed to addressing it.
It is the Government’s view—I say this with some regret—that putting this amendment or another in the Bill will not help improve the outcomes of the very difficult, rare situations in which an unresolvable dispute arises. This is because efforts need to be focused on a holistic approach to dispute resolution to improve the process as a whole. Merely allowing for mediation to be available at the end of a dispute will not do this; either party could refuse it and allowing mediation will not, we think, drive the careful, sympathetic and considered work with parents and carers that this topic so urgently demands.
I recognise that these are difficult matters, but I think progress will best be made through practical, down-to-earth work across the system and by bringing in a wide range of perspectives. This is what I am now offering and I therefore hope that, in reflecting on that offer, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to everyone who has spoken. I realise that the time is late so I will try to be very brief in responding. I appreciate the offer of Nuffield to host another round-table event. I believe it held one recently and it had its previous inquiry. The sad reality, however, is that over recent decades of trying to teach communication skills, things have not improved as much as they should. One of the reasons is high staff turnover, which means you educate one group and it moves on. Yes, things have to be sensitively managed, but the role models come from the seniors. We are not talking about the vast majority, who are doing really well. The problem is that the people who are not doing well are the very ones who do not take up the education and do not want to change. I believe we have now got to the point where we need to send a very clear message and put this in the Bill. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Global health emergency international cooperation
In the event of the World Health Organisation declaring a public health emergency of international concern (“PHEIC”), the Secretary of State must within three months—(a) initiate or otherwise support and implement proposals temporarily to waive elements of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) at the World Trade Organisation to assist wider global manufacturing of and access to health technologies;(b) waive such UK-registered patents, industrial designs, other intellectual property rights, and protections concerning undisclosed information relating to—(i) vaccines,(ii) medicines,(iii) diagnostics and their associated technologies, and(iv) materials,as necessary for combatting the emergency internationally; and(c) issue relevant emergency compulsory directions to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products.”Member’s explanatory statement
In the event of a public health emergency of international concern, this new Clause requires the Secretary of State to support domestic and international knowledge-sharing, to combat the emergency.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the aim of Amendment 174 is to learn from mistakes made during this pandemic and ensure that, in the event of a public health emergency of international concern, our Government share and support others to share critical knowledge, data, research and intellectual property relating to vaccines, tests, treatments and their associated materials. By sharing this information and intellectual property we can scale up and, crucially, diversify the manufacturing of pandemic tools to ensure equitable access around the world, expediting our ability to end the emergency for all by winning the race against new variants.
Less than 10% of people in low-income countries have been double vaccinated. Lower-income countries are not prioritised. The status quo pharmaceutical model of supplying to the highest bidder means that low-income countries have to rely on the good will of high-income countries and companies to provide donations. Evidently, this has not proven effective in achieving global equitable access. Many low and middle-income countries therefore want to manufacture their own vaccines, tests and treatments so that they can have greater oversight of supply volumes, timelines for dispensing products and prices now and for the future. However, pharmaceutical companies have widely refused to share their technology openly. In addition, the United Kingdom, the EU and Switzerland have continuously blocked South Africa and India in their proposal to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement—the TRIPS agreement—on all Covid-19 tools, vaccines, tests and treatments.
Amendment 174 seeks to remedy this. It calls for the Secretary of State to support or initiate a temporary global waiver of the TRIPS agreement within three months of a pandemic being declared at the WHO. This three-month period is there to give pharmaceutical companies the opportunity and the push to make plans for how they will voluntarily openly license their products and engage in transferring their know-how to companies with established manufacturing capacity. This time period is in step with the recommendations of the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.
The pharmaceutical industry is an immensely powerful machine, and we need to work with it. But as history has taught us, through the HIV crisis, pricing for cancer treatments, and now with Covid-19, it does not always do the right thing. As we speak the WHO’s mRNA hub in South Africa based at a biotech company called Afrigen has managed to reverse engineer Moderna’s vaccine. As Moderna made a pledge not to enforce patents during the pandemic, Afrigen are doing well in its development. The project has been significantly slowed down by Moderna and BioNTech’s refusal to share their knowledge with the hub. This is just one example. There are over 100 potential mRNA producers across Africa, Asia and Latin America who could be producing vaccines now, if only they had access to the know-how and data, and were not restricted by the fear of patent infringement.
Amendment 174 is about encouraging the industry to do the right thing and the Government to take action to protect global health and live up to the slogan “global Britain”. It is not just political rhetoric but epidemiological fact that none of us are safe until we are all safe. If viruses are left unchecked, they will mutate and this pandemic is far from over; cases have risen hugely in South Korea, China and here in the UK of late. Talk of Covid-19 becoming endemic does not that mean it has disappeared. Malaria is endemic in many parts of the world, but it continues to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.
This amendment will also initiate a great deal of cost saving for the NHS during pandemics. We are paying the highest recorded price for the Pfizer vaccine at £22 per shot. This amendment reaffirms our commitment to using in these emergency situations compulsory licences, one of the public safeguards in the TRIPS agreement to enable the domestic manufacturing of generic and biosimilar products, which would mean that any company within the UK with manufacturing potential could be making these vital medical tools.
Just today we heard that a draft copy of the waiver has been leaked, although it has been significantly watered down and reduced in scope. None the less it shows there is a global consensus that intellectual property monopolies are a barrier to accessing Covid-19 vaccines, tests and treatments. We need the Government to use this moment finally to do the right thing and support a waiver on all intellectual property covering vaccines, tests and treatments that can be utilised by all countries in the negotiations to come.
I also urge Her Majesty’s Government to use their influence as a faithful customer of Pfizer and Moderna to push them to share their technology with the WHO’s mRNA hubs and revoke the patents they filed on Covid-19 technologies. This amendment is about improving access to affordable life-saving health technologies for our NHS and worldwide during public emergencies. We can bolster pandemic preparedness and expedite our response to Covid-19 and future pandemics. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who is taking part remotely, to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have signed Amendment 174 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank her for introducing it and for making it clear that this aims for global pandemic preparedness. The World Health Organization set a target to vaccinate 40% of the world by the end of 2021. However, 92 countries missed this target due to a lack of access. Despite the funding from high-income countries to the WHO-run COVAX and Gavi schemes, low-income countries have remained at the back of the queue as high-income countries have been able to jump in ahead, using their money to get second and third doses for their own population.
Frankly, we need a better system for future pandemics. We need to understand that openly licensing newly developed Covid-19 technologies, waiving intellectual property rights and sharing the manufacturing know-how would allow more companies to begin producing life-saving vaccines, drugs and tests across the world. However, pharma companies have widely refused to share their technology openly. We also need to source other key critical control products, such as testing equipment, PPE and masks. Relying on too few suppliers in too few countries caused immense problems for the first six months of the pandemic, and again as subsequent waves hit those countries. In addition, the UK, the EU and Switzerland continue to block South Africa’s and India’s proposal to temporarily waive certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—TRIPS—on Covid-19 tools.
Despite regular pandemic exercises in this country, and despite previous experience with vaccines for other diseases not being shared with low-income countries, we have not learned the lessons. This amendment sets out what a Secretary of State should do within three months of the WHO declaring a public health emergency. I really hope that Ministers are prepared to help make progress on this issue. If not, and if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, calls for a Division, we will support her from these Benches.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I now invite the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is taking part remotely, to speak.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important amendment. To me, it is the most important in the Bill. It concerns preservation of life in conditions of general pandemics. If you leave worldwide vaccine manufacturing programmes to the free market, you will never fully deliver. Profit will always trump the public good, unless the state intervenes in some regulatory form or another. This is basically why I am a Labour person.
With that in mind, it is clear that the more we are told that the current arrangements for licensing and manufacturing are necessary for reasons of quality control, the more I am convinced that this is not the only consideration in mind. There are other considerations—primarily the need to maximise profit. There is nothing wrong with profit if the justification is reasonable. It drives initiative and entrepreneurship. However, when there are wider issues involved, as in the case of a global pandemic which threatens the well-being of nations and the international economy, there must be a consideration of the wider public good and benefit. I am not convinced that, apart from the case of the AstraZeneca project, public benefit has been the driver.
In Committee, I set out in some detail a case wider than this amendment for worldwide licensing arrangements based on the original amendment of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I remain confused by the Government’s position, which seems ever reliant on research and limited production at home, with volume production overseas. I would have thought that there are lessons to be learned about supply volatility from the case of oil from Russia. Equally, with both China and India leading the world in vaccine supply—at the same time as both countries remain reluctant to support us over certain areas of dispute and crisis in foreign policy—alarm bells should be ringing. I remain of the view that we in the United Kingdom should lead the world in this area of research, development, manufacturing, licensing and supply.
We are moving into an era of further pandemics as research-spawned accidental releases inevitably will reoccur, or perhaps they will not even be accidental in origin. There are huge foreign policy benefits to be gained arising out of being the world’s primary producer and licensee of these vaccines. When you help people, they remain indebted. That is the approach China is taking in many areas of its foreign policy.
I will give an example. The French Government funded my higher education in France 60 years ago. To this day, I remain indebted to France, with a lifetime feeling of obligation. This is often the case for foreign students. I believe that if we had been suppliers and licensees to the world over the recent period, in particular Africa and the third world, the payback would have been immeasurable, with huge implications for foreign policy.
I will exaggerate to make my case: suppose we had been supplier and licensee to China. Can noble Lords imagine what influence such beneficence would have had on Chinese public opinion and, perhaps ultimately, on Chinese foreign policy? A friend in need is a friend indeed—we should never forget that.
I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage in the current pandemic, to think long term, and create the vaccine supply, manufacturing and licensing programme that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is advocating. Her amendment seeks at least a temporary, time-agreed waiver. It is a start. I am using her amendment to argue a wider case, a new vision. Her excellent amendment puts in place a building block on which a longer-term strategy should be constructed. We should lead by helping others to help themselves. The rewards are inestimable.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment to give it a bit of cross-House balance. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on coronavirus. In the last two years, we have had a bellyful of coronavirus; we have heard ad nauseum about the problems and the tragedies that it has created and encompassed, and that is partly what leads to this amendment.
It is self-evident that the United Kingdom, and most of the rest of the world, was unprepared. Countries that had experienced SARS, particularly in south-east Asia, had a better idea of what they were getting into. Frankly, however, for most of us in the West, it was the blind leading the blind. Looking in the mirror today—and accepting our failings, and the unease that we in the developed world should surely feel for largely having prioritised looking after our own—is for me, certainly, distinctly uncomfortable.
The aim of Amendment 174 is very simple: equitable access to affordable health technologies for all. One of the biggest challenges is how to deal with the exclusive intellectual property rights that exist in the healthcare sector. Only 7% of people in low-income countries have been double vaccinated. Only an additional 14% have had one dose.
Noble Lords should remember where the variants have come from. The exception, of course, is alpha, for which global Britain is responsible, so that is something that we can be proud of. Beta came from South Africa, gamma from Brazil, delta from India, and omicron is truly global because it started in about 10 countries simultaneously. The two countries that went it alone, rather proudly, in developing their own vaccines—China and Russia—have produced manifestly inferior vaccines, which have not been subject to proper, clinical peer scrutiny.
I give two examples of the problem we face. First, Pfizer’s new antiviral treatment excludes most Latin American countries, and generic versions—unless Pfizer does something about relaxing its intellectual property—may not be available in those countries until after 2041. Secondly, Tocilizumab, an antiviral manufactured by Roche, which is based on UK government-funded research, is unable to be manufactured in countries with established production capacity because Roche is enforcing its patents in these countries. There is a global shortage of this particular treatment.
Tackling the complex world of healthcare intellectual property is not easy. In my past career as a headhunter, I worked with clients that were large, complex, well-funded, international pharmaceutical companies, so I know full well the level of intellect and resource that they put into their intellectual property defences. We must apply ourselves in a disciplined and determined way at an international level; this is a chance for Great Britain to prove that it is indeed global. As an aside, during Oral Questions this morning, some of us on the Cross Benches were playing a game where, every time somebody from the Government Front Bench mentioned global Britain, another notional £10 clinked into the pockets of the Cross-Bench Christmas drinks fund; this afternoon, we had a particularly fruitful Oral Questions. As a mantra, it is meaningless unless it has real content behind it.
We need to develop a rapid response plan for the next pandemic. We will demonstrate that we have intellectual and moral myopia if we fail to do it. In a nod to Amendment 170, which we debated earlier, we should not show that we are content to let the less-developed world suffer from what I would describe as unassisted dying. That is unacceptable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this amendment, which I would have signed had there been space.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to today’s report that a watered-down version of the India-South Africa proposal for a TRIPS waiver looks likely to go through the WTO. I quote Max Lawson, co-chair of the People’s Vaccine Alliance:
“After almost 18 months of stalling and millions of deaths, the EU has climbed down and finally admitted that intellectual property rules and pharmaceutical monopolies are a barrier to vaccinating the world.”
Bouncing off the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I think that the Cross Benches might find an even larger drinks fund if they go for “world-leading” as the key phrase to identify. The comment from Mr Lawson shows that, collectively, the world has done very badly throughout the Covid pandemic and done very poorly by the global south. If the Government want to be world-leading, they could leap in right now and accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawrence and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting and promoting this amendment. Its explanatory statement says:
“In the event of a public health emergency of international concern, this new Clause requires the Secretary of State to support domestic and international knowledge-sharing, to combat the emergency.”
I cannot see why anybody would object to that.
I would like to say one more thing. The former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has led this country on how one should respond to a global pandemic with his work at the World Health Organization on the importance of sharing knowledge, vaccines and technology across the world. This amendment is about the pandemic that is coming down the track as well as the one we are dealing with at the moment, so we on these Benches certainly support it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I do not intend to repeat the excellent points that have been made by others because the case in equity—and the case in our own interests—is absolutely compelling in my noble friend’s excellent amendment. However, for a short period of time, I do intend to test just how good the Government’s resistance to this is; I will do so by referring to the Minister’s own speech in Committee on this very amendment. I will ask two questions of the Minister; I hope that he will be able to answer them because, if he cannot, there is no resistance to this amendment.
On 9 February, on the ninth day in Committee, the noble Lord the Minister repeated the Government’s oft-repeated view on this issue when it has been debated in your Lordships’ House that
“the Government remain open to all initiatives that would have a demonstrably positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. However, we believe that waiving intellectual property rights would have the opposite effect. Doing so would dismantle the very framework that helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen. It would risk undermining the continued innovation in vaccines and technological health products that is required to tackle a virus, especially as it mutates and evolves, so we believe that doing so would be a mistake.”
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I am driven to respond to what I have just heard. I first declare an interest as chair of Christian Aid, which works in some 29 countries, most of which have experienced what I call vaccine inequality. We constantly get letters urging us to try to help.
As far as the British Government are concerned, in relation to some of those countries, the money and the way that they have tried to help—which must be acknowledged—certainly with AstraZeneca, there has been a far greater equity coming out. When we had the Kent variant, the Government were very quick to share that information with everybody else. What I think the amendment is asking is that, when the World Health Organization declares a health emergency, if we have information we should make it available immediately.
Secondly, on the question of equity, we have just had a big Commonwealth service in Westminster Abbey and there are particular people—noble Lords may not believe it—who come from those 54 countries of the Commonwealth who still look to the United Kingdom as giving them not only language but the ability to understand the sheer pressure of inequality. I would have thought that this particular amendment would help us to answer some of our supporters out there in the global south by saying that we are very serious, given some of the help that has been provided—though it has not gone far enough; the antivirals and all those drugs have not been given equitably. I therefore ask the Minister to realise that the issue is not whether we have or have not done enough; it is that, if there is a global health emergency—locally and internationally—the Secretary of State is in a better position sometimes to speak and to help those who are struggling and finding it difficult.
Nkrumah said that Ghana would not be free until the rest of Africa was independent, and I believe the same is true now. I have had my double vaccine and my booster, but I am not fully vaccinated until the rest of the world is vaccinated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the passion they have shown. I think we are all concerned by vaccine inequity—as noble Lords have rightly said, we are getting our third or fourth vaccines while some people have not had their first yet—but we also have to be clear how we get to this stage. It is easy to say, “We spent this much money on public research and that led to the vaccines”, but it is not as simple as that. It may have led to the research but that does not lead to the production of millions of vaccines that can be distributed worldwide. There is a clear difference between pure research and turning that into actual vaccines and, once they are produced, getting them into people’s arms. You can certainly deliver them to countries but they do not always reach the arms. We have heard stories of vaccines being thrown away because of a lack of distribution in particular countries.
The sharing of knowledge has played and will continue to play an important role in the rapid scale-up of Covid vaccine production. The UK Government are very committed to addressing vaccine equity on every front. As the son of people who came from outside the EU—not white, privileged Europe—I believe very strongly in global Britain.
The experience of the pandemic has shown that it is voluntary collaboration that has made real, positive impacts on vaccine delivery. The scale-up of vaccine production at record pace has been driven by more than 300 voluntary partnerships. This unprecedented collaboration around the world has meant that global Covid vaccine production now stands at nearly 1.5 billion doses per month. Voluntary partnerships such as AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India, and Pfizer-BioNTech and Biovac in South Africa, show what is possible if you work together.
The intellectual property framework has been crucial in facilitating this knowledge sharing. Indeed, the legal certainty it produces cannot be overstated. It gives innovators the confidence to form partnerships and continue investing in the innovative health products and technologies that have contributed so positively to our global pandemic response. The intellectual property framework similarly supports the production and dissemination of vaccines and other products across the world.
Yes, 97% of the investment in research is public funding, but research is not vaccines. There needs to be a whole chain from that pure research to scaling up and distribution, and universities cannot do that. Waiving intellectual property rights would dismantle the very framework that has facilitated this collaboration. It would undermine not only the knowledge sharing that has helped to develop and produce Covid-19 vaccines at the pace and scale now seen but the framework needed to support the development of new vaccines and treatments, should these be needed in future.
It should also be noted that the least-developed countries are exempt from implementing the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights—or TRIPS—Agreement, meaning that they already have a de facto TRIPS waiver. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement already provides flexibilities to enable countries to achieve their public health objectives, and we fully support the right of these countries to use these where needed—but you have to build the capacity. Low and middle-income countries can access medicines in times of emergency through flexibilities that allow them to manufacture or import without the consent of the patent holder.
For these reasons, the UK does not consider intellectual property rights a barrier to supplying and improving access to Covid-19 goods. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, can put another £10 in the Christmas bag. Instead, we shall continue to be a visible champion of those elements of the intellectual property framework that support effective knowledge sharing.
The noble Baroness will be aware that we have contributed vaccines through the COVAX scheme—a partnership of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, UNICEF and the World Health Organization—but we know that is not enough. As noble Lords have rightly said, we have to learn from what we have done during this pandemic. One part of my ministerial portfolio that I am very proud of is international relations and health diplomacy. A constant theme in my G20 and G7 Health Ministers’ meetings is how we tackle these vaccine inequities and learn the lessons that many noble Lords have rightly raised.
Last week, the British Government hosted the Global Pandemic Preparedness Summit to learn those lessons: to make sure that we brought together all our experiences as countries, learned from those and asked what we could do next time. I was very privileged to host a working lunch with several overseas Health Ministers, as well as Dr Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI; Dr Seth Berkley, the Gavi CEO; and Dr Tedros, the director-general of the World Health Organization, sitting next to me. One of the issues that came up in our discussions was, rather than developing and less-developed countries relying on donations via COVAX, how we ensure that, first, there is more local and regional manufacturing of vaccines through public-private partnerships and, secondly, that vaccines get into people’s arms as quickly as possible once they are manufactured or are imported into a country. We need to avoid those situations where vaccines were wasted because they were not stored or transported properly, or where there was difficulty distributing them once inside a country.
With international partners, we are looking at a whole range of issues and new technologies, such as new distribution methods. Some noble Lords may well have read about drones being used to deliver vaccines to certain remote areas. Before using these drones, it is all very well having all these vaccines in the capital, but how do you get them into people’s arms? We have to look at that area. Intellectual property rights are irrelevant here. The fact is that the vaccines are there but you have to get them into people’s arms. We have to train more vaccinators and we need better transport.
We agree that the vaccine supply must be matched by the capacity of health systems to deliver them, and we have been working to strengthen health systems around the world. Our recently launched health systems strengthening position paper sets out this Government’s determination to do more to build overall capacity, from policy through to delivery.
But there are other issues. Just as there are the vaccine-hesitant in this country, there are many vaccine-hesitant people in other countries. Our African vaccine confidence campaign is working with experts in countries such as Botswana, Ghana and Uganda to reinforce communities’ trust and build demand from the ground up. Once again, you can get the vaccines there but you have to get them into people’s arms. We have also been working to minimise constraints on supply chains, such as tariffs. This has been demonstrated by our sponsorship and promotion of the trade and health initiative as well as the unilateral measures we have taken, including tariff suspensions.
We have also provided support for the development of regional manufacturing capabilities. This includes technical support to develop business cases for the manufacture of vaccines in South Africa, Senegal and Morocco. We are working with the COVAX supply chain and manufacturing task force to champion other practical efforts to scale up capacity. We believe that we are doing lots of things with our global partners—with Gavi, CEPI and the World Health Organization.
To be honest, I am incredibly inspired by some of the work that I see going on. This is about building real capacity. It is about transferring knowledge and technology and making sure that we have that capacity. It is about making sure that we live up to global Britain, in which I firmly believe given my own family history—not from white Europe, but from a global perspective. I believe very strongly in that. I believe that waiving intellectual property rights will not help overcome these challenges. I may be passionate about this but I feel very strongly about it. I feel strongly about global Britain. I feel very strongly about my distant relatives who come from developed countries and about my own history, my own heritage. I feel much more strongly about this than noble Lords may well feel.
This is the right approach. I am hugely encouraged by this international co-operation and the potential of new technologies to help. I would be very happy to continue to engage with the noble Baroness. I think we probably share the same passion for making sure that this happens. Given that, I hope she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke at this late hour, including the Minister. With respect, however, the numbers just do not stack up. I am so glad that the Government have now donated over 30 million shots, but these have almost all been AstraZeneca, which has lower efficacy against the now-dominant omicron variant. Moderna belatedly allocated a mere 110 million shots for a continent—Africa—with an estimated population of 1.3 billion people. Pfizer has allocated only 2% of its global supply to COVAX. We are just not getting enough shots to enough people, and so the variants develop.
I am grateful to everyone and I would happily keep speaking to the Minister, who is always courteous in his responses, but I really do think that it is time to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hollins
“Mandatory training on learning disability and autism
(1) In regulation 18(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/2936), for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) receive—(i) such appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they are employed to perform, and(ii) in particular, training on learning disability and autism, appropriate to their role, as set out in the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under section (Mandatory training on learning disability and autism) of the Health and Care Act 2022,”.(2) With regard to training on learning disability and autism, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a code of practice (“the code”) containing guidance addressing—(a) the content of mandatory training and its co-production,(b) the appropriate levels of training required across staff roles,(c) the co-delivery of training,(d) the in-person delivery of training,(e) the accreditation of training,(f) the procurement of training,(g) the monitoring and evaluation of the impact of training, and(h) the implementation of mandating of training across regulated health and social care providers.(3) The Secretary of State must seek the participation of and consult such persons and bodies as they consider appropriate—(a) in preparing the code, and(b) in revising it.(4) The Secretary of State may not issue the code or any revision unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State must review the code every three years and lay the findings before Parliament.(6) In this section—“appropriate to their role” has the meaning given by the code;“autism” means a spectrum of disorders which start in childhood, the clinical manifestations of which include atypical social communication and social interaction and restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour;“in person” means training delivered live, by people, in the presence of the trainee;“learning disability” means a disability which includes a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information or to learn new skills, with a reduced ability to cope independently, which started before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 176 proposes that guidance should be published on how training in learning disability and autism will become mandatory for all health and social care staff. The amendment has been altered from earlier stages to address concerns raised by the Minister and officials, both in Committee and in discussions following Committee. I am grateful to the Bill team, Department of Health and Social Care officials, Mencap and noble Lords who are supporting this amendment.
The unacceptable health inequalities that many people with learning disabilities and autism face, which have been worse during the pandemic, have been reported numerous times and I am not going to repeat them here. Nor will I repeat the circumstances of Oliver McGowan’s tragic death. His parents have been powerful advocates of mandatory training and persuaded Her Majesty’s Government to commit to introducing it. Her Majesty’s Government conducted a consultation and launched an ambitious pilot of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training scheme and the evaluation is due any day.
This amendment goes a step further because it would put in statute a policy that the Government have committed to undertake. It would create a code of practice that would consult on and set out how training will be scaled up across the country. The code provides a number of advantages compared to simply amending the Health and Social Care Act 2008. It intends that co-production and co-delivery are embedded from the start and this is achieved through a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult relevant persons in preparing the code and regularly revising it in the light of outcomes. These relevant persons must include those with lived experience.
Co-production and co-delivery should be uncontroversial, but campaigners are still having to fight for this. One of the concerns put to me is whether in fact there are enough experts by experience to contribute to training that would be provided to all health and care professionals. This morning, I told my son, who has a learning disability, about tonight’s debate. He said that he wanted other people to have the same opportunity that he has had to be able to train the staff in his GP practice, but training for trainers would, of course, be needed. So many people with learning disabilities and so many autistic people are keen to have work and yet the work opportunities are not there. Here is a brilliant work opportunity.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before this House and the other place the findings of a regular review of the code, which will be needed to ensure accountability and scrutiny and help to shape any revisions or changes required in the light of improvements or otherwise of the health and care outcomes for this group of people. Accepting the amendment would be a wonderful signal to campaigners, including Oliver’s parents, Paula and Tom McGowan, that the Government’s promises will be honoured sooner rather than later. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it may be convenient for the House if I clarify the Government’s position on the amendment at this stage. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing her amendment before the House today on the important matter of mandatory training on learning disability and autism for the health and social care workforce and I pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area.
The Government recognise that mandatory training on learning disability and autism will support the health and social care workforce to improve the quality of care and support provided to people with a learning disability and autistic people, thereby improving health and well-being outcomes. We remain committed to improving the lives of people with a learning disability and autistic people. That is why we invested £1.4 million to develop, test and trial the Oliver McGowan mandatory training with over 8,000 people in 2021. This will help to ensure that the training rolled out is meaningful and impactful. It is with great thanks to noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her determination and her collaborative work with the Government that I am very pleased to say that the Government would like to support the amendment put forward to introduce mandatory training on learning disability and autism.
While we are keen to support the amendment, we will be proposing to make some changes to ensure that it is fully workable and fits into the legal framework. It is likely that such changes will be introduced at the Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage. We have discussed this with the noble Baroness and we will ensure that we keep her fully updated with our proposals in this space. We hope that this commitment today sends a strong signal to people with a learning disability and autistic people, as well as their families and carers, that the Government are committed to addressing the significant and persistent health disparities that they face.
I could not make this announcement today without a special mention and thanks to Paula and Tom McGowan, who campaigned tirelessly for this cause. The resilience and commitment that both they and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, have shown have been inspiring. They should be proud of all that they have achieved for Oliver and for others whose lives have sadly been cut short.
To further emphasise the Government’s commitment to instilling real change for people with a learning disability and autism, I confirm our intention that all integrated care boards should have a named learning disability and autism lead and that NHS England proposes to issue statutory guidance on this matter to assist integrated care boards. The Government are supportive of this approach and believe that learning disability and autism leads on every ICB would act as a voice for those with a learning disability and autism in commissioning decisions. I commend this amendment to the House.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement—it really is very welcome—and declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her dedication, commitment and sheer endurance in pressing this matter of ensuring that those who support people with learning disabilities and autism are well trained. Training is essential if we are to help young people in particular to experience the kind of life that all of us in this Chamber take for granted. With the right support, young people with learning disabilities and autism can enjoy that quality of life. I do not intend to detain the House, but I will just share with colleagues some of my experiences of young people who have succeeded because they have had the right support.
I met an 11 year-old boy with learning difficulties at a special school. He said, “You’ve heard I’ve got learning difficulties?” I said yes. “My brother has too,” he said. “He is five; he’s got autism. I’m helping my mother help him.” I said, “Oh, that’s good.” “I’m off to comprehensive school,” he said. I said, “That’s good. Are you looking forward to it?” “Yes,” he said, “and I’ve decided on my career.” I said, “What are you going to be?” “I’m going to be a High Court judge, and I can tell you now, if you come up before me, you’ll get a lenient sentence.” The point is that the school had really worked hard, but the head said to me, “He worked hard too at overcoming these problems.”
I met Max at a joint meeting of the All-Party Group on Autism and the All-Party Group on Apprenticeships chaired by the late Dame Cheryl Gillan, who pioneered the Autism Act. Max worked for a housing association. When I went there, I could see how hugely supported he was, as he had been as a youngster, in his job by his colleagues. At that time, he was an amateur actor and had appeared on “Victoria Derbyshire”. That was then—now he is an actor, a producer, a public speaker, an ambassador for the National Autistic Society and a recipient of the Princess Diana award, awarded to changemakers for their generation. He has had that success because he had the right support.
Finally, I mention Louise—I have not met her; I have just talked to her. Louise had some difficult times early in her life. “You don’t look autistic,” somebody once said to her. She said that she was often humiliated by her teachers and those in authority, and when she tried to work, she had meltdowns and could not cope. She got her first job in her mid-40s. She is now working for a charity supporting people with autism, and she said to me, “Now I’m given the space, and they let me lead and I can flourish. I’m helping other autistic people improve their lives.” With the right support, quality of life has been given to that woman, now in her 40s.
My point is simple: given the right support and encouragement, people with learning disabilities and autism can have the same quality of life as we all in this Chamber would expect for ourselves and our families. I welcome the Government’s decision to support this amendment. There is still much work to do, but it is going the right way. I thank the Government, and especially the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for pioneering the work that we are talking about this evening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on bringing forward such a wise and sensible amendment, which follows a series of failings in the healthcare system, failings which might have been prevented if health and social care staff had had the proper training to meet the particular needs of those with autism and learning disabilities.
I consider this amendment to be about fairness—those with autism and learning disabilities may be treated as anybody may expect to be treated. I thank the Minister for her very positive response, and her and her team for working so closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others to achieve the training of the relevant staff and to ensure a voice on integrated care boards. This is a fitting and lasting tribute to the memory of Oliver McGowan, and I am sure that it will always be regarded as such.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful, and I know that Paula and Tom McGowan will also be very grateful—as will many people with learning disabilities and autistic people—to the Minister and to all those working behind the scenes for reaching this point and accepting my amendment, as well as for committing to include a learning disability and autism lead on integrated care boards.
I understand that some small changes may be proposed to ensure workability. I look forward to working with the Bill team and Department of Health and Social Care officials to ensure that these changes further strengthen the intention behind Amendment 176. I thank noble Lords for their support.
Lord Moynihan
“Office for Health Promotion
(1) The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is to be re-established on a statutory footing, as the Office for Health Promotion (“the Office”).(2) The Office is an independent advisory board to the Department for Health and Social Care.(3) As part of its duties, the Office must publish a National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing.(4) The aim of the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing is to—(a) tackle preventable factors causing death and ill health in the UK;(b) demonstrate ways in which sports can help to strengthen social ties;(c) direct funding for sport;(d) include measures to promote physical access to the countryside;(e) identify ways in which schools and colleges are to be encouraged to develop closer links with local sports clubs;(f) include a fully costed National Facilities Plan and specific efforts to tackle discrimination and ensure there is a safe environment for all participants;(g) instil a life-long habit of sport and physical activity throughout the education system;(h) include a comprehensive approach to welfare, care and safeguarding including reports on enforcement of welfare, care and safeguarding standards in sports governing bodies;(i) lead national efforts to improve people’s health by tackling obesity, improving mental health and promoting physical activity;(j) establish a Physical Activity Observatory to act as a centre for independent research and analysis of physical activity data to input into the design of the National Plan for Sport, Health and Wellbeing;(k) promote, encourage and raise awareness of the benefits of participation in sport for health, longevity, fitness, social interaction and wellbeing, and the other health benefits of exercise for all individuals, with the aim of preventing the onset of avoidable physical and mental illness and protecting people's health; and(l) promote clean athletes and the integrity of sport.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment implements recommendations 1, 2 and 3 of the House of Lords ‘National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee’ report (session 2021-2022 HL Paper 113) which makes ‘The case for a national plan for sport, health and wellbeing’.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting yesterday with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and me to discuss this important amendment. We were all grateful for the sympathetic hearing we had. We are also grateful to the Bill team and particularly to Jamie Blackshaw, the lead of the physical activity team at OHID.
The Government immediately raised a number of concerns about our amendment. We readily accept the wishes of Ministers in the department that, instead of the office for health promotion, it should be called the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We completely understand the motivation behind that and totally accept it.
I will also respond to the second concern that the amendment could be read as if we were taking away the mandate of OHID, when we were talking about focusing on a national plan for sport and recreation and calling it the office for health promotion. That was never our intention, and it was good to have the opportunity to clarify that yesterday. The intention is that OHID should continue to undertake all its admirable functions in full. I hope it succeeds in that objective. Importantly, it should add to that accountability to Parliament for a national plan for sport, health and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Willis, chaired the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, which recently reported on a national plan for sport, health and well-being. There was a good response to that from the Government and we were pleased when, yesterday, the Minister underlined his commitment to many of the recommendations we made. We certainly will not raise them again this evening.
We simply focus on the importance of hearing from the Minister about the health promotion task force. It may not be inaccurate to say that we have had, or appear to have had, a first win, as a result of the work of the Select Committee, in recognising that there needs to be a co-ordinating activity within government for sport, health and well-being to come together to tackle obesity, low levels of activity and the problems that so many children face coming out of Covid. We believe the health promotion task force may be able to achieve many of the objectives that we set out in the committee and that, ideally, should have ministerial responsibility. There should be somebody driving that.
Sport tends to be on the touchline of Whitehall when it comes to policy co-ordination. We must ensure that we have somebody of the calibre of, say, Tracey Crouch, who has done so much good work in bringing together sport, health and well-being, as New Zealand does with its Deputy Prime Minister. It would be an admirable benefit to Government if they considered somebody of her ability, experience and respect to draw the work of the health promotion taskforce together.
It is important tonight not to rehearse any of the arguments we made in earlier deliberations on this Bill. High levels of inactivity, especially among women, ethnic minorities and disabled people, is of epidemic proportions in the UK. Nobody believes we can avoid the importance of cross-departmental policy co-ordination. Virtually every department of state now has an interest in sport, health and well-being. Unlike when I was a Minister when it was on the fringes of government, 30 years ago, today it is central to government policy. It needs the full weight of government behind it and that push must include education—we need to enhance the value of PE and teacher training time devoted to PE—as well as health, in addressing the obesity epidemic. It has to back up the outstanding work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in delivering a serious and robust approach to duty of care and safeguarding in sport.
I end by asking the Minister a number of questions. It looks as if the health promotion task force that is due to be established can achieve many of the objectives that the Select Committee and the four of us set out in earlier deliberations on the Bill. Is that the case? Does the Minister believe that the health promotion task force has the strength and remit to achieve those objectives?
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I do not want to repeat points that have been made at this late hour, but I wish to emphasise that the arguments about the importance of sport and well-being do not need to be made again. Everybody from all parties, right across the House, understand their importance and the consequences of not getting them right. The good will has been there for years, but the ability to transform it into effective action has not, and lots of well-intentioned efforts in the past have come to naught. That is what is driving the committee that met under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and I agree with the questions that have been asked.
For me, it is a case of not relying on a cross-departmental committee to run this project. It has not worked in the past, and there is no reason to think that it would work in the future. Is there seniority? Is there someone with clout who can bang heads together? Is there someone for whom it is a very important part of their job, and who knows they will be held accountable? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Health Promotion Taskforce does seem to offer hope. Clarity on that—letting us know about its leadership, and the presenting to Parliament of an annual report for discussion—would allay many of our concerns. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw your attention to my interests: I am chair of ukactive, and I have a number of interests in this area. I also sat on the Lords Select Committee.
I too am not going to rehearse the arguments we gave in Committee, but all the names added to this amendment have been involved in this space for many years. We have all been through various iterations of this, and we should be talking about physical literacy and physical activity, and slightly less about sport. That might be surprising considering my background, but as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we have an obesity crisis and a generation of young people who are more likely to die before their parents, and there are a number of conditions that can be treated. Frankly, we have been tinkering at the edges of this for way too long. There have been programmes and lots of initiatives that have had some success, but if we are serious about the NHS and the health of the nation, we have to do things in a different way. I feel like I have been talking about this for about the last 30 years—the noble Lord has had a slightly longer time in sport than I have—but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response in order to understand how we can genuinely make a change and stop going round in circles on this important issue.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the last shall probably be quickest on this. We have all, as is agreed, said that we need to do something that is coherent. This has not been coherent. We have had committees that met once every full moon, provided everybody had had tea of the right quality that day; thus was their infrequency. Nobody was prepared to ensure that something that was inconvenient for one department was done to ensure that another department fulfilled it. There just was not anything. The Olympics did not manage to make them work together. We need coherent leadership and a price to be paid—accountability—for not doing it. If the Minister can give us that, we will have taken a major step forward. I would of course prefer the amendment that has been tabled, but I will take half a loaf any day over no bread. Can the Minister assure us that there will be leadership and that a price will be paid, publicly paid, for not doing it? Without that, as we know, this will merely become a report with somebody else saying, “They should have had a meeting about it some time”. Let us bin this. I am fed up with making that speech, even though it does usually get me out of a lot of trouble.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, this is a key opportunity to do something really significant for the health of the nation, from the youngest to the oldest, and for all the groups we refer to as “excluded.” This is a key moment. If the Minister can respond positively to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, he will be doing a very good job for the nation.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend Lord Moynihan when he asks for proper accountability. That is what drives the few examples of successful cross-departmental co-operation. One of the recent missed opportunities is Defra not picking up on aspects of the Glover report that deal with people getting out into the landscape. To make a difference to that, Defra has to care and it has to be brought to account, but there also has to be a good enough mechanism to ensure that if Defra does propose to do something, someone is going to fund it. That would certainly apply too to schools’ collaboration with local sports clubs. Parents up and down the land want that to happen. But how is that going to be afforded? How is that going to be made to happen? Who is holding the systems accountable? There has to be some system whereby accountability and interest flow through—as my noble friend said, ideally, to Parliament—to make that happen.
I have written to the Minister on perioperative care, which is another example. How does the NHS collaborate with all the other people who might provide the support required for effective perioperative care? They are not in the NHS; it does not work that way. You can have a system that just involves spending the money and ticking the box because that money has been spent; or you can have one with real accountability, in which people care whether you get the results and are measuring that, and who feed that through to someone with a central interest in things. So I am really going to listen to the Minister with great interest on this.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris and Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—for bringing forward this important amendment. It does strike me as strange that the UK does not already have a national plan in place to promote sport, health and well-being. If we are to tackle the acute obesity crisis in this country, a joined-up, forward-looking strategy at a national level is necessary. From these Benches, we support this amendment wholeheartedly. It offers huge potential to tackle obesity, poor mental health and a sedentary lifestyle in a joined-up way that sees people as whole people with different pressures and needs, but with the intention of focusing on prevention. So, I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively tonight.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking the noble Lords who initiated this debate tonight and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for meeting with me yesterday, and with the Bill team and representatives from the Department for Education and DDCMS. What was really interesting was the experience that all four brought. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about her experience in government and how it was sometimes difficult to get departments to talk to each other, even though they all seemed to agree. We had two former Olympians, who spoke about their experience of elite sport. But how does that translate into grass-roots sport? How do we make sure we get people active?
What was also really interesting was when we spoke about the 2012 Olympics. Yes, we had them and there was some legacy of redevelopment in east London, but they did not really lead to a legacy when it came to physical activity. How do we make sure we avoid the so-called Wimbledon effect? We all know that effect: around the time of Wimbledon, you cannot get a place on a tennis court, but a few months later it is simple to do so. How do we make sure this is long term?
If you are going to tackle obesity, yes, we can reformulate food and look at other issues such as taxes and negative externalities to discourage the intake of calories. However, you also have to burn off calories at the same time through activity. It does not have to be elite sport. We are not all going to be Olympians—like the two noble Lords here who were—but that should not stop you. All too often, what happens at school level is that if you do not get into a top team, you give up because you are considered not good enough. It does not matter how good you are; it is the activity that counts.
The Government’s recent response to the National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee report addresses clearly, we believe, the recommendations made in this amendment. I hope that noble Lords will take some reassurance from what I am about to say and the fact that we take this seriously. The Government agree with the committee’s overarching recommendation on the need for an ambitious national plan for sport and physical activity. We are firmly committed to increasing sport participation and physical activity levels, and to ensuring that everyone has access to opportunities to get active. It should not just be about elite sport.
I can confirm that the Government will set out their forward-looking strategy for sport and physical activity later this year. It will look at tackling levels of inactivity as part of our plan for recovery from the pandemic. We hope that this strategy will provide a unified, cross-government approach to driving participation, integrating with Everybody Active, Every Day, the School Sport and Activity Action Plan, and Sport England’s new strategy Uniting the Movement. Of course, while setting out a cross-government strategy will be welcome, it is equally important to set out information on the implementation. I can confirm that the strategy will set out further detail on implementation, including how to harness such action across government and between departments.
The Government understand the concerns that noble Lords have raised and recognise that previous Governments of all parties have not always got it right. They tried—it was not for lack of trying—but it is about the implementation and strategies in this area. However, we believe that lessons have been learned and I hope that our approach will have the intended positive impact.
After the conversation yesterday with noble Lords, during the post-meeting debrief I spoke to the officials from other departments and asked, “How can we make sure that this is truly cross-government?” Let me assure noble Lords that other departments have also been looking at this issue. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Transport also have important roles in helping to create health-promoting and more active local environments. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to working cohesively on such actions.
I also assure your Lordships that departments involved in the sport and physical activity strategy take their responsibility to co-ordinate extremely seriously. This is being led by DCMS while, more broadly, the Government understand the utmost importance of getting this right—and we must not lose that. That is why I am delighted by the leadership of the Prime Minister on the Health Promotion Taskforce, supported by the Cabinet Office. That will enable the Government to consider all options open to them. I will come to this in due course.
The Government recognise that it is important to provide updates to both Houses on the progress of the strategy and will publish arrangements for that reporting in the strategy. I also assure noble Lords that the Government invite and welcome the continued scrutiny of plans to address inactivity, to promote sport participation and to improve people’s health through physical activity. Undoubtedly, the relevant committees in the House of Lords and the House of Commons will have an interest in any future strategy and its progress. I am sure noble Lords will also want to continue to ask Questions of Ministers.
We recognise the deep experience of noble Lords in this area and I know that that interest extends to the other place. Only last night, my honourable friend Gillian Keegan, the Minister of State for Care and Mental Health, responded to an adjournment debate on physical activity and health. On that point, I reiterate and acknowledge the benefits and importance of promoting that. We know the gains made in activity levels in some key populations, including women and older adults, before the pandemic have now been reversed, and the Government share the concerns of noble Lords on this matter.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I have to say that that is the best statement that I have heard in support of sport, health and well-being from the Front Bench for many a decade from all parties. It is exceptionally welcome to hear from the Minister early in his response the importance of the agreement to an ambitious national plan. That is something that the Select Committee was very much looking to and, in fact, it was a central plank. To hear from my noble friend that the Prime Minister will be chairing the Health Promotion Taskforce and that its first meeting will be considering physical activity as a key aspect of the work of that task force is also exceptionally welcome. To hear from the Minister that the deliberations of the Select Committee and the comments made this evening in the debate from everyone, including members of the Select Committee and other who have contributed, will be passed to the task force for its consideration is also welcome.
We heard from the Minister that it was vital that, for this whole initiative to be successful as a catalyst for change in the sector, accountability is key. We push for accountability to Parliament because, if that can be done every year and Parliament can consider the outcomes of the work of the Health Promotion Taskforce and the other bodies that he mentioned, that accountability itself will be the much-needed catalyst for change. So I thank my noble friends in sport from across the House and the Minister for his response.
It was echoed, I might add, by many hundreds of responses from across the worlds of sport and recreation during the work of the Select Committee. The overwhelming majority were in favour of a national plan. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have stayed to this late hour to hear this debate. Given the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Sugg
“Permitted locations for abortion treatment
(1) The Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection 1(3) after the first “section” insert “, or section 1A of this Act”.(3) After section 1 insert—<strong>“1A</strong> Approved places(1) The home of a registered medical practitioner is approved as a class of place for treatment for the termination of pregnancy for the purposes only of prescribing the medicines known as Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be used in treatment carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).(2) The home of a pregnant woman who is undergoing treatment for the purposes of termination of her pregnancy is approved as a class of place where the treatment for termination of pregnancy may be carried out where that treatment is carried out in the manner specified in subsection (3).(3) The treatment must be carried out in the following manner—(a) the pregnant woman has—(i) attended an approved place,(ii) had a consultation with an approved place via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means, or(iii) had a consultation with a registered medical practitioner, nurse or midwife via video link, telephone conference or other electronic means; and(b) the pregnant woman is prescribed Mifepristone and Misoprostol to be taken for the purposes of the termination of her pregnancy and the gestation of the pregnancy has not exceeded nine weeks and six days at the time the Mifepristone is taken.(4) Nothing in this section should be taken to affect any approval otherwise made by the Secretary of State under subsections 1(3) or 1(3A) of this Act.(5) For the purposes of this section—“approved place” means a hospital in England or Wales, as authorised under section 1(3) of this Act, or a place in England or Wales approved under that section;“home” means, in the case of a pregnant woman, the place in England or Wales where a pregnant woman has her permanent address or usually resides or, in the case of a registered medical practitioner, where a registered medical practitioner has their permanent address or usually resides.””
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 183 in my name, if accepted, would maintain the existing provision of at-home early medical abortion following a telephone or video consultation with a clinician. It is very late in the evening, but this is an important issue which will impact hundreds of thousands of women. The existing provisions, which the amendment simply transcribes into the Bill, were adopted in March 2020. It is a straightforward and narrow amendment with the sole purpose of retaining a service that has been in place for the last two years.
Early medical abortion, which can take place up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, involves two medications. Previous government policy in England was that only the second pill could be taken at home, with women having to attend an abortion provider in person to take the first pill. The approval that was put in place simply enables women to take both pills at home. This was a pandemic-led shift to telemedicine, but the clinical benefits of telemedical service were known even before Covid-19, with NICE recommending it in September 2019. Sadly, following a government announcement a few weeks ago, this approval is currently set to be removed in August this year.
At this point, we should briefly be clear on what removing the existing provision would affect. It would have no impact on the requirement for face-to-face consultation, for face-to-face safeguarding, for ultrasound scans or to be seen in person by both doctors. Any of those changes would require amending existing regulations and that is not what we are debating tonight. The only thing impacted by this amendment is the requirement for women to visit a clinic and then leave again. I hope noble Lords agree that we can focus on just that.
There is no medical reason why telemedicine, alongside interpersonal appointments, should not remain a permanent option. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing women the option to access early medical abortion at home, where clinically appropriate, has created a safer and more effective service. During the pandemic, the largest ever study of UK abortion care, published by the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, found that this service shortened waiting times and enabled women to receive care much earlier in their pregnancy. Some 150,000 women have received telemedical abortions since March 2020 and the data on the number of women presenting to NHS services with complications has shown a decrease. Renowned medical bodies support its use, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and many more. Just last week, the World Health Organization made it a key part of its global guidance on abortion care.
It is not just the medical experts who want to see this service made permanent—women do too. A recent study in the British Medical Journal found that 89% of women who have used a remote abortion consultation would choose to have treatment at home. It helps women who may struggle to find the time and travel the distance to an abortion provider. This includes those who have childcare or caring responsibilities, who struggle to take time off work, who live in remote or rural areas with little transport and many other logistical, social and economic reasons. Importantly, it can also be a lifeline for women in vulnerable situations. Maintaining the service is fully supported by women’s groups, including Women’s Aid, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rape Crisis, which say that it enables women in controlling and abusive relationships to access essential medical care. Removal of telemedical abortion provisions would almost certainly lead to a resurgence in women seeking to access unregulated pills bought online. Without telemedicine, waiting times will rise and current staffing levels would be insufficient.
There is a serious risk that some women would, as a result, be unable to access legal abortion care, either because the providers do not have the capacity or because increased waiting times push some women over the legal limit. Of course, face-to-face services must still be provided for all women who require or request it. However, to take away from women a service that has proven safe, accessible and compassionate, and which enables women to deal with a difficult situation in the comfort and privacy of their own homes, is not the right way forward.
This amendment follows the guidance of medical professionals and would deliver on the Government’s aim to listen to women and put them at the heart of the women’s health strategy. I believe the case is clear and hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I apologise for not having spoken in Committee. I want to do so because I have received hundreds of emails urging me to vote against this amendment. I want to explain why I will vote for it—if there is a vote—and why the people who emailed me are worrying about the wrong thing. I emphasise that this is not about changing the law.
I will not make a long speech because the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, explained the amendment brilliantly and thoroughly. I will make just a couple of points. Over the past two years, the Department of Health, the Government and SAGE—everyone—have told us to follow the evidence. The truth is that this telemedicine, pills-by-post approach to termination pre 10 weeks’ gestation is simply a medical practice innovation that is safe, effective and follows the best clinical practice. So I want to follow the evidence.
About the only positive outcome of the pandemic I can see is that an enforced pilot scheme has given us evidence of the efficacy of this. We also know, as has been mentioned, that many women appreciate this option because there is no clinical need for them to attend a clinic for this procedure. I really cannot see why the Government cannot see that women who do not need hospital care or in-clinic services to access a procedure should not be forced to take up valuable appointment slots and staff time and unnecessarily squander resources that would be better used to intervene in genuine medical emergencies.
Despite all this, I understand that, for many people, the issue of abortion cannot be reduced to evidence or medical practice because they have moral concerns. I assure them that nothing in this amendment, which is literally about the location where a woman swallows a pill, touches on moral values. This is not a law change. Who can and cannot have an abortion remains exactly the same. The grounds on which abortion is legal remain exactly the same. It is common sense and pragmatic as a matter for women but, if you are morally opposed to abortion, you will still be morally opposed to abortion because nothing in this amendment will change your moral objection. Be reassured: you must have a different fight but not on this amendment, which is total common sense. The Government should accept it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her tireless work on gender equality and areas of international development. We have often been collaborators on such matters. I also apologise to the noble Baroness if she has personally received any hurtful comments on this; some of the things I have seen were shameful. She should not have been abused in this way. Nevertheless, I will oppose her amendment; I hope she understands that this in no way lessens the way in which I honour her for her work.
I declare at the outset that the Church of England’s position on abortion is principled opposition, with a recognition that there are strictly limited conditions under which it may be preferable to any available alternative. My opposition to the amendment is based on that in part but also because I believe that the amendment is functionally inadequate in providing the necessary protections. This was a temporary measure introduced during the pandemic to allow continued access to abortion services, simply to meet a need in extraordinary circumstances. I support the Government’s decision to return to the pre-pandemic system for early medical abortions from August, which was supported by many in the public consultation response.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. Evidence-based practice that utilises modern technology for the assessment and delivery of treatment for people who choose to take the first pill at home is cost-effective. I think we forget that the majority of healthcare workers, be they medics, midwives or nurses, try to provide person-centred care. Person-centred care means that some women will still be asked to come into the clinic to take that tablet because it is the best solution for that woman.
However, some women live in rural environments where there are very poor bus services. When I went to the women’s meeting at the UN three years ago with other Members of this House, young women representing the four country youth parliaments told harrowing tales of women who had been given the tablet in a clinic but had not got home before the spontaneous abortion commenced. We heard very good examples, particularly from some other countries in Europe, where taking the tablets at home was already normal practice.
The largest study on telemedical abortion in the world was conducted in the UK, covering 52,000 women both before and after the change—in other words, using the natural experiment that occurred as a result of lockdown. There was no change in adverse incidents, no change in successful completion rates, a reduction in waiting times, a reduction in gestation at treatment and it was preferred by women. This evidence was used by the US Food and Drug Administration to make the first tablet at home a permanent option at the end of last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has just said, the World Health Organization issued its international Abortion Care Guideline last week. Telemedicine and self-management of abortion outside a healthcare facility are both in there.
This amendment would enable better person-centred care for the majority of women, as well as for their families and often their partner who will be with them at the time—particularly for people who are perhaps having a third or fourth child which for clinical reasons is not advised. I therefore hope that the fact the majority of people here have a free vote means that they really consider what I have just said.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, health and safety have arguably never been more front and centre in our nation’s thinking and approach to healthcare. The Government prioritising healthcare in one of their flagship Bills is therefore expected. I am proud of our Government.
As proud as I am, I feel equally perplexed as to why the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, seeking to override the Government’s decision to end the temporary policy on at-home abortion would garner any serious consideration, given that it would contradict the aims of the Health and Care Bill by placing the health and safety of women and girls at risk. It also distracts from important matters in the Bill, for which the Bill was intended.
The provision allowing at-home abortion made alongside a host of other Covid regulations during an unprecedented global crisis was only ever meant to be temporary alongside almost all other temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act that the Government are expiring or have already expired. The Prime Minister said that the Covid restrictions
“take a heavy toll on our economy, our society, our mental wellbeing and the life chances of our children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/22; col. 45.]
The health toll could not, in the specific case of the temporary provision allowing at-home abortion, be more apparent; it is a toll being taken on vulnerable women and girls. As highlighted by a submission to the government consultation on this matter, the lack of in-person consultation increases risks of potentially life-threatening conditions being missed, pills being prescribed beyond the 10-week limit, more women being coerced into a home abortion against their wishes and pills being obtained fraudulently.
These are not unwarranted concerns. Soon after the temporary policy was implemented, story after story emerged of the tragically painful experiences women underwent as a result of this policy. For example, a Telegraph article reported on a nurse whose at-home abortion led to extreme complications needing surgery. Indeed, there have been several cases of women taking these abortion pills outside the legal and safe time limit. For example, in May 2020 police investigated the death of an unborn baby after a woman took pills received by post at 28 weeks pregnant. Such cases are unsurprising given that abortion providers cannot ensure that at-home abortion pills are taken by the intended person in the intended circumstances and time. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, only half of women accurately recall their last menstrual period, again reaffirming that medical confirmation of gestational period is critical.
Given the vast evidence base highlighting how this policy has placed women’s health and safety at risk, an evidence base thoroughly reviewed by the Government in an extensive three-month consultation, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to withdraw her amendment but if she does not, I urge noble Lords to vote against it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and I rather agree with the points that she has just made. But the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, also knows that I have considerable admiration for her, especially over issues around the stand she took about cuts to our overseas aid programmes; we had the privilege of serving together on the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that deals with international relations and defence. She will not be surprised to know that I find myself in disagreement with her and I urge your Lordships to think seriously about Amendment 183.
I will give the House two reasons for this, if I may. One is procedural and the other is more substantive. I suppose on the substantive point, I will cite, as the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, has done, some of the contradictory evidence that we have before us. Your Lordships may not be able to work out whether you believe one side of the argument or the other, and that brings me straight to the point about procedure.
Here we are at almost midnight. This issue has never been debated at any stage in another place in the elected House. Rather like Amendment 170 that we discussed earlier, we have to consider how we resolve sensitive and controversial ethical issues of this kind. There was no consideration of this question in the elected House, and it has come to us without being considered in Committee but at the fag end of Report stage. Surely all of us can agree, wherever we come from on the more substantive point, that this is not the way to go about parliamentary business.
We should bear in mind that since 1967, when the original legislation was passed in another place and then approved here, there have been 10 million abortions, which is around 200,000 every single year. Put another way, there is one abortion every three minutes. You do not have to come from the position that I think noble Lords will be aware that I come from, of believing in the sanctity of every human life, to think that this cannot be right. Indeed, my good friend Lord Steel, who was the mover of the original legislation, has often said that he never intended abortion to be as widespread or repeated as often as it has become.
This all points to the question of procedure. Should there not be a joint committee of both Houses to consider this extraordinarily complex ethical question? Should we not at least have a Select Committee that considers these matters? Should there not be pre-legislative scrutiny before a Bill or an amendment of this kind comes before Parliament? It is passing strange that since 1967, no Select Committee of either House has looked at this legislation, the original Abortion Act 1967. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who always makes valuable contributions to your Lordships’ House, that we are changing the law. That is why this amendment is before your Lordships’ House this evening. We would not need the amendment if we were not changing the law.
I also ask those who have rightly emphasised the importance of conscience, and particularly some of my friends and noble friends on the Lib Dem Benches, why this is not a conscience vote. Why is there a Whip on an issue of this kind?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am glad to hear that, because I was sent a document earlier on saying that there would be a Whip and that people should vote “Content” for this amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
If that is so, I am glad to hear it. Noble Lords will know that, for me, this issue led to my leaving the Liberal Democrats when it became a party policy, so I would love to hear clarity on that question as the evening goes by. I passionately believe that this should be a conscience question for every Member but also at every vote. This should never be a party policy; people should be free to make up their own minds on a serious ethical issue—one of such magnitude and order that it should not be dealt with in such a perfunctory manner.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who said that this
“was always intended to be a temporary measure.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1820.]
In February, in announcing its end, the Government gave the results of a public consultation. Some 70% of those who responded said that it should end immediately. The consultation highlighted increasing safeguarding risks and “concerns about coercion”. Reinforcing that point, last weekend, BBC “Newsbeat” reported that 15% of women in a Savanta ComRes survey said that they had experienced pressure to terminate a pregnancy. Some women reported being given substances to cause an abortion without their consent.
I would be very happy to share with the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, some of the contradictory evidence from GPs and doctors. She cited the RCOG and others, but I point out that, again in that ComRes poll, 86% of GPs surveyed across the UK were concerned about women having a medical abortion past the legal limit of 10 weeks gestation. Concern was highest among female doctors, at 91%. Six in seven GPs were concerned that the policy could see more women being coerced into abortion. Some 86% were concerned that women were at risk of being coerced into an abortion by a family member or partner, and 87% were concerned that women were at risk of unwanted abortion arising from domestic abuse by partners controlling or monitoring their actions. Some 94% agreed that staff at abortion providers need to ensure that they are collecting correct medical and personal information to certify a woman for a home abortion, and that it is important that checks are put in place to ensure that women being certified for abortion meet legal criteria. So, there is contradictory evidence, and surely that should be properly evaluated before we proceed in further liberalising our abortion laws.
A study released in November 2021 suggested that more than 10,000 women had to receive hospital treatment following the use of medical abortion pills in England between April 2020 and September 2021. Previous polling showed that 92% of women in Britain agreed that a woman receiving an abortion should always be seen by a qualified doctor. There are many statements from women that, again, I could provide to the noble Baroness, should she wish to see them.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I join him and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Sugg for her work on women’s issues—work that I support in every way I possibly can. I think that this amendment is a useful amendment to this Bill. My noble friend Lady Sugg is right that the world is changing: science raced ahead during the pandemic, and many things that had not been tried before were tried. Clinical tools have become more sophisticated, practices are undoubtedly evolving and there are definitely lessons from the pandemic that are worth our consideration.
That is why I very much welcome an opportunity to stand back and reflect on what has changed since 1967, which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to, when the current settlement on abortion was agreed. That was an incredibly important moment, when those with different views engaged with public opinion, clinical judgment, ethical analysis and spiritual leaders. I accept that that settlement made in 1967 will not last for ever. In fact, I agree with my noble friend Lady Sugg that the arrangements that have been in place for many years definitely need a second look. If we agree that the moment is right, I emphasise that any reconsideration of these issues should be done in a thoughtful, considered fashion and that we should engage the large number of people who have strong feelings, as well as expert opinion.
We need to do this because these issues are extremely complex and the evidence is conflicted, and they engage so many different strands of our emotional, spiritual and intellectual life. If this this debate this evening is a starting gun for that process, I would recognise its significance and ask the Minister to reflect on the moment in his comments.
However, if this amendment is a realistic attempt to bring about a significant long-term change to the clinical pathways of our health system, I would be extremely alarmed. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on procedure, I have serious concerns. There is no value in blowing up the long-term arrangements that were agreed in 1967 in a late-night Report debate on an amendment introduced at the last minute to a Bill that is about the integration of our healthcare system. It would be a travesty if the easements that were brought in to cope with a global pandemic were used as a pretext for a long-term rewriting of our abortion laws. We were promised that that would not be the case, and it would be regrettable if this Government went back on those reassurances.
I draw to the attention of noble Lords the report by Gynuity Health Projects, published in March 2021, on its study of the efficacy of telemedicine abortion. It found that 5% of participants using the medical abortion treatment at home needed surgical intervention to complete the procedure. These are worrying numbers and are worthy of further investigation before the current situation passes into legislation.
My hope is that this amendment is regarded for what it should be: a testing amendment to stimulate debate and not a serious effort to overturn arrangements that need to be reformed, not overturned. That is why I call on the Minister to explain why this amendment should not stand, and on my noble friend Lady Sugg to confirm that she will not be moving her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I find myself conflicted over this amendment. I am probably the only person in this Chamber who has consulted women over abortions, signed forms for abortions and performed abortions and I have been with women during late abortions for foetal abnormality. It is a complex area. I have also had women say to me, in the privacy of the consulting room, just before they go, “I have never told anybody else this before”—they have then told me about the serious abuse that they have suffered.
My worry with the first part of the amendment, on remote consultation, is that you do not know who is on the other side of camera or who is standing in the room with the woman. You do not know whether the man is using fertility and sex as a form of abuse and is standing there threatening the woman to proceed in one way or another. We know that men refusing to use condoms is a common form of coercive control of women.
The abortifacient tablets, to which my noble friend Baroness Watkins referred, are a separate step. It is inhumane to expect women to take those and then travel on a bus or even go in a taxi. Knowing what has happened before, I cannot help feeling that there is another step. Yes, let the women have their tablets and take them in the privacy of their own home. It is not pleasant to undergo an abortion—nobody should think that it is—but those women also need support and contraceptive advice as part of the package. I am concerned that I do not see that in this amendment and I have been concerned that during the pandemic the ability of women to access contraception may have become more difficult.
This is a complex issue. It is about a pathway with many steps in it. I wonder whether we should return to it at Third Reading, rather than trying to take a yes or no decision tonight on something that has some merits but also some problems. We are not adequately going into them by having a short debate now.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, whose contribution reflects her extensive wisdom and knowledge in this area. I just want to say that I commend my noble friend Lady Sugg for her leadership in bringing forward the amendment. I, too, will listen to what the Minister says in reply this evening, but instinctively I support what my noble friend is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 183. My background in this goes back to March 2020, in those difficult, scary, early days of the pandemic, when your Lordships’ House was operating on a skeleton crew. That led to me, as very new Peer, moving the amendment to the coronavirus regulations that would have allowed for telemedicine. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who I note has signed this amendment, for supporting me through that process, because I had little idea about what I was doing in terms of your Lordships’ House. It is worth noting that we were doing that in part in acknowledgement that women would not otherwise have access to the necessary medical service of an abortion, but also because we knew that NHS resources were going to be enormously stretched. We are still in a situation where NHS resources are enormously stretched. Earlier we were talking about the Ukrainian refugees whom we will be welcoming here and the medical services that they will need.
Of course, we want to say that, in this area of medicine, we should be putting resources into all the NHS services that women need, but the evidence is overwhelming that telemedicine abortion is giving women a better service. I pick up the point made by the right reverend Prelate that there may be safeguarding concerns. There is evidence, particularly from MSI Reproductive Choices, reporting a major uplift in safeguarding disclosures, including from survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, with telemedicine.
On the medical side of this is a simple clear fact: since telemedicine has been introduced, complication rates from abortion have fallen by 20%. You do not have to listen to just me on this; permanent provision of abortion telemedicine is supported by eight royal colleges and medical societies, including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Medical Association. I also point out that abortion telemedicine is going to continue in Wales and Scotland, based on the evidence. The arguments are simply overwhelming: this is the best option.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this, but I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and that encouraged me to stand up and speak, together with other noble Lords who are a bit cautious about all of this. I was a vicar of an inner-city parish in which there were a lot of teenage pregnancies, and those who made them pregnant tried to force them to have abortions. The only person they felt they could tell was the vicar, not their parents, because their parents would hit the roof. Some of them would get corporal punishment as a result. I found myself in difficult, tricky situations, but I was fortunate, because in the congregation we had midwives and doctors. I simply said, “I listened to what you are saying to me, but I am not medically qualified to give any advice. We have experienced people who can give you that advice.” I was grateful that those midwives and doctors were able to accompany these teenage girls and help them come to a more sensible position.
I speak as somebody who is not against abortion, because the welfare of the mother and her rights need to be protected, but I am concerned about a measure that was brought in because of extreme circumstances. The Government were right, during the pandemic, to allow the kind of arrangement that was set up. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we should not change overnight a tradition and circumstances that were accepted by the majority who see the right of abortion. We should not say that we will now go down this almost administrative route as the norm. Most people would be very concerned if we were going down a particular route.
I strongly believe, because of my experience of those teenage pregnancies in Tulse Hill, that the role of doctors, specialists in counselling and others is absolutely vital. You cannot do away with that because it is easier at the end of a telephone. You may not believe it, but young boys who had made girls pregnant would put pressure on them to have these abortions, for no reason other than that they wanted to move on to the next young girl. I still find that unacceptable.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to many remarks this evening. There are three things we must remember. First, this approach was brought in during a time of necessity and it has worked. Not only has it worked but it has worked well. It has worked well for vulnerable groups; it has worked well for the wider community, and we should not lose sight of that fact.
Secondly, as we consider what we must do next, we must recognise that it has worked and, on that basis, we should move towards the next step, which is recognising how we can move this forward. It is not an easy issue; it is late at night, but at the same time, we are building on what has already been done. In so doing, we must recognise what can be done further.
Finally and importantly, there is a much wider issue. Many noble Lords have touched on it this evening. That needs to be addressed in the appropriate place, but it is not tonight. Tonight, we have a very simple amendment. It is a very careful amendment and a very simple extension of what we expect to deliver. On that basis, I hope the House will support the amendment. It is simple, it is straightforward, it is right and it is timely.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I appreciate the lateness of the hour and, therefore, I want to make just a very few comments.
Without apology, I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that it is important to preserve the life of a mother. It is also right to preserve the life of the unborn child. When this measure was originally presented, it was clearly stated that it was an emergency policy introduced because of the unprecedented circumstances of the coronavirus pandemic. The policy was said to be time-limited but many, like me, feared that this was another way of extending abortion on demand. However, many noble Lords accepted that the at-home abortion powers would be exercised only temporarily and be used only for the purpose for which they were granted and in a manner proportionate to the situation. I commend the Government for the actions they took to turn the coronavirus crisis around to the situation we have today. Therefore, continuing the policy is not proportionate, although I did not think it ever was.
At-home abortion endangers the health of the woman and the girl. Consultation revealed that among a number of concerns raised about safety the most common was the risk of women being coerced. I do not think that is an unimportant issue for this House to consider. Therefore, I shall oppose Amendment 183.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I want to intervene briefly, partly because I believe I set a hare running which I perhaps need to explain. I want also to ask the Minister replying to the debate a few questions.
I am told that I am not whipped to vote for this amendment, even though the Liberal Democrat Whip is to support the amendment—those of us who have a conscience reason not to support the amendment do not have to do so. I take that as being not a free vote, which is why I was of the view that, nevertheless, we were being whipped. Make of that what you will. I shall be voting against the amendment, unless the Minister can clarify certain points.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, in introducing her amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that essentially this amendment changes nothing about the law on abortion. But we have also heard that if that were the case, we would not need this amendment at all. If it changes nothing, why is this amendment here? So it must be changing something. What I am not at all clear about is what protections are actually in place. The 1967 legislation was very tightly drawn. The nature of abortion in 2022 is much more widespread. The provisions are not perhaps quite as Lord Steel would have anticipated.
This is a very detailed amendment. We have heard that it is very simple but it is also very detailed. It explains who women need to see. They are supposed to be seeing people either via video or via telephone. I do not know whether any of your Lordships experienced telemedicine during lockdown, but it is not always very effective. If virtual medicine means a telephone call not on a smartphone, your doctor cannot see you. They have no idea how you are presenting or whether you are vulnerable. There is a real question about what certainty there is. Can the Minister say what security there is about telemedicine?
We also heard that women would still have to go through normal medical tests and so on. Where is this happening? In the amendment, all we hear about is things being virtual. At what point do we know that a woman is nine weeks and six days pregnant when she takes the first tablet? How do we know that she is not actually 22 weeks pregnant and not seen by anybody? How do we know what certainty there is? If this is, for many people, a conscience vote, do noble Lords, in good conscience, believe that telemedicine actually means that women are understood and their needs really recognised? Do they get the care that they would get if they were having consultations in a surgery?
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, at this very late hour, I just rise to say that I hope your Lordships will not confuse individual anecdotes, however moving, with the very extensive scientific evidence base quoted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Watkins.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, what is proposed in this amendment is a fundamental change in the law. What we must look at is, I think, fundamentally for each woman, what actually happens in each situation, and what care is provided for the woman in that situation.
I believe that the Government were right to say that this provision would come to an end and that it is not necessarily safe. There are major uncertainties for many women when they conceive. They do not always know when their last period was, as noble Lords have said. But it is not just that. They do not always know the nature of their own medical health and the consequences of taking the telemedical abortion pills.
In that period after 2020 alone, 10,000 women needed hospital treatment for the complications arising from telemedical abortions. It is not an anecdote but a scientific fact that losing a baby, whether by miscarriage or by abortion, is a very bloody and, on occasion, very painful business, which gives rise to all sorts of problems and complications.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 23rd March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 132-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (22 Mar 2022)
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment necessary to remove a defective reference to a non-existent Clause (Cap on care costs for charging purposes), following its removal at Report stage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend Lady Wheeler, I will move Amendment 1 and speak to Amendment 2, which are grouped together. This should not take very long, as we speed the Bill on its way to the Commons.
I just want to say one thing: we entered lockdown two years ago today, and I stood here for the next two days, helping to put through the emergency legislation. Some 186,000 deaths later, we are not finished yet. Now is not the time to discuss this, but I just note that that is what happened. I can hear an alarm—I thank the noble Earl for turning it off. I thought that it was mine for a moment, but that is not the noise mine makes.
Amendment 1 is a technical amendment—I thank the Public Bill Office for sorting us all out on this—necessary to remove a defective reference to a non-existent clause, “Cap on care costs for charging purposes”, following its removal on Report.
Amendment 2 leaves out Schedule 6. This is also a technical amendment, necessary to remove Schedule 6, “Intervention powers over the reconfiguration of NHS services”. It was previously introduced by Clause 40 of the Bill as introduced, “Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers”; again, this was removed on Report. I beg to move Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, the Government will not oppose the minor and technical amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Thornton. We respect the fact that both amendments are necessary to reflect, and are consequential on, the removal of the care-cap metering clause and the reconfigurations clause, respectively, even though the Government are disappointed that noble Lords chose to remove these clauses from the Bill.
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment necessary to remove Schedule 6 (Intervention powers over the reconfiguration of NHS services). It was previously introduced by Clause 40 (Reconfiguration of services: intervention powers), which was removed at Report stage.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The Question is that the Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say, “Content”—
Baroness Penn (Con)
I think that noble Lords may want to make a few remarks before we reach the Question.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As noble Lords know, I am still learning. I will take a moment to mark the end of the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. Its size reflects the Government’s ambitious agenda for change and the NHS’s requests to help to deliver this change. The Bill intends to strip out needless bureaucracy, improve accountability and enhance integration, and it will form the bedrock for the NHS to build on in years to come.
I will express some words of gratitude. In many ways, the many meetings, the debates and even the late nights during the passage of the Bill have, I believe, shown this House at its best—informed, collaborative and considered. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their intense scrutiny over the nine days of Committee and four days of Report.
I pay tribute to the willingness of noble Lords, right across the House, on all Benches, to engage with me and my officials to find ways to improve the Bill. As well as being grateful to the Labour and Liberal Democrat Front Benches for at times challenging us and at other times agreeing and co-operating, I thank a number of Cross-Bench Peers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, Lady Watkins of Tavistock and Lady Hollins, and the noble Lords, Lord Stevens of Birmingham and Lord Patel—who sends his apologies—for their always constructive contributions. I should perhaps also thank noble Lords on the Benches behind me and reflect that the challenge was sometimes from them.
As a relatively new Minister, thrown in at the deep end—your Lordships can see how new I still am from my asking, “Am I on yet?”—I also thank my colleagues on the Government Benches, who have assisted, advised and, I have to admit, consoled me at times throughout the passage of the Bill. I pay tribute to the kind support and advice of my noble friends Lord Howe, Lady Penn and Lady Chisholm of Owlpen.
I also put on record my thanks to the wide range of stakeholders which have engaged with me and many noble Lords, including the NHS Confederation, NHS Providers, the King’s Fund, the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Local Government Association, for their sustained and constructive engagement over several years. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Bill is better for all their work.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work of colleagues across the NHS, government and the devolved Administrations, who have worked so hard behind the scenes. In particular, I thank my fantastic Bill team and the departmental policy teams supporting them, all of whom have been assiduous, helpful and uncomplaining at all times, despite very long hours. Perhaps I should give a special shout-out to 10 month-old Teddy Povey, son of the Bill team manager. You say that you are getting old when the policemen look younger, but I must say that I felt very old on seeing that the policy officials are getting younger. I pay a special tribute there, on his early introduction to politics.
I thank officials across government, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That shows the sort of cross-government dimension to this Bill.
There is no doubt that your Lordships have improved the Bill. I hope that noble Lords across the Chamber will recognise that the Government have listened, considered and responded positively to suggestions where we were able to. However, I also recognise that there are some areas still to be resolved and where, to use my oft-used phrase one more time, we were unable to close the gap between our positions, including on social care, workforce planning and reconfigurations, on which the House of Commons will want to make its voice heard—and to which we may return in debate. But the areas of disagreement should not overshadow the improvement that all noble Lords have made to the Bill. Together, as a House, we have banned hymenoplasty; introduced a power to create a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures; extended the gamete and embryo storage limits; made important commitments to safeguarding children; and strengthened the NHS’s commitment to net zero. On a subject close to my heart and that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, we have included specific references to tackling inequalities.
We send to the other place a Health and Care Bill that is improved with its three underpinning principles reinforced: embedding integration, cutting bureaucracy and boosting accountability. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I was rather hoping that we would do one of these. I agree with the Minister that we have improved the Bill; it is a much-improved Bill that we are sending back to the Commons, and I hope that they have the good sense to accept all the wise amendments that this House has made.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that this is his first Bill, and it has been a baptism of fire for him. It is a very large Bill to cut your teeth on. I think that he has had a bit of a masterclass on legislation and legislative processes, but I compliment him on how he has risen to the occasion and thank the whole ministerial team, including the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn; I was about to call her Baroness Jo-Jo, sorry. I also observe that this is a three-baby Bill. The leader of the Bill team and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, have had babies, and our adviser who started out on the Bill, Rhian, has also had a baby. That is probably quite unusual in your Lordships’ House.
I say thank you, of course, to my wonderful colleagues, my noble friends Lady Wheeler and Lady Merron, and also to the Labour team behind me, particularly my noble friend Lord Hunt, who has been especially active on the Bill—and very welcome that has been, too. We have worked very well across the House, and we have been very pleased to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at a distance, and with many colleagues on the Cross Benches. If I start listing them, I know that I shall forget someone, but I need to mention the noble Lord, Lord Patel. He has not been with us for as much of the Bill as he would have liked, but of course his wisdom has been with us all the way through the Bill.
We are sending the Bill back to the other place, and I suspect that we are all going to be busy when it starts pinging and ponging back.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is of great significance to the NHS, care services and, in particular, patients and residents in the care system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the Minister have said, it has been improved by your Lordships’ usual scrutiny.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, and the other two Ministers working on the Bill. By my calculations, the Government have given us either changes or reassurances on 13 different areas in this Bill. It certainly shows that the ministerial team and the Bill team—to which I am also grateful—have been listening. They have devoted an enormous amount of time to hearing our concerns and responding to them. I thank them for that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I hate myself for this, but I forgot two people. Half way through the Bill, we acquired a new advisor, Liz Cronin, who has done an excellent job, and there is Richard Bourne, who has been sat by my side, right through the Lansley Bill and this one. They have my thanks.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
From these Benches, I very briefly thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the whole Bill team and all the officials who have worked with them for the way that they have listened—repeatedly listened—as we made our points over and again and as they sought sometimes to try to understand what we were trying to get across and why. I also thank everyone across the House, on all the Opposition Benches, the Cross Benches and the Government Benches, who have worked with us as Cross-Benchers in a very collaborative way and made their own offices available for background support to all of us.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: this Bill leaves us better. It has been a genuine pleasure to work on it. Some of us have worked on previous Bills, and I have to say that this was a more enjoyable and rewarding experience because the dialogue involved a better interchange at many points.
We have made some points of great significance, one of which was over palliative care, which has been dear to my heart. Palliative care has come of age. I think the House will be pleased to know that, on Friday morning, the annual meeting of the Association for Palliative Medicine has a specific session dedicated to understanding the changes and what it now needs to do in the light of those. The word goes fast from here, and that is very welcome.
I hope that I have not forgotten anybody in my thanks, which are open and sincerely expressed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, with the Green group having made quite a large contribution—certainly in hours—to this Bill.
This House has improved the Bill, but I feel I need to say that I have received in the last few days a significant number of emails. They are not part of a co-ordinated campaign; they are cries from the heart, many from long-term NHS campaigners who I have known for a long while. I quote just one of these, which says that:
“The Bill is still not in the interests of the public or indeed of the NHS itself as a comprehensive, universal public service”.
That is an expression of feeling that I am hearing very strongly. I hope that the Minister will listen to that and understand that there are very grave concerns out there among the public about the direction of the NHS.
The improvements that we have at least delivered, as other noble Lords have said, should stay, but the Government really need to safeguard this universal public service.
Health and Care Bill
Wednesday 30th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 30 March 2022 - (30 Mar 2022)
17:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 275 / Noes: 183 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 188 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 167 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 156 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 150 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 259 / Noes: 147 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 34 to 37, 52 to 54, 80, 81, 84, 86 to 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97 and 129. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 148
Mandatory training on learning disability and autism
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 91.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 91.
Lords amendment 85, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 86, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 87, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 88, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 92, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 95, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 52 to 54, 66 to 79, 82, 84, 93, 94, 96 to 101 and 109 to 122.
Lords amendment 123, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 124, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 125, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 126, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendment 127, and amendment (a) thereto.
Lords amendments 128 and 129.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to debate their lordships’ amendments and to serve opposite the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for our consideration of this group of amendments—I do not usually do so as our portfolios do not always overlap. The amendments in the group all relate to questions of patient safety, patient engagement, public health and building a learning culture in the NHS.
First, may I put on record how proud I am that the Government are protecting the safety of women and girls through the hymenoplasty amendment, which I know has cross-party agreement? I will run through the amendments and concessions that the Government have made on a number of aspects of the Bill before turning to the perhaps more contentious areas in the group. We have tabled amendments to ban the carrying out, offering and aiding and abetting of hymenoplasty in the United Kingdom. We have accepted all the recommendations of the expert panel on hymenoplasty and agree that the procedure is inextricably linked to virginity testing and violence and that it has no place in our society. I offer my gratitude to all the members of that expert panel, to those who have campaigned so long and so hard on the issue and to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) for his continued hard work to protect vulnerable women and girls.
I urge the House to support amendments 84, 96 and 129, which create a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In the spirit of accepting amendments and suggestions, may I thank the Minister, his officials and his special advisers for accepting the amendment in this place on prioritising cancer outcomes as a means of encouraging earlier diagnosis? That really will drive survival rates up. I also thank the nearly 100 colleagues here and in the other place who helped and supported the campaign. In that spirit, I assure the Minister that we will do what we can to help the Government in ensuring that the legislation prioritising cancer outcomes will have its desired effect at the frontline.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, I think that I speak for both sides of the House on a cross-party basis in saying that we were pleased to be able to accept his amendment, on which he campaigned hard, in this place. I think that will lead to further improvements in cancer treatment and cancer care outcomes for many people in our country.
I return to the amendments relating to cosmetic regulation. I thank the hon. Members for Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on the Opposition Benches as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for their hugely important work in driving forward the agenda. While the amendment is broad, the Government will of course work with stakeholders, including Members of this House, to develop regulations to set out the specific cosmetic treatments that will be subject to licensing and the detailed conditions and training requirements that individuals will have to meet.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comments about virginity testing and hymenoplasty and the work done by other hon. Members on parts of the legislation that affect women and girls. One issue with virginity testing and hymenoplasty relates to the family procedure rules—I know that they fall outside his Department—which still permit spouses to apply for a so-called virginity test on the grounds that a marriage is not consummated. Will he speak to his colleagues and perhaps suggest a meeting with me and other campaigners in the area to see if we can remove from legislation some of those issues affecting women and girls?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend makes an important and highly relevant point. I will certainly pass his request on to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office to look at that and, hopefully, meet him to discuss it further.
We are accepting amendments in a number of other areas to improve the quality of services that the NHS provides. First, we are tabling amendments to ensure the full operability of the noble Baroness Hollins’s amendment—Lords amendment 91—on mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism. We have discussed and agreed the changes with her and are content that her amendment, along with our Government amendment, will legislate that all health and social care providers who carry out regulated activities ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disabilities and autism.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On that amendment, will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the many people who have campaigned for learning disability and autism training for health and care professionals? I think specifically of Paula McGowan—the training will be named after her son, Oliver McGowan. Training frontline health and care professionals to have a better understanding of learning disability and autism will certainly improve people’s interactions with our health and care services, and it will save lives.
Edward Argar
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Paula McGowan and all those who have campaigned for this and other amendments that the Government have been able to accept to the Bill. It is often easier to pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members who have championed issues in this House, but often they are merely mouthpieces for those campaigners who have done so much to raise the profile of such issues.
The Government have also taken steps to extend the storage limits for embryos and gametes, removing an existing unfairness. Currently, legislation discriminates between those who have a medical need to freeze their materials and those who do not. Amendments 82, 98, 100 and 122 remove that distinction by introducing a new scheme consisting of 10-year renewable storage periods up to a maximum of 55 years for everyone regardless of medical need. Our proposals were welcomed unreservedly in the other place, and I hope that they will receive a similar reception in this House.
The Government have also tabled a number of amendments in the other place on transparency of payments made and other benefits given to the healthcare sector. Lords amendments 52 to 54, 93, 94 and 97 all deliver on a recommendation from Baroness Cumberlege’s independent medicines and medical devices safety review. They will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring companies to report information about payments or other benefits that they have provided to the healthcare sector.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said, which, with the Cumberlege review, is very important. I urge him again to go further on that review.
Edward Argar
I hear my right hon. Friend’s gentle but firm urgings, and I hope that he will welcome the progress that we have made.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Cumberlege report was fantastic. The Minister accepted some of what it said but not in relation to Primodos, especially in the area of compensation. Can we look at that again?
Edward Argar
I am always happy—or the relevant Minister is always happy—to meet my right hon. Friend on any matter relating to the Department’s work.
Turning to the Health Services Safety Investigations Body—HSSIB—and patient safety, we intend to support the development of a learning culture across the NHS. With that in mind, I would like to turn to Lords amendments 66 and 109. The related clauses concern how we balance the need for those who speak to the HSSIB to feel safe to speak openly and candidly to HSSIB staff, while ensuring that coroners can fulfil their judicial functions. This has been, throughout the passage of the Bill, a difficult balancing act with no perfect answer, which has been given much thought and attention, and on which reasonable people can come to equally valid but different views. However, I have concluded that there is significant strength of feeling in both this House and the other place on whether coroners should have access to protected material held by the HSSIB.
I am grateful to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), and to the Chief Coroner for considering the different views judiciously. Recognising that, the Government have decided to accept their lordships’ amendment, which removes the ability of senior coroners to access protected material held by HSSIB through relying on certain powers under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. We hope that will give reassurance and strengthen the ability of the HSSIB to deliver what we all want across this House, which is to support an open learning culture across the NHS.
This group of amendments also includes a substantial number of amendments to improve public health. In the other place, we brought forward amendments to enable the smooth and effective implementation of restrictions on the advertising of less healthy food and drink. I urge the House to accept Lords amendments 101, and 123 to 128, which allow the necessary preparatory work to take place before the restrictions are due to come into force on 1 January 2023. They also introduce the ability to delay that implementation date via secondary legislation, should that be deemed necessary.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome very much what the Minister said on the previous Lords amendment concerning safety culture. Can he tell us a little more about what other actions will be taken in lieu of legislation, which is not always the best answer, to encourage the learning, safety and quality culture which is so vital to a great service?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. We heard in this House, a little earlier this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care present a statement on the Ockenden review. The review has a number of—not recommendations specifically, but urgent action points. Donna Ockenden was very clear on that and my right hon. Friend accepted all of them. One of the themes that came out in that context is people’s fear of speaking up. We believe that the HSSIB will play an important part in stimulating that culture of openness and transparency, and people coming forward without fear. That is why we reflected very carefully and accepted their lordships’ amendment.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I want to re-emphasise to the Minister and to others the injustice when Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, at an inquest three years after an event, led the police to get her prosecuted for gross negligent manslaughter and then the other actions, which I will not rehearse now. If we are going to have doctors as good as Dr Bawa-Garba and others learning from events, we will do better than the previous system. I am glad the Government are accepting the Lords amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the Father of the House, who I believe, in the course of our discussions about whether to accept the Lords amendment, wrote to me, along with other right hon. and hon. Members highlighting that particular case in the context of an open and transparent learning culture.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I thank the Government for accepting the amendment. I raised the issue on Second Reading and I can see the Minister smiling at how many times we have talked about it in Committee and in the prelegislative Committee. It is critical that the safe space is safe. Systems make errors or do not prevent errors, so we need people to be candid. I pay tribute to the Government for accepting that, because it allows HSSIB to have a decent start and a decent chance.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady not only for her comments just now, but for her work on this agenda and on HSSIB over many years on various incarnations of this legislation. She has a right to gently tweak my tail that I could have listened to her in Committee and got here faster, but as she will know, occasionally it takes a little time in Government to be able to move to the compromise that often we all seek.
Turning back to the advertising restrictions, the overall policy direction has been set out effectively through last year’s Government consultation response, this proposed legislation and the debate that has taken place in both Houses.
Edward Argar
If I may just finish this point. I suspect my right hon. Friend may speak later on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith).
A consultation on secondary legislation will be launched shortly and consultations on the wider guidance to the restrictions, which will support industry and provide further clarity on what to expect, are anticipated later in the year. Therefore, we do not believe there is a need to incorporate a requirement in primary legislation to specify a gap between the date of publication of guidance and implementation of the restrictions, as proposed by my hon. Friend, but I look forward to hearing his speech later. I reassure him that the Government will of course continue to work closely with industry and with him to ensure that the transition is as smooth as possible.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and he pre-empts some of my comments. Does he recognise the significance of the change to the broadcasting and advertising industries? It seems to me that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) is very reasonable in giving 12 months minimum for the industry to prepare for such significant changes.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know him well but I was not sure if would be able to predict exactly what he was going to say, so I am pleased that I have managed, to a degree, to pre-empt him. I recognise the impact, and that is why we believe we have struck the appropriate balance, both in terms of the time for preparation and implementation, but I will of course listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham says when he speaks to his amendments.
Finally, amendment 79 relates to the international healthcare arrangements clause, which amends the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 to enable the Government to implement comprehensive reciprocal healthcare agreements with countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. The clause will give the devolved Governments a power to make regulations giving effect to such agreements in devolved areas of competence. This minor and technical amendment to the definition of devolved competence and the consent requirement in new section 2B(2) reflects the fact that the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is given in relation to an Assembly Bill, rather than an Assembly Act. It has no impact on the policy intention of the clause and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be content to pass the amendment.
On Report in the other place, the Government committed to accept in principle Lords amendment 95 to change the process for regulations that give effect to healthcare agreements, so they are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. While we continue to support the intention of the amendment, I move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 95 and moves an amendment in lieu, Government amendment (a). This amendment achieves the same objectives, but amends the international healthcare agreements clause rather than the regulations clause for the Bill to ensure that all regulations made under the soon-to-be-named healthcare international arrangements legislation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This includes any regulations made by the devolved Governments and achieves the objectives of the Lords amendment. This conclusion has been reached following constructive engagement with noble Lords for which the Government are extremely grateful.
In addition, to make parliamentary scrutiny of our healthcare agreements even more robust, we will set out a forward look in annual reports produced under section 6 of the 2019 Act, highlighting any agreements with other countries that are under consideration. We will publish all non-legally binding agreements and their associated impact assessments. I urge the House to accept all those Lords amendments as beneficial to the public and the NHS.
Although I have sought to compromise and reach agreement on many areas, I am afraid that there are a number of Lords amendments that we urge the House to reject. First, let me deal with Lords amendments 85 to 88. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, for its proposals to help the Government to achieve a smoke-free country by 2030. However, the Government cannot accept these Lords amendments, because the proposals would be very complex to implement, take several years to materialise and risk directing a lot of Government resource into something that we do not see as a sustainable or workable way to fund public health. This would also rightly be a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury.
The Javed Khan review is under way and I encourage colleagues to wait patiently for that and to be guided by what emerges from it.
Edward Argar
If I can just finish this point, I will give way to my hon. Friend. Our preference is to continue with a proven and effective model of encouraging tobacco cessation. Ultimately, given the review that is under way and the forthcoming tobacco control plan, which will be published later this year, we do not believe that this Bill is the right place for the proposals.
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I wish to turn to the final, important set of Lords amendments on abortion.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for what he is saying about tobacco control. The recommendations are due to come out next month and most of those—indeed, most of these Lords amendments—refer to carrying out consultations without decisions actually being made. Does he not accept the point about having a consultation, taking people’s views and then deciding what to do?
Edward Argar
To a degree, that is why I mentioned the Javed Khan review. We are undertaking a lot of work and let us see what emerges from that, as well as from consultations and other pieces of work, and draw it all together. I can see where my hon. Friend is coming from, but I think that the Government have set out the right approach, so I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to reject their lordships’ amendments.
Edward Argar
I will if my hon. Friend is brief, but I know that a lot of colleagues wish to speak on the abortion amendment and I want to give them enough time to do so.
Steve Brine
Further to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, when I published the tobacco control plan in 2019, with the smoke-free ambition for 2030, we in the Government promised to consider the “polluter pays” approach to raising funds for tobacco control and smoking cessation services. The Lords amendments just require the Government to fulfil that commitment, which was barely three years ago, and to consult. I press the Minister on that again because we as a Government committed to doing this less than three years ago.
Edward Argar
My understanding—although my recollection may fail me, so I caveat my comment with that—is that this was initially looked at that stage, but was not proceeded with. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to press that point and I pay tribute to him for being the policy Minister at the time and for making huge progress on this agenda. I suspect that we will return to this matter subsequently, and I look forward to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Tooting, in due course.
Edward Argar
I will not now, but I may during my wind-up speech, if I have time. I want to conclude my remarks so that colleagues can make their contributions on the matters that I have referred to, but if there is time, I commit to taking an intervention from the hon. Lady at the end of our consideration of this set of Lords amendments.
We come, finally, to Lords amendment 92 and the amendment offered in lieu relating to abortion. I am aware of strong and sincerely and genuinely held views from Members on all sides of this debate and this issue, and I respect the integrity of their views. Although I will set out why the Government took the action that they did and the procedure that is in place, I emphasise at the outset that, given that this matter is before the House because of an amendment by their lordships, it is right that this is properly considered and that this will be—in line with how we normally treat these matters—a free vote, in which how individual Members vote will be a matter of conscience.
In response to the covid pandemic, an approval was issued in accordance with the Abortion Act 1967 that allowed women to take both pills for early medical abortion at home. That temporary measure addressed a specific and acute medical need, reducing the risk of covid-19 transmission and ensuring continued access to abortion services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last month that the approval will end at midnight on 29 August 2022.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that, in Wales—[Interruption.]—and in Scotland, telemedical abortion will continue to be available to all women after the covid-19 pandemic has finished? To be honest with the Minister, that needs to follow suit in England.
Edward Argar
I would not suggest for a moment that Wales or Scotland should follow England or that England should follow Scotland and Wales. They are devolved competences. Each devolved Administration will rightly form their own view of the balance of benefits, the pros and cons, and that is right. That is what our devolution settlement is for. This House is considering the amendment that was brought here from the Lords and this is an opportunity for Members to express their view on what should happen in this country.
The Government remain of the view that the provision of early medical abortion should return to pre-covid arrangements, and face-to-face services should resume, given that the temporary change was based on a specific set of emergency circumstances. However, we recognise that their lordships have made an amendment in that respect and it is therefore right that this House considers it.
In normal times, we prefer and believe that decisions about the provision of health services are more appropriately dealt with through the usual processes, rather than through primary legislation. We have a number of concerns about the approach taken in the amendment. Parliament has already given the Secretary of State a power to issue approvals under the Abortion Act. That allows the Secretary of State flexibility to make decisions about how healthcare in this area is provided, which can be adapted quickly and easily to respond to changes in service provision or other external circumstances, as was the case with the temporary approval in response to concern about the risk to services from covid-19.
From a process perspective, it is not appropriate, in our view, to insert into primary legislation the intended detail regarding home use of both pills. That would mean that should any issues arise, there would no longer be scope to react quickly, as the Secretary of State did during the pandemic. However, we recognise that that is now a matter for debate and decision by this House.
In addition, Lords amendment 92, as drafted by my noble Friend Baroness Sugg, would not have the intended effect. If agreed to, it would create legal uncertainty for women and medical professionals by including wording on the statute book that does not, in fact, change the law in the way it appears to. On a procedural point, we therefore urge all right hon. and hon. Members to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.
All Members have the opportunity, however, to vote on our amendment (a) in lieu, which we have drafted to ensure, irrespective of colleagues’ views, that the provision does the job it was intended to do. We all agree that it is crucial that the law is clear in this area and does not create any uncertainty for those who rely on it. That is why we have tabled our legally robust amendment in lieu, which stands in my name and which would achieve the intended purpose of Baroness Sugg’s amendment.
It is for right hon. and hon. Members, in a free vote, to judge how they wish to vote on the amendment in lieu. I encourage them to reflect and make their decision when the amendment is pressed to a Division.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Opposition congratulate the Lords on their hard work on the Bill, which is much improved from when it left the Commons. We support the Lords amendments, which are sensible and proportionate and will go some way to tackling health inequalities that are still sadly far too prevalent.
Over the past two years, we have seen the very best of our NHS. Publicly owned and free at the point of use, it is the best of us and has protected our families for generations; I hope it will continue to do so for many years to come. Unfortunately, the Government are set on a power grab, and refuse to act to tackle workforce shortages and ever-growing waiting lists. Waiting times for cancer care are now the longest on record, patients with serious mental illnesses are being sent hundreds of miles away for treatment, and one in four mental health beds have been cut since 2010. We deserve better. Our NHS deserves better.
We can all agree that the amendments in this group are wide-ranging, so I will be covering a range of subjects. A number of amendments in the group speak to women’s health. We have seen time and again that the Government are dismissive of women’s health and have ignored the needs of half the population. In its original form, the Bill was far too scant on tackling health inequalities; it is only because of colleagues in the other place and Labour votes that we are making ground on tackling them at all.
Along with the rest of our health team, I am proud to support the continued provision of telemedical abortion services in England. Maintaining the existing provision of at-home early medical abortion following a telephone or video consultation with a clinician is crucial for women’s healthcare. Not only did that preserve access to a vital service during the pandemic; it enabled thousands of women to gain access to urgently needed care more quickly, more safely and more effectively. Women’s healthcare must reflect the needs of those whom it serves. Scrapping telemedical abortion services would drastically reduce access to that vital service, and would simply serve to increase the number of later-term abortions. Everyone should have access to safe and timely healthcare. I say to Ministers: please do not ignore clinical best practice and the expert opinions of organisations and royal colleges.
We welcome provisions to ban hymenoplasty, and the power to create a licensing regime for non-surgical cosmetic procedures. Those too were a result of Labour votes, because the original Bill did not even mention them. Ministers must stop treating women as an afterthought in healthcare provision. However, we are glad to see that the Government have accepted the Lords amendment to remove coroners’ access to material held by the Health Service Safety Investigations Body.
On the NHS frontlines, I see at first hand the pressure placed on staff. Staff must feel protected, and must be encouraged to come forward. It is crucial for the Bill to promote a learning culture, so that any investigation can establish what training and procedures need to change in order to prevent any future mistakes. Only by enshrining that culture can we ensure that staff will feel comfortable about coming forward.
We welcome Baroness Hollins’s amendment to introduce mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism for all regulated health and care staff, and we are pleased to see that the Government support it. Everyone deserves access to safe, informed, individual care, and hopefully the amendment will go some way towards reducing health inequalities that are faced all too regularly by people with learning disabilities and autism.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend is saying. For instance, I too believe that it is a woman’s right to choose. One of the features of a physical consultation was that it gave the woman an opportunity to do so in a free environment. Does my hon. Friend share the concern that I know exists among many of our constituents that if the consultation is done by telephone, it is possible that a woman who is being coerced will not be understood to be being coerced by the consultant who is dealing with her? It is important that, in preserving the right to choose for the woman, we do not allow a situation in which that woman could be coerced, by a coercive partner, into making a choice that is not her own.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There are widely held variations in views across the House, but I stand by the principle that everyone should have access to safe and timely healthcare, and that scrapping telemedical abortion services would drastically reduce access to a service that is incredibly important for women, and, as I have said, would simply increase the number of later-term abortions, which can have physical and mental impacts on the mother herself.
As for Lords amendments 85 to 88, it is disappointing to see the Government going against their own ambitions and targets. The consultation referred to in Lords amendment 83 would be on a statutory “polluter pays” scheme to make tobacco manufacturers fund measures to reduce smoking prevalence and improve public health. Smoking is responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest in society. Will the Minister please explain why we are still waiting to see the Government’s tobacco control plan, which we were promised by the end of 2021? The Government need to stop kicking public health matters into the long grass. They say that they recognise the stark health inequalities associated with tobacco use, but delays will do nothing to level the playing field and eradicate health disparities.
Ministers need to make sure they listen to the Lords, whose amendments go a long way towards eradicating the vast health inequalities that exist across society today. Rather than wasting time trying to overturn the changes, Ministers should now focus relentlessly on bringing waiting times down.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to speak to Lords amendment 92 and the Government motion to disagree, and to the amendment in lieu. A few months ago, in my role as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, I wrote to the Health Secretary, supported by more than 60 parliamentarians—not an insignificant number—urging him to discontinue the temporary provision to allow for the taking of both sets of abortion pills at home. We said that we were deeply concerned about reports that taking both sets of abortion pills at home without direct medical supervision had led to a number of deeply concerning, unacceptable health and safety risks to women and girls in this country. These included a lack of basic checks by abortion providers before sending abortion pills, and the occurrence of severe complications and later-term abortions due to the lack of in-person assessment. We were also, notably, concerned about the greater risk of coercion by a partner or family member where the doctor does not see the woman in person.
Fiona Bruce
Please let me continue. I am sure the hon. Lady will have put in to speak. I thank Health Ministers for listening, and for recently cancelling this temporary emergency provision from August, fully in accordance with the Government’s intention at the outset of the covid pandemic, which was that the measure would be temporary. To delve a little deeper into the issues and concerns, having no in-clinic assessment means that gestational age is, and can only be, an estimate. Many women cannot be sure that they are within the legal—and, I presume, safe—limit of nine weeks and six days for taking such pills. Indeed, several women who have needed hospital treatment after taking an at-home abortion pill were clearly many weeks over that limit.
Fiona Bruce
I feel that I must be fair, and I have said that I will not take interventions—
Alec Shelbrooke
I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am not intending to speak in the debate. I know that she has deeply held beliefs, which I respect very much. She is giving examples and details. Can she give data referring to the examples she is giving? I have been struck by the fact that in this debate, I have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence that has not been backed up by any reference to data, and I think that data is important for this debate.
Fiona Bruce
Yes; the organisation Right to Life, which is the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, has collated such data. Freedom of information data analysis also shows that one in 17 women taking abortion pills requires hospital treatment. That means that more than 14,000 women have been treated in hospital following the approval of pills-by-post abortion. A similar study of FOI data in February 2021 showed that every month, 495 women attended hospital with complications arising from abortion pills, and that 365 of them required hospital treatment. Thirty-six women every month are making 999 calls—that is more than one a day—seeking medical assistance because they are concerned about complications arising from taking abortion pills.
Women, especially vulnerable women, deserve the care and attention given in an in-person meeting with an experienced clinician before making such an important decision. Indeed, 74% of GPs have indicated concerns about women finding it distressing to terminate a pregnancy themselves at home. More than 600 medics signed an open letter to the Prime Minister in May 2021 calling for an end to pills-by-post abortion, and a clear majority—70%—of the respondents to the Government’s consultation on this subject said that the temporary measure of pills-by-post abortion should end.
However, whatever one’s views on abortion, the Government very recently made a decision to cease the authorisation of these pills from August this year, due to this being a temporary covid provision that was never intended to outlast the covid pandemic period. The Government—our Health Ministers—have made an informed, carefully considered, evidence-based decision. We should respect that, but once more, those pressing for an even more easily available abortion regime in this country are not willing to accept it. Instead, they are seeking to make a serious change to the law through an amendment, as is frequently their practice. That gives us far too little time to debate such fundamental issues. There is too little opportunity for us parliamentarians to scrutinise this serious issue, which is literally a matter of life and death. Whatever our views on abortion, that is simply wrong. I urge colleagues to vote against this proposal to make at-home abortion pills permanently available.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I come to this Bill rather late, so I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who did most of the heavy lifting on it for the SNP. I have turned up for the fag end of the process. I hope the House will oblige me by listening to a few general comments before I address the Lords amendments.
Overall, this Bill is a missed opportunity for England to go back to a unified service, similar to the one we have in Scotland. Whatever system we have, I am sure each of us on these islands would wish to extend our gratitude and thanks to the staff who delivered such a focused patient care service in difficult times, throughout the pandemic. I also acknowledge the Government’s progress on recognising the need for consent from the devolved nations; that should have been included in the Bill from the get-go. Still, better late than never.
As we know, health is mainly a devolved matter. Following discussions with the UK Government, the Scottish Government were able to bring forward a legislative consent motion in December, further to which, in the light of securing acceptable amendments, the Scottish Government recommended consent to the Secretary of State’s power to transfer or delegate functions under clauses 88 to 94.
The UK Government made amendments to introduce two new clauses to the Bill—on hymenoplasty offences in Scotland, and on information about payments, et cetera, to persons in the healthcare sector—that also require legislative consent. The Scottish Government are content to recommend that the Scottish Parliament grants that consent.
In summary, the SNP supports Lords amendments 66 and 109 on the Health Services Safety Investigations Body to protect safe spaces and reduce any future harm to patients. These amendments largely rehash some of the amendments we tabled at previous stages, and I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the Lords amendment to remove coroners’ access in this regard.
A key health driver on which we can make a big difference is encouraging people to stop smoking, which is one of the best things people can do at any time of life. We support Lords amendments 85 to 88 on a tobacco products statutory scheme for the regulation of the prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers, and they would require the Secretary of State to carry out a consultation on the scheme.
Although I understand that the Minister does not wish to prejudge the options for England’s tobacco control plan, we should remember that these would be UK-wide measures, and public health and smoking cessation are devolved to Scotland. The Scottish Government’s programme for government committed to a refreshed tobacco action plan built on the pillars of prevention, protection and cessation to achieve their target of lowering Scotland’s smoking rate to 5% or lower by 2034, which would put tobacco out of sight and out of mind for future generations. These Lords amendments, particularly on the “polluter pays” charge, would be beneficial in that regard, and Scotland’s progress should not be held back by decisions in this place.
In conclusion, I draw Members’ attention to the Cancer Research briefing:
“Implementing a ‘Smokefree Fund’ would require tobacco manufacturers to pay for the harm caused by tobacco but without letting them influence how the money is spent. It would provide much-needed investment in evidence-based measures such as public education campaigns and Stop Smoking Services, without further squeezing the public purse.”
Who could argue with that?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A lot of people want to contribute to this debate, and this first group must come to an end at 10 minutes past 5. Those who make long contributions really are doing other people out of an opportunity to speak.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point underlying my amendments to Lords amendments 123 to 127 is relatively straightforward and simple. I heard what the Minister said in his opening remarks, but I feel that if we act in a way that impacts an industry—in this case, UK broadcasters—as severely as the advertising restrictions will, and we are talking about a £200 million a year loss to our great British broadcasters, it is a matter of fairness and equity that we should give them enough of a lead-in time, enough notice and enough ability to adapt, remodel their services and find a way of surviving, to put it bluntly.
I have spoken before in the House about the fact that I do not agree with the nanny state and telling advertisers what they can and cannot advertise. The Lords amendments that we are considering, and my amendments to them, are very much about the implementation of a policy, and about giving British broadcasters—public service and fully commercial ones alike—a fighting chance. It would be much fairer to give broadcasters at least a year to comply from the point at which Ofcom publishes its guidance and puts it in the public domain. Broadcasters and advertisers will have to go through a lot of processes once this Bill receives Royal Assent, and that cuts the time that they have to put in place new policies, compliance checks and mechanisms to comply with the legislation. Two months on from Royal Assent, Ofcom will not even have got its statutory powers in this regard, and so will not even be able to start work with the Advertising Standards Authority and other bodies on the detail, and the ways and means of implementation.
Alun Cairns
I strongly support the amendments that my hon. Friend has tabled. Does he agree that the definition of some of the products, and the work that needs to be done, needs to undergo significant consultation, because of the way in which the efficacy, strength and merits of the policy will be judged?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, as the argument that I am making is very much that these things take time. Two months on from Royal Assent, Ofcom gets its statutory powers. Only then can it start the consultation, and the work of defining the restrictions on advertising that come under the broad categories in the Bill. Let us assume that two months on from Royal Assent is some time in the next couple of months. There would then be 10-week or perhaps three-month consultations to get the detail right, for a go-live date of 1 January 2023. That does not give our broadcasters sufficient time to put in place their processes, remodel their whole service, and find a way of working when they are so many hundreds of millions of pounds down on their operating models.
Steve Brine
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I joined the Department of Health and Social Care in 2017 and we made it very clear that this was our direction of travel. Our child obesity plan part 2 made it very clear that this was our intention. The truth is that broadcasters have known for a long time that this is the Government’s intention. My fear is that what lies behind what he is proposing is not questions of practical implementation, but argument with the principle.
Greg Smith
I make no secret of the fact that I am against the principle of these restrictions. The Government’s own data shows that the restrictions will save only 1.74 calories a day, which is less than what is in a Tic Tac. However, that is not the place we find ourselves in today; these amendments are specifically about implementation. Given that it is clearly the will of this House and the other place to push the legislation through, I want us to give our broadcasters a fighting chance to survive, adapt and continue being successful, great broadcasters.
Jess Phillips
I had not intended to be here at all today. Sadly, my mother-in-law died of a heart attack very suddenly on Friday, so women’s health and how we treat it is at the very top of how I am feeling at the moment. My mother-in-law, much like my own mother, who sadly died as well, sent her children to women’s liberation playgroup. She would not have forgiven me for not turning up for the opportunity of a free vote, so here I stand. Her name was Diana, and I feel that days like this are often dedicated to the Dianas of this world.
I want to respond to some of what has been said about coercion and control. I respect the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and her firmly held views, and I would go down fighting for her right to hold those views. Had she allowed me to intervene on her earlier, I would have asked her whether she could tell me which expert agency that deals with violence against women and girls agrees with her. I represent the entirely alternative view. Maybe she and I could just both be honest and say that, largely, the detail in front of us does not necessarily matter: she thinks one way and I think another, and we should just be honest about the reality of that situation.
There is no evidence that coercion will be a concern any more than it already is. That is not my experience, from years of working with victims of sexual violence, sexual exploitation and abuse. The problem is not usually that they are forced to have abortions but the alternative: they are forced to go to term. They are scared. I worked with a beautiful woman called Natasha who was killed when her violent ex-partner found out that she had had an abortion. He murdered her. That is the normal pattern.
Sir Peter Bottomley
The evidence that has been given to me is that virtually every group concerned with violence against women and girls supports the use of telemedicine, as do Dame Clare Gerada and Dame Lesley Regan, who are leading doctors, gynaecologists and obstetricians. Lastly, with telemedicine consultations, the period of time before an abortion has been halved, not increased.
Jess Phillips
I agree 100% with every word that the Father of the House has just said. There is no expert opinion group that agrees with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Congleton, who cited the secretariat of a pro-life group. By the way, I am pro-life: I am pro the people who live being able to make choices. I am incredibly pro-life—I am just also pro-choice. I hate the terminology that suggests somehow one side is pro-life; what is the alternative?
Alec Shelbrooke
First, may I offer my condolences for what must be a very difficult time for the hon. Lady and her family?
There has been a lot of conversation in which people have said, “You’ve got no way of knowing that it is going to be less than nine weeks and six days.” Will the hon. Lady address that particular point, which is very important to how people have been trying to frame the debate?
Jess Phillips
I have heard similar framing, with some saying people will take the pills after 10 weeks. If we look at the actual data, we see it shows that the change increased from 25% to 40% the proportion of abortions happening before six weeks. Telemedicine has dramatically reduced the gestational period, making it much less. I am afraid to say that these are not a good faith arguments. They are based not on fact, but on the idea that women will lie. Women are concerned about their health. They are frightened about their health. We do not make decisions about our health in the hope that we will be harmed; we do what is best. We should not be treated like children; we should be treated like adults.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way and add my condolences to those of others for her sad loss.
The hon. Lady is right when she says that these issues can be entrenched and people have entrenched points of view. When we have that situation as a House, we look at the facts and at what the experts say. The experts who support Government amendment (a) in lieu of Baroness Sugg’s Lords amendment 92 include the vast majority of professionals: the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association; and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. Does the hon. Lady agree that, when it comes to trying to find a way forward through entrenched views, we should look at the experts, and the experts are giving us a very clear way forward, followed by my hon. Friend the Minister?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. It is difficult to be dispassionate. I have never been accused of being dispassionate about anything. I am passionate about what I eat for my breakfast. I am just not a dispassionate sort, but the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must look at column A and column B in this instance. Column A is full of experts—medical experts, women’s rights experts, and women themselves—and a huge amount of evidence.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I just wanted to add to the list that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) just read out the World Health Organisation, which also says that telemedicine is safe, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, based in the United Kingdom, which made a recommendation in 2019 about the safety of telemedicine for abortion.
Jess Phillips
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. Actually, if people are against telemedicine for abortion, they might have very strongly held views about not liking telemedicine for anything. By that virtue, they should be against it for everything. For all the people who are desperately worried about vulnerable women—victims of domestic abuse and victims of sexual violence—not being able to access healthcare, I say come on and join me. They are absolutely right: there is zero availability of most mental health support. There is zero chance of getting a GP appointment any time soon, but somehow, people are against telemedicine only on this issue.
Often in debates, we do not stand up to seek to convince others. That only happens when there is a free vote—when actually the debate is really important. To people who are unsure, I say that I understand it—I totally get it—especially if they do not necessarily have so much skin in the game have but a huge load of emails in their inbox. The reality is that if they are not sure, they should either try to be convinced by the debate and the evidence, or they should simply abstain on the issue.
This is not particularly difficult for me. As I have said, I am not a dispassionate sort. I have stood in this House before and said that I have had an abortion. I do not feel devastated by that fact. I think we need to be clear about this. In this place, we only deal in hard cases, because they tell the argument much better. One thing I would say about when I had an abortion is that the worst process of having an abortion is the waiting. I had made the decision about what I was going to do with my body. I had made it the second that I saw I was pregnant on a pregnancy test, because I am an adult woman, completely capable of handling my own body and knowing my own mind, and that is how we should treat every woman in this country.
Fiona Bruce
On that point about adult women, and the point about the number of professional organisations that have been quoted, as if there were universal support for the continuation of telemedicine, I will mention two organisations, with particular reference to young people. The National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children, NHS doctors and nurses who work in the area of children’s safeguarding, has welcomed the Government’s decision to end the provision, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recently released a statement:
“Children and young people under the age of 18 and Looked after Children up to the age of 25 must be offered and actively encouraged to take up a face-to-face appointment to assess gestation, support their holistic needs and assess any safeguarding issues as part of the pathway for early medical abortions.”
Jess Phillips
I could not agree more. People should absolutely be able to access a face-to-face appointment where they want and need one, and there is not a single thing in the legislation that would prevent that. I go back to this idea: “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. No one’s forcing you.” This is exactly the same. No one is forcing anybody to take through the procedure at home; it is a choice that we should allow adult women to make.
When I made that choice, after I made it I had to wait another eight weeks. It was some time ago, long before the pill was even necessarily widely available. I had made the decision, and I did not feel sad about it. I did not feel bad about it. I had made the decision on behalf of my son, who had only just been born—although, actually, I do not even need an excuse. I did not want to have a baby, having just had one, and it is perfectly well within my gift to make that decision. The argument is often made about all the children who have been lost because of women like me, but my younger son, Danny, would not exist if that baby had been born, so we end up equal, and he is a cracker of a kid.
The reality is that I had to wait, and I started to feel pregnant. I started to feel unwell, I started to feel tired and it started to affect my work. That was horrendous for me, knowing that I was not going to go ahead with it—not horrendous because of guilt, but because it made me feel sick and it made me feel that people had expectations of me. I had to hide it. I could not tell people I was pregnant; I had to hide that fact from people at work and other places, because I had to wait. Had I been able, at the four-week point when I found out I was pregnant, to just stay in my house and ring up, it would have been a far better situation for me.
People do not want to think about me, but rather obsess about the difficult cases, not the vast majority who are adult women and should be trusted to take medication in their own homes. We are treating those women as if they are going to get a methadone allowance from a surgery, as if they cannot be trusted when they say, “Actually, I’d prefer to stay at home and not maybe have a miscarriage on the bus on the way home because I live in a rural community.”
If people want to hear about the hard cases, I am currently handling one. It is the case of a young woman who has been sexually exploited since she was 13 years old. She is 23 now. She has had 10 years of being raped repeatedly, pretty much every weekend of her life, by multiple men, and it continues. Obviously, she falls pregnant—well, she does not fall pregnant; she is raped and then she gets pregnant. She has very little trust in agencies and in the police, and she is right to have so little trust. She has been failed time and again. Without the opportunity of telemedical abortion, I have no idea how she would cope. It is a vital service for people who really need it.
I ask hon. Members to vote Aye on Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 92, or, if they are not sure, to abstain. Adult women can be trusted to decide what they want to do with their health, and any other vote would suggest otherwise.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I would like to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial International, and particularly, since these organisations have been mentioned, to state that I am a member of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
The measure relating to amendment 92 was introduced in the context of the pandemic. The reason that the rules were brought in the first place was to protect women from coronavirus and to reduce its spread within society at a time when we did not have a vaccine. For me, this debate is not about ideology at all—it is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion, whether women should or should not be able to have abortions, whether or not life begins at birth, or anything of that nature. Society and Parliament have decreed that abortions may take place and that women should have the right to choose, and I support that. For me, this is a debate about women’s safety, particularly the safety of the most vulnerable and marginalised women and girls.
Previously, women would have attended a clinic and been given a tablet and another tablet to take a day or so later, and usually the bleeding would begin in the hours after the second tablet is taken. Under the new process, a woman or girl can speak to somebody on the telephone to arrange for the tablets to be delivered to her, or to be collected by her, and then take the tablets at home. It is very difficult for a clinician to tell whether the woman they are speaking to on the telephone is indeed pregnant. There are not necessarily visible signs of pregnancy below 10 weeks, and palpation of the abdomen would not be expected, so it is not clear to the clinician on the phone whether the woman is pregnant. Clearly, someone believes a woman when she says she is pregnant, but there is no way to be certain. In particular, there is no way to be certain of gestation. Although a woman may know when she has had sex and when her last period was, quite a number of women will bleed in the early stages of pregnancy, and some women mistake those early bleeds for a period, which means that women may believe that they are less pregnant than they are. If they go to a clinic, that can be determined, whereas over the telephone it cannot.
The NNDHP, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned, has found a number of examples since March 2020 of women who have had babies delivered quite significantly later in gestation; they had mid-term to late-term abortions believing that they were early in pregnancy when they were not. The examples included 12 babies who were born with signs of life, so the pregnancy would have been quite advanced. The women thought that they were at less than 10 weeks, or told the doctor that they were at less than 10 weeks, but they were not. In six of those cases, the woman giving birth was herself a child. One can only imagine the distress felt by these women and children when they take an abortion pill to deliver what they believe to be a foetus of less than 10 weeks and out comes a baby of up to 30 weeks’ gestation who may at that point have been alive. It is not rare to have side effects from these tablets. One in 17 women have to attend hospital and 36 women call 999 each month because of complications of taking these medicines at home.
If this measure had been introduced in a proper fashion rather than as part of the coronavirus regulations, we would have discussed it quite thoroughly and made it very clear that it should not apply to children. I do not think that many people in this House would think that a 14-year-old girl should be ringing up and receiving abortion medicines over the telephone, but that is indeed what the legislation allows. People may say that doctors would not do that, but we know that six of the children who delivered babies that they thought were at a much earlier stage were themselves under the age of 18.
Steve Brine
Surely the point is that this measure was brought in hastily in a pandemic. Therefore, if Members are not sure today, far from abstain, they should be returning to the status quo pre-pandemic. Then this Government can should consider the issue properly and seriously on its own and ask the House to make a decision.
Dr Johnson
I can only absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s intervention.
I also want to talk about coercion, because we know that some women may be coerced into having an abortion.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before the hon. Lady moves on, I want to raise something with her. Obviously she has a clinical background, and she will know jolly well about the range of safeguarding measures that all clinicians, the royal colleges and all those involved in abortion care have to follow. She makes it sound as though no safeguards are in place. For instance, if a 14-year-old telephoned a clinician to seek advice around abortion, that clinician may well say, “I want to see you face to face.” There is nothing to stop that happening, and that may well be a proper safeguard that would carry on, irrespective of whether telemedicine carries on today.
Dr Johnson
With respect, the right hon. Lady makes my point for me, because that is right: there is nothing to stop that happening, and it may be that the doctor would say that they wanted to see the patient, but they do not have to do so. We know that abortions are being prescribed by telemedicine to children under the age of 18. If this measure had been looked at properly by the House as a single issue, rather than as this amendment to something else, we would have stipulated that children under the age of 18 should not be receiving abortions over the telephone without proper appointments, as I think they should and as the right hon. Lady, if I understand her correctly, also seems to be saying that they should.
We know that sometimes women and girls can be coerced into having abortions that they do not want, perhaps because the baby is of a gender or sex that the father does not want, perhaps because they are being abused, or perhaps they are being trafficked or sexually assaulted. It is very difficult for a woman to tell someone about that over the telephone, whereas if a woman is seen in clinic, she has that one-to-one opportunity.
Dr Johnson
I am going to finish my point. In person, the woman has a one-to-one opportunity with that clinician and a chance to say, “Please can you help me?” Clinicians are alert to that opportunity to provide that help. It is true that if the woman receives the abortion by post, the problem of her being pregnant is solved, but the problem of her being abused is not. That is what can continue.
Dr Johnson
No, I am going to continue. The other problem with giving tablets—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady spoke for 16 minutes, which is considerably more than a fair share, given the number of Members who want to speak, so I will keep going.
The other problem is who will take the tablets. If someone is prescribed something of such severity over the telephone, the clinician does not know who will take the tablets. Will they be taken by the woman speaking to the clinician on the telephone? Will they be given to somebody else? Are they going to be sold to somebody else? Is somebody else going to be forced to take them? The reality is that we do not know and we cannot know, and that is another safety issue.
I will summarise my concern by saying, as a woman— I have not had an abortion, but I guess in the future I could become pregnant and not want to be—if I were having an abortion, I would rather have the inconvenience of having to go to a clinic than the worry of knowing that some women are having abortions without going to a clinic. Essentially, for me this is an issue of whether we want to make things more convenient for the majority of women, or we want to protect the women who are the most vulnerable, the most marginalised and the most at risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I intend to call the Minister at 5 o’clock to give him 10 minutes to wind up. We have not got long, so will Members please keep their contributions as short as they can?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to speak in this debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I thank them both for the contributions.
It will be no surprise to the House that I am here because I abide by the absolute view that both lives matter—the unborn child and the mother. I know that many people believe that if someone is anti-abortion, they are anti-woman. I am not—I never have been, never will be and it is not the case. I believe in life and helping people. My career and all my life have been based around that, and I will continue as long as God grants me the strength to do so.
The Minister referred in his introduction to the fact that the regional devolved Administrations will make their own decisions. They can make that decision in Scotland and Wales, but we cannot make that decision in Northern Ireland, because the Government made it here. They took that decision away from us, and I am particularly concerned about that.
I have several concerns about the approach adopted during the pandemic in relation to so-called telemedicine to access abortion, which was recognised at the time as short-term. Without a face-to-face appointment, there is no confirmation of how many weeks pregnant a woman is, which makes a difference to the experience of an abortion at home. As reported in the summary of consultation responses, women who had experienced an abortion said that information should be provided on
“how inaccurate dating of pregnancy may mean increased pain and bleeding”.
A woman whose pregnancy is later than 10 weeks could find herself unexpectedly passing a mature baby at home, which could lead to significantly more complications. I understand that those advocating for the Lords amendment argue that complications have decreased since the pandemic, but I question the evidence, given that the Government and the Minister’s Department say that
“data on complications is incomplete”
and they are working on reviewing the system of recording abortion complications.
I am also persuaded by the concerns about the increased possibility of a woman finding herself pressurised at home to have an abortion that she does not want, as other hon. Members have said. There is a well-known link between abortion and domestic violence. Indeed, the BBC published a survey a few weeks ago reporting that 15% of those surveyed said they had felt pressured into ending a pregnancy. How are we protecting those women? How can doctors know that they are really speaking to a woman who is voluntarily calling about an abortion, or even that they are speaking to the right person at the other end of the phone?
There are many differing and strong views on this subject on both sides of the House, but I question whether the women who find themselves coerced into an abortion from their home, or who have found themselves bleeding unexpectedly at home or having an abortion much later in their pregnancy than they expected, would agree that telemedicine abortion is a positive step in women’s health. I doubt that they would.
I have recently been vocal regarding the need for face-to-face GP appointments. I have been inundated by constituents who simply have no confidence that a diagnosis by picture or telephone call is safe. I have constituents whose cancer has been undiagnosed because the GP was unable to see first hand what would have been clear in a face-to-face appointment. I believe that face-to-face appointments should be available.
I find it difficult to understand how pills to end life—to take away life—in a painful manner for the mother can be given without seeing someone to assess what cannot be seen on the phone. The signs and movements that an experienced GP can see that point to a deeper problem cannot be discussed in the two minutes allocated to such phone calls and I am fearful that the duty of care that we are obliged to discharge will continue to be missed. I am diametrically and honestly opposed to this legislation, because as I said at the outset, both lives matter. Lives could have been saved if abortion had not been available on demand.
I will vote against the permanent extension of this ill-advised scheme today and urge hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to join me. It is a step backwards rather than forwards in providing adequate support and care for women, and it further normalises the practice of abortion as a phone call away rather than as a counselled decision under medical care, which is what it deserves to be. I, my constituents and my party are clear that this is a massive issue. I fully and absolutely oppose the Government in what they are putting forward today, for the safety of both mothers and the babies, because I am about saving lives, not destroying lives.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I rise to speak on the subject of the health services safety investigations body and on abortions. I begin by making a couple of declarations: I am a now non-practising doctor, my wife works as a doctor, and I am a member of the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
On the HSSIB, I will keep it brief. I hugely thank the Minister for supporting the Lords amendment and ensuring that we have those safe spaces for doctors. That is critical for the body to work and for us to learn from it. Hopefully, we can undo some of the harms of previous atrocities and what has happened to previous doctors, as has been referred to.
On abortion, it is important to say that I wholeheartedly support and believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion services, but the regulatory framework around them is complex and it is a sensitive area. As is clear from the powerful speeches that I have heard from both sides of the House, it is also sensitive for hon. Members. Many of my constituents—on both sides of the debate—care deeply and correspond regularly with me about it; I care deeply about it too. I have looked after women who are contemplating having an abortion and I have looked after women who have had abortions, so although I have never carried out one myself—I am a mental health doctor—I have seen it from both ends.
Dame Diana Johnson
I rise to speak to amendment (a) tabled by the Government in lieu of Baroness Sugg’s amendment—Lords amendment 92—which would continue the telemedicine service for early medical abortion that was introduced during the covid pandemic. First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness Sugg for her persistence and her work in the other place.
This is about how we best provide essential healthcare to women, and remember that one in three women will have an abortion during their lifetime. It is about making access as straightforward and women-centred as possible. The Secretary of State recently made a pledge in his speech to the Royal College of Physicians when he talked about the need to
“empower patients and fulfil the promise of the technological leaps we’ve seen throughout the pandemic.”
Scrapping telemedicine abortion at this stage goes completely against what the Secretary of State was talking about. This is also about trusting women, as the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), has talked about and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has said today.
Such is the strength of the evidence that the Welsh Government recently announced that they will be making telemedicine for abortion permanently available. This sends a clear message that, while women in Wales can be trusted to use a healthcare service in a way that meets their needs, women in England cannot. Not only will there be unequal abortion access between the devolved nations, but this decision will lead to health inequalities within England for the most vulnerable and marginalised. I struggle to see how the decision to bring this service to an end after August is in line with the Government’s commitment to put women at the centre of their own healthcare, as detailed in the vision for the women’s health strategy.
Telemedicine has already enabled an estimated 150,000 women to access abortion care at home. Its removal means that every woman, regardless of her personal circumstances and health needs, will be forced to attend a clinic. Lords amendment 92 would ensure that women can continue to access a consultation with a clinician by telephone. To make it crystal clear to everybody, very importantly, face-to-face consultations will still be available. We have heard concerns about younger people, and face-to-face consultations will be available—
Dame Diana Johnson
I am going to carry on because I know time is short.
Those consultations will be available if the clinician feels that that is appropriate or the woman wants to see somebody face to face. Let us all be clear: this is about choice. The continuation of telemedicine means that a woman would not have to travel long distances to attend a clinic if, for example, she lived in a remote area or had to make arrangements—
Dame Diana Johnson
I am talking about women’s experience, so I will continue, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
The woman may have to make arrangements if she has childcare or caring responsibilities, or she may have to take time off work. In the case of a coercive and controlling relationship, she would have to explain where she is going to a perpetrator, such as the Mumsnet user who said she had to visit a hospital to access abortion care and was “terrified” of her abusive ex-partner finding out where she was. She spoke of having to construct “various lies” about where she was that day and why she had to have someone look after her children.
I referred to NICE and the World Health Organisation in an intervention, but we should be aware that since telemedicine was introduced the risk of complications related to abortion has reduced, as women are able to access care much earlier in their pregnancy. I will rehearse the long list of supporters of the measure continuing: The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, the TUC, Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis, Karma Nirvana, the Terrence Higgins Trust, End Violence Against Women, Mumsnet, and many others. What I find most disappointing is that the Government are going against a wealth of robust and widely accepted peer-reviewed evidence from medical professionals and women’s charities, and appear to give greater weight to anecdote, erroneous opinion and misinformation focused on campaign groups with extreme views who bombarded a consultation. Sadly, that further emphasises that this is not an evidence-based policy decision.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dame Diana Johnson
I want to address the issue of safeguarding. Let me be clear: creating more barriers to access does not help women; it helps abusers. The End Violence Against Women coalition and other major VAWG organisations reject the claim that telemedical abortions put women at greater risk of coercive abortions. The fact is that coercive pregnancies are far more common than coercive abortions, and since the introduction of telemedical abortions providers have seen a rise—a rise—in safeguarding disclosures, highlighting that the system provides a safe space for women to come forward if they are being coerced. Nurses are highly trained to assess safeguarding issues, and if concerned they will ask the women to come to the clinic for face-to-face assessment.
Finally and crucially, women themselves strongly favour keeping telemedicine for early medical abortion. A clear majority want it to continue.
As a country, we have an opportunity to be seen to be a shining light for women’s reproductive rights around the globe at a time when those rights are being rolled back elsewhere. The weight of the evidence in favour of maintaining this essential women’s healthcare pathway is overwhelming. I ask Members to support the amendment in lieu.
Mrs Miller
First, I apologise for being late to the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your calling me to speak, and I will be brief.
Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 92 is all about increasing women’s choice, not about taking choice away from anyone. The basis on which the amendment can be judged is the evidence we have gathered, not in a short period of time, but during two years in which 150,000 women have used telemedical abortion care. Judge the amendment against that backdrop; it is done not on a whim or a fancy, but after two years of intensive analysis.
While I might want to agree with those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are calling for a reasoned debate in the House of Commons on the broader issues of abortion, the truth is that we do not have those debates because the Government talk about changes to abortion provision coming from Back Benchers when that provision is now so out of date in our country that we need the Government to look at it more broadly. I will support the amendment because it is the right thing to do. The amendment is backed by a huge range of organisations and a significant body of evidence, and it requires the Government to look more broadly at abortion—to take this as a responsibility and to stop shoving it back on to the Back Benches.
Continuing telemedical abortions will be supported and regulated in exactly the same way as face-to-face abortion care, and to suggest otherwise is to be factually incorrect. Members really need to think about the evidence showing that online sales of abortion pills from unregulated providers have decreased since telemedical abortion was made legally available. Rather than push people back into an unregulated market, let us keep what we have, which has worked for 150,000 women over the past two years. But please, please, Minister, let us have a reasoned look at abortion more broadly. Stop saying that this is an issue for Back Benchers. It is not.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I will speak specifically to Lords amendments 85 to 88 on tobacco control. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) who put so much work into tobacco control amendments in Committee but is unable to be here. Like her, I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, and I strongly support amendments 85 to 88 on the “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers. I heard what the Minister said about a levy being complicated and how it might take years to implement, but a way must be found to make big tobacco pay for the crisis that it sustains every day that it remains in business.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, I represent a constituency in north-east England, which is the most deprived region of the country and has high rates of smoking. We have reduced smoking significantly in recent years, but, despite that progress, it is still the leading cause of premature death, killing more than 400 of my constituents a year. In my constituency, smoking costs society more than £62 million, which is money that our community can ill afford. I also worry that nearly 15% of local pregnant women are still smoking at the time of delivery, which is 50% higher than the national average. We all know that smoking in pregnancy significantly increases the risks of miscarriage, stillbirth, sudden infant death syndrome and foetal growth retardation. The levy would raise vitally needed money for investment in deprived areas such as ours in the north-east to break the cycle of addiction, disease and premature death. At current rates of decline, Cancer Research UK has calculated that the smokefree 2030 ambition will not be achieved for our most disadvantaged communities until 2047.
Steve Brine
This is such an important subject, so it is good that we are discussing it as part of the Bill. I am so puzzled by the Government’s approach because money is clearly short in the Treasury and the levy would be a new source of income that could help with a public health aim and save millions in the long run. The reason for it was summed up beautifully by the chief medical officer when he said that
“a small number of companies make profits from the people who they have addicted in young ages…to something which they know will kill them.”
We have an opportunity to do something about that at no cost to the Exchequer.
Alex Cunningham
It is exactly that; I could not agree more. I am sure that Ministers will work hard to try to find ways in which we can make the polluter pay—that is a polluter who pollutes the bodies of our people.
Achieving the smokefree 2030 ambition is the most effective way to achieve the health missions in the Government’s levelling-up White Paper to reduce the gap in healthy life expectancy between top performing and other areas by 2030 and to increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. Becoming smokefree will also improve my constituents’ employability by reducing levels of sickness, disease and disability.
I am pleased that tobacco control is not a party political issue, and I am pleased to work closely on it with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We have very different political views on many things—he has heard me say this—but we are as one on this issue. It was a Conservative Government who committed to making England smokefree by 2030, but that ambition is shared by all political parties in Parliament. It is also supported by the public, but, like the all-party parliamentary group, they recognise that this ambition needs substantial funding to be delivered.
A survey of 13,000 people carried out last month for Action on Smoking and Health found that making tobacco manufacturers pay for measures to end smoking was supported by more than three quarters of the public, with little opposition—I think that 6% of people were opposed. Let us remember that, over the last 50 years, smoking has killed an average of 400 people a day year in, year out, which is far more than covid has or will. It is only right that big tobacco, which has lined its pockets from the human misery caused by polluting the bodies of our people, is forced to pay the price of ending this lethal epidemic. I urge the Government to accept the amendments as a step on the track to achieving the smokefree 2030 ambition that we all share.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I will speak briefly to Lords amendment 84 and to the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 92.
On Lords amendment 84, on the licensing of cosmetic procedures, I just want to thank the Government for putting this in. Non-surgical cosmetic interventions such as Botox and fillers are the wild west of the healthcare world. We do not expect something that we can easily and legally get done in the safety of our own home to be able to blind us, but that is the case. It is high time that this was sorted and it is a huge step forward for women’s health, so I thank the Government very much.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I speak today in opposition to the amendment which aims to make the provision of home abortion pills a permanent part of the law. When the decision was taken to allow women to carry out their own abortions at home for the first time, we were told it was a purely time-limited emergency approval, similar to all other emergency approvals. Two years on, the Government have lifted remaining pandemic restrictions, including the temporary at-home abortion policies, specifically by allowing six months for providers to prepare. It is sad and concerning that the other place has amended the Bill to frustrate the Government’s decision and so seek to block the revocation of the temporary change. The changes to allow abortions at home were introduced without parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation. Now that we have evidence about how it works in practice, we know the policy presents huge risks to women’s health and safety.
Since the policy has been in place, the media have reported several heartbreaking stories of women who were traumatised by their experience of at-home abortion. Sadly, we learned of another just this morning. As reported by the BBC today, 16-year-old Savannah received abortion pills far beyond the safe and legal 10-week gestational limit. She disclosed that during her phone consultation the abortion provider calculated she was less than eight weeks pregnant, so she went to a British Pregnancy Advisory Service clinic to collect abortion pills. She was not scanned or examined. As the BBC reports, on taking the second pill she began to experience, in her words, “really bad” pain. She shared:
“My relative called another ambulance, because when I was pushing my boyfriend could see feet.”
Members, this baby was born with a heartbeat. They were both taken to hospital, where Savannah was found to have been between 20 and 21 weeks pregnant. Unsurprisingly, she said she had been left traumatised and that if she had been scanned to determine her gestation, she “would have had him”.
Savannah’s story should make us all pause and consider what this policy actually means. Perhaps it would be different if her story was an anomaly, but it is not. Tragically, delivery of near-viable or viable infants from a failed medical abortion is more common than abortion advocates would care to admit. Early on in the pandemic, just weeks after this policy was approved, a leaked “urgent” email sent by an NHS regional chief midwife quoted the “escalating risk” around at-home abortions and cited
“the delivery of infants up to 30 weeks gestation.”
Similar reports have been made by the body that comprises all senior NHS doctors and nurses who fulfil statutory child safeguarding functions in the NHS, the National Network of Designated Health Care Professionals for Children. Specifically, it has recorded 47 cases of early medical abortions that resulted in mid-to-late pregnancy terminations, across all ages, since the start of the pandemic in March 2020. Six involved girls and in half those cases, and 12 instances in total, there had been signs of life.
I find it very interesting that, as reported by the BBC, those in favour of at-home abortions—such as abortion provider the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which is usually all too ready to comment on abortion—could not comment on these cases, perhaps because they know that individual cases matter and that there is truly no excuse for allowing these tragedies to occur.
Women and girls deserve better. We have the opportunity today to champion women and girls everywhere and to ensure that these scenarios, which are so easy to avoid, are prevented. Women simply need to be seen in person prior to receiving abortion pills, especially young people and vulnerable women up to 25.
As it stands, abortion providers are unable to guarantee that they know who takes the pills, when or where they are taken or whether an adult is present, given the risk of complications, such as the delivery of live babies. A Sky News documentary found that 96 women every week—14 each day—who have at-home abortions will suffer from complications that may need follow-up treatment or surgery.
We owe Savannah and her child, and indeed, all women and girls, better than this. Abortion harms the voiceless, the most vulnerable in our society, and it harms women and girls. The Government have rightly prioritised the safety of women and girls. I therefore urge hon. Members to look at the risks posed from continuing this policy and to do the right thing by voting to end at-home abortions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Three Members are standing and I want to get you all in, so we will have a four-minute time limit.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Obviously, abortion is a deeply emotional issue and we probably all know where we stand, but this is not a debate about abortion. At-home abortions were brought in as a purely temporary measure to defend women’s health. It was always the understanding that the measure would continue just as long as the pandemic continued.
There are many different arguments about this issue. I could go through the statistics that have been given to me that some people might deny, but it is undoubtedly the case that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home provided by the NHS in 2020 needed hospital treatment. There is therefore an issue around safety and women’s health and we need a proper debate. This amendment was brought in in the House of Lords at night-time. Barely a seventh of the Members of the House of Lords actually took part in the Division. We need a proper, evidenced debate on this issue. There is nothing more important when a human life is at risk.
Of course, we all support telemedicine; I chaired a meeting yesterday on atopic eczema and we are making wonderful steps, but as important as curing atopic eczema is, it is nowhere near as important as a situation where a life is at stake. I know that there are different views about coercion, but surely the whole point of the Abortion Act, for those who supported it, was to get abortions into a safe medical location and to get them away from the backstreets. People surely did not want them to be done at home, where there is risk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke about the case of the 16-year-old girl who delivered a foetus who, apparently, was 20 weeks old. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children welcomes the Government’s stance, and why children and young people will be provided with protections.
I urge hon. Members, whatever their view, to think, to consider the evidence and not to rush in. The amendment goes completely against the whole spirit of the Abortion Act. Whatever we think of that Act, the amendment would be a huge new step that I believe would put more women’s health at risk and possibly lead to coercion—we need more evidence on that. I therefore support what the Government are doing today.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I rather think that men should enter the debate on abortion with a degree of trepidation and humility. In that spirit, I will make three simple points.
First, it strikes me as absolutely right that parliamentarians in this place and in the other place should seek to use every vehicle before them to enact the improvements in our constituents’ lives that we all want. It is right and fair to say that the measures were temporary and were brought in only for a certain purpose, but it cannot be right to say that now that we have done that extraordinary experiment, seen how many women have benefited from the change in telemedicine and got the data, we cannot let the vehicle of the Bill pass us by without trying to make this improvement.
Secondly, the reason that all the expert bodies—including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Women’s Aid and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, where I have to declare that my wife works—support this approach is that they have seen the evidence. They look at that evidence as organisations that have the safeguarding of their patients absolutely at the heart of every single thing they do. They have looked at what we have done and the evidence we have gathered, and they say it is right to continue with the measures brought in for the pandemic. That is why Wales and Scotland have continued them.
We have to trust the evidence; we have to trust the science. We have to understand that we are in the position that we are in as a result of the covid vaccine programme because we trusted the science. Today, we have an opportunity to trust the science yet again. That seems to me an incredibly powerful argument.
We are not making telemedicine compulsory; we are making it a choice. Yes, we are putting a huge burden on doctors to say that the person on the other side of the screen is not someone who should have pills by post, so to speak. We are saying that they should make that calculated judgment. We ask the professionals, be they in charities or in hospitals, to make those judgments every day. We do so because they are the experts.
I say simply to hon. Members that there are issues on which we profoundly disagree—of course there are; these are fundamentally ethical issues—but if we are in favour of abortion, we should be in favour of the choice that is provided by the very safest options. We can see today from the evidence of the past couple of years that it is safer for women who are at their most vulnerable to have the option that we are talking about today. It is not compulsory; it is an option. For me, supporting that today is the definition of being pro-choice.
Bob Blackman
I have had more correspondence on Lords amendment 92 than on any other in the past 12 years. I shall vote accordingly, against Baroness Sugg’s amendment and against the Government’s amendment in lieu.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I support Lords amendments 85 to 88, which require the Government to have a consultation on the polluter pays levy on tobacco manufacturers. The levy was the central plank of our recommendations to the Government to deliver their smoke-free 2030 ambition. We had other recommendations, but that was the central one because funding for smoking cessation and tobacco control has been reduced every year since 2015 and has not been reinstated in the spending review or the recent spring statement.
Additional funding is vital to reducing smoking rates among the most disadvantaged in society and particularly among pregnant women. The current target to reduce the national prevalence of smoking in pregnancy to 6% by 2022 will be missed, and I think we should be clear about that. Last year alone more than 50,000 women smoked during pregnancy, which caused damage to them and to their unborn children. If we want to create a smoke-free society for the next generation, we must step up our efforts now.
Edward Argar
Given that I spoke at length in my opening remarks, I will endeavour to use the few minutes remaining to me to cover some of the key points made in the debate. First, I should have said in my opening remarks, and say now to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), that I am grateful to the devolved Administrations for the constructive manner in which they have engaged with me and with my Department. I hope that that process has been collegiate and satisfactory from their perspective as well.
Let me clarify my response to a point made by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). Health is, of course, devolved in Wales and Scotland. Were the Government’s amendment in lieu in respect of abortion to be passed, it would apply to England and Wales, but it would simply do what the Welsh Government are already doing.
We have called for Members to reject Lords amendments 85 to 88, in respect of tobacco. We heard from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), who rightly cited the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I am sorry that she could not be here today, but in Committee she took a close and well-informed interest in these issues. We have also just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
Edward Argar
I did promise not to take interventions, given the time, but I will take one from the hon. Lady, because I was not able to do so during my opening remarks.
Edward Argar
Before responding to the hon. Lady, I must correct myself. I should have said “With the leave of the House” before starting my wind-up remarks.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue. Although this does not normally fall within my ministerial portfolio, she and I have debated this issue across the Floor of the House, and I know her interest and her passion for this issue, and the hard work that she has done on it. While I recognise that, I believe that the Government’s approach of resisting the Lords amendments in this space is the correct one, and I therefore fear I may disappoint her. We will see whether the House divides on this matter; I suspect it will, but that will be up to shadow Ministers and other Members. I welcome the debate, and I suspect it is a debate we will continue to have.
I have listened extremely carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), as he would expect. I would encourage him not to press the point further at this stage, and I will of course continue to reflect carefully on the points he has made. They are important points about the impact on industry and on the broadcasting industry, and I will consider carefully what he said, but we believe that we have struck the appropriate balance in the legislation as it stands. I am grateful to him for his intervention in this debate and his comments.
It was perhaps predictable when looking at the nature of the amendments in this group that Lords amendment 92 and amendment (a) in lieu would inform the bulk of the contributions across the House. This is an issue that Members quite rightly hold strong views on, and there are sincerely held and informed views on both sides of the debate. It is important that this debate is well informed. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). May I offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and her family on the loss of her mother-in-law, Diana, on Friday?
We also heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who gave a typically powerful speech on the subject. We also heard from the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart).
I have made it clear throughout the debate that this is a free vote, but I would urge Members, in reaching their decisions, to be cautious about some of the figures that have been used in support of some of the arguments today. We do not have all the detailed figures, and I understand that some of them may be based upon extrapolations from freedom of information requests conducted in this respect. I am not drawing any conclusions beyond that, but I would urge caution among Members in how they use those figures.
It is absolutely right that this issue, having been inserted into the Bill by the noble Baroness Sugg, should have been carefully considered by this House. The volume of contributions reflects the importance attached to it by Members. The Government have been clear that these were temporary provisions put in place to reflect an extraordinary set of circumstances, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been clear that, as we move out of the pandemic, such temporary pandemic-related measures should cease. However, the House has had the opportunity to debate this matter today, and the views expressed on both sides are important for the House to hear.
As I have said, I hope that Members will be clear about the process that we will follow. We hope that, on the voices, the House will reject the Lords amendment tabled in Baroness Sugg’s name purely on the basis that it is legally defective and will not do the job that was intended for it in policy terms by the noble Baroness. We have therefore tabled what we believe is a legally effective amendment in lieu of that amendment. Uncertainty in this area of policy and of law does no one any favours, and we would not wish uncertainty for anyone in this space. That is why we were unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and why we are asking the House to reject it, but we have come up with something that we believe provides clarity and is legally effective in what it does. As I say, it is for hon. Members to consider their own position on this matter of conscience, which is of import to our constituents up and down the country, and I suspect they, too, will have strong views either in favour or against. It is right that the House brings such matters to a debate and a vote.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 30, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 48, Government motion to disagree, Government amendment (a) in lieu, and amendment (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 57, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 89, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 42 to 47, 55, 56 and 58 to 64.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure in discussing this set of amendments to be facing the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), although I might not say that after he has made his contribution or challenged me. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this important set of amendments, and I again put on record my gratitude to their lordships for the work they have done in scrutinising this Bill. This group is about accountability and makes it clearer that the Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS is transparent, accountable and effective.
Lords amendments 42 to 47 ensure that the procurement regulations will have to include provision for procurement processes and objectives; for steps to be taken when competitively tendering; and for transparency, fairness, the verification of compliance and the management of conflicts of interest. They also require NHS England to issue guidance on the regulations. It behoves me to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), who served on the Bill Committee throughout. Although we did not always agree, she brought her expertise and forensic skills with issues such as this to that Committee. Even if she did not always agree with the conclusions, she made sure we were well informed in the conclusions we reached.
We recognise those key aspects as vital. While it was always our intention to include them in the new provider selection regime, the amendments add clarity and clearly signal our intentions. Furthermore, Lords amendment 47 makes the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. We are grateful for the input of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in advising that, and we have listened.
Lords amendment 55, supported by the Scottish Government, makes it clear that any powers or duties conferred on Scottish Ministers in relation to their role in collecting information for medicine information systems can be treated in the same way as other NHS powers or duties in Scotland and be delegated to health boards in Scotland.
Lords amendments 56 and 58 to 64 relate to the power to transfer the functions of arm’s length bodies. Following constructive engagement with the devolved Governments, these amendments enable us to proceed on a UK-wide basis. Lords amendment 56 clarifies that the powers in part 3 of the Bill in respect of special health authorities apply in relation only to England and cross-border special health authorities, and not Wales-only special health authorities. Lords amendments 58 and 59 remove devolved Ministers and Welsh NHS trusts from the list of appropriate persons to whom property, rights and liabilities can be transferred through a transfer scheme following a transfer of functions.
Lords amendment 60 creates a requirement for the Government to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments for any transfer of functions within the competence of their legislatures or which modify functions exercised by the Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department. Finally, Lords amendments 61 to 64 are consequential upon the changes made by Lords amendment 60.
I am also asking the House to disagree with several amendments made in the other place. First, Lords amendment 29 relates to the workforce, and I reassure the House that the Government are committed to improving workforce planning. We recognise the importance of having a properly trained workforce in sufficient numbers and in the right places. We are already taking the steps we need to ensure we have record numbers of staff working in the NHS. While we recognise the strength of feeling behind the amendment, we simply do not think it is necessary in its current form, and we urge the House to reject it.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am aware that the Government have put in place their own plans for NHS workforce planning, but can my hon. Friend address the concerns that framework 15 has inadequacies in terms of data collection, does not provide an assessment of workforce numbers and is not responsive to societal shifts?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a key issue, which is the dynamic nature of workforce trends, whether in terms of demand or supply, which is one of the challenges of a long-term projection—it would need to be a dynamic process. That is why we believe that the right approach is the one set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His predecessor commissioned that framework review from Health Education England in July last year, and the Secretary of State has subsequently asked for further work to be done in a further commission that looks at a workforce framework over 15 years. That is the first time that has been done, as I heard him say at the Dispatch Box earlier today when talking about the Ockenden review, and it will be a hugely valuable tool for the NHS and for us when we make decisions in this place about priorities and prioritisation in healthcare. As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).
Before I go into more detail, I will make a point on which I suspect the shadow Secretary of State and I are in complete agreement. Although there may not be many things in this group of amendments that we agree on, I am sure that he will join me in recognising the amazing work done by our health and care workforce over the past two years, and not just in the past two years, which were exceptional circumstances, but every day of the year—day in, day out—whichever year it is. I put that on record because it is important.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman nods; as I say, I suspect that may be a rare moment of agreement on this group of amendments.
We continue to be committed to growing and investing in the workforce. This year we have seen record numbers of staff working in NHS trusts and clinical commissioning groups, including record numbers of doctors and nurses. The monthly workforce statistics for December 2021 show that there are more than 1.2 million full-time equivalent staff. Those workforce numbers come on the back of our record investment in the NHS, which is helping to deliver our manifesto commitments, including to have 50,000 more nurses by the end of the Parliament. We are currently on target to meet that manifesto commitment, as the number of nurses was a little over 27,000 higher in December 2021 than in September 2019.
The spending review settlement will also underpin funding the training of some of the biggest undergraduate intakes of medical students and nurses ever. In that context, I highlight the decision made, I believe, under one of my predecessors to expand the number of medical school places from 6,000 to 7,500, which has come on stream. Of course there is a lead time before those going through medical schools will be active in the workforce, but it is an important step forward.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2 million Uyghurs who have been detained in concentration camps. They are making slave-made goods that have infiltrated our NHS, which puts health workers at risk of wearing products made by modern slavery. Will he recognise the importance of accepting Lords amendment 48 so that the NHS is not dependent on slave-made goods?
Edward Argar
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I will finish discussing the workforce amendments before I turn to the so-called genocide amendments and the organ sales amendments. I will come to her point, but I hope she will allow me to do it in that way; I have heard what she has said.
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress, then I will give way to the hon. Lady, as I tend to do. She is a regular participant in health debates.
We are already committed to improving workforce planning. In July 2021, as I said, we commissioned that important work with partners to review long-term strategic trends. It is also important to note in that context that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we are merging NHS England and Health Education England, which is a hugely important move that brings together the workforce planning and the provision of places and of new members of the workforce with the funding available for that and the understanding of what is needed in the workforce. It brings supply and demand considerations together.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Edward Argar
I will make a little more progress, then I will give way to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and then, if I have time, I will give way to her. I want to address the points of the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) in good time and I am conscious that the votes took up a chunk of the time allowed for this group of amendments.
We are also committed to increasing transparency and accountability. The unamended clause already increases transparency and accountability on the roles of the various actors within the NHS workforce planning system.
Rachael Maskell
When looking at workforce planning, it is really important not only that the Government depend on NHS professionals trained overseas, but that they look at commissioning more training places here. In particular, I would point to the dentistry profession, as the Government are currently waiting for 700 dentists to pass their exams. It really does highlight the shortage of training for our own dentists when one in three dentists practising has trained overseas. Will the Government look at the commissioning of more training places so that we can grow our own workforce?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know, or will I hope be reassured to a degree to know, that underpinning our strategy to grow the workforce—for example, the nursing workforce or other specialisms—is the fact that we have multiple strands to the strategy. Those coming from overseas who wish to work in the NHS are always going to be an important and valued part of our NHS workforce, but of course we are also committed to growing the number, for want of a better way of putting it, that we grow at home through training places and medical schools. Crucially, however, a key element here is retention of our existing staff, so that we are not simply recruiting and training lots more staff to replace those who are leaving. All of those factors are important.
Debbie Abrahams
Does the Minister want to comment on the fact that 100-plus organisations—and not just those 100 organisations, including the BMA, but former chief executives of NHS England—are still very concerned that the Government’s measures on workforce planning do not go far enough?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she and I have worked together on a number of issues in the past. We always engage—and the since the inception of the Bill and throughout its passage, we have engaged collaboratively—with a whole range of organisations, such as professional bodies and trade unions, including some of those she mentioned. We believe that the approach we have adopted in the commissions from the Secretary of State, coupled with the merger with Health Education England, will be a significant step forward, and we believe it is the right approach to take. I suspect that the hon. Lady may disagree, and I always respect her opinion, although I may not always agree with it.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Edward Argar
I wanted to make a little progress, but I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.
Jeremy Hunt
Could the Minister possibly just tell me whether there is a single NHS organisation that is not supporting Lords amendment 29, which the Government are planning to reject?
Edward Argar
I may regret giving way to my right hon. Friend. I do not often say that, but perhaps I do now. I believe that this is about striking an appropriate balance in workforce planning and understanding supply and demand. I believe that the approach we have adopted as a Government, with the commission and the subsequent commission from the Secretary of State, is the right one. We are working closely with all NHS organisations from NHS England down, and I am sure that we will continue that collaborative work and that they will recognise the value being added by these commissions.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress if I may, but if the hon. Gentleman can shoehorn his way in a little later, I will, assuming I am making good progress, try to find a way to come back to that point for him.
On Lords amendments 30 and 108, while we recognise the concerns of the other place, we think it is important to enable the Secretary of State to intervene in reconfigurations with greater flexibility where such an intervention is warranted. While the Secretary of State already has powers over reconfigurations, our proposals will allow them to better support effective change and respond in a more timely way to the views of the public, health oversight and scrutiny committees and, indeed, parliamentarians in this House. It will reduce wasted time and effort, and it will allow Ministers to become involved at the right stage, not simply at the end stage of the process. For that reason, we urge the House to reinstate clause 40 and schedule 6.
Edward Argar
I think the hon. Gentleman is seeking to intervene. I find it difficult to say no to him, so I will give way.
Tim Farron
The Minister is a thoroughly good man, and I am very grateful. He will be aware of the National Audit Office’s projection that there are probably 100,000 undiagnosed cancer cases since the pandemic. Tragically, clinicians reckon that probably 20,000 of those people have already passed away. Will he agree and commit to a specific workforce strand when it comes to cancer? We desperately need cancer specialists, nurses, oncologists, radiotherapists and so on if we are going to be able to tackle this problem, but also make sure that we are not overburdened in the future, so that we can save lives?
Edward Argar
I am pleased I took the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on an issue that I know he has long taken an interest in. As well as the overall macro-trends of supply and demand, I expect the work being undertaken to look at the specialisms sitting beneath. He and I have discussed the significant increase in percentage terms in the number of radiographers, radiologists and others since 2010, but I acknowledge his underlying point that there is more to do if we are to achieve the ambitions set out in our consultation on the 10-year cancer plan and our broader ambitions for cancer care and treatment. We continue to look at that, and those specialisms will form a part of that work.
The hon. Member for Lewisham East raised a subject that I suspect will come up in contributions to the debate, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). Regarding Lords amendment 48, we have heard the strength of feeling in the other place about the gravity of this issue, and I know that no one in this House would support the use of forced labour in creating NHS goods or their coming from areas where genocide may be taking place. We are fully committed to ensuring that that does not happen and we are now proposing further measures to tackle the use of forced labour, but we do not believe that this is the right legislative vehicle for introducing those changes, especially those made in the other place relating to genocide.
The Government will bring forward new rules for transforming public procurement in the forthcoming procurement Bill, which will cover all Government procurement and further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude from bidding for contracts suppliers that have a history of misconduct, including forced labour. We believe that that is the right vehicle for such provisions. The review of the 2014 modern slavery strategy will be published in spring this year, and will provide an opportunity to build on the progress we have made and to adapt our approach to take account of the evolving nature of these terrible crimes. We know that the NHS is one of the biggest procurers in this country, and it is for that reason that we are introducing measures in this Bill to ensure that NHS procurement works for the good of all.
NHS England and NHS Improvement agreed a new slavery and human trafficking statement for 2022-23 on 24 March, with new modern slavery countermeasures in the NHS supplier road map, updates to the NHS standard contracts to strengthen our position on modern slavery, and the development of a new strategy to eradicate modern slavery across the NHS supply chain. We are going to go further than that, though. In amendment (a) in lieu of amendment 48, we propose to introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to carry out a review into the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in NHS supply chains, and to lay before Parliament a report on its outcomes. That review will focus on Supply Chain Coordination Ltd, which manages the sourcing, delivery and supply of healthcare products, service and food for NHS trusts and healthcare organisations across England. As well as supporting the NHS to identify and mitigate risk with a view to resolving issues, the review will send a signal to suppliers that the NHS will not tolerate human rights abuses in its supply chains and will create a significant incentive for suppliers to revise their practices. I will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey when he makes his contribution and endeavour to respond when I wind up this debate. I know he has strong views on this subject, as do other hon. Members
Janet Daby
I thank the Minister for his response. My concern is the level of urgency. If the Government allow the problem to continue in the NHS, they are inadvertently allowing slavery to continue, which is not helpful.
Edward Argar
As ever, the hon. Lady makes her point courteously but clearly. As I said, depending on the time available at the end of the debate, I will endeavour to respond more fully to the points that she and my right hon. Friend make.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I hope to speak on this subject if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to make the point that right now, even though it is not meant to be allowed, the NHS is using products made by slave labour. Only two days ago, The Spectator demonstrated that products being used in King’s College Hospital actually came from providers in Xinjiang, so it is happening now. Like the hon. Member for Lewisham East, I want to emphasise the urgency of this issue, so I intend to bring it up with my hon. Friend the Minister during the debate.
Edward Argar
I should say at this point that I was grateful for the opportunity to talk to my right hon. Friend about this subject a week or two ago, and I suspect that our conversations will continue.
I want to cover the rest of this group of amendments. Lords amendment 57 would exclude statutory functions of NHS Digital from the transfer of powers in the Bill. I urge the House to reject that amendment. I have assured Members of this House and in the other place that the proposed transfer of functions of NHS Digital to NHS England would not in any way weaken the safeguards we have in place for the safe and appropriate use of patient data. NHS Digital’s current obligations in terms of its data functions, and particularly the safeguards that apply to patient data, will become obligations on NHS England. The merger, which has been announced as Government policy, is in response to the recommendation of the Wade-Gery review. It is essential to simplify a complex picture of national responsibilities for digital and data services in the NHS, bringing them together in a single organisation that leads on delivery and the data needed to support it.
Wes Streeting
It was a great pleasure to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I must warn him and the Minister for Care and Mental Health, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), that the Government will not convince us that their position on workforce is right even by sending out the most charming members of their Health team. I will go into the reasons for that. I start with enormous thanks to Members of the House of Lords for the enormous amount of work that they put into making the Bill much better than it was when it left the House of Commons. In particular, I thank my noble Friends Baroness Thornton, Baroness Merron and Baroness Wheeler who showed great wisdom and stamina in forging huge alliances in the other place to get the consensus needed to make the improvements that we are discussing. I also thank Liz Cronin and Richard Bourne for supporting the shadow Lords team.
The NHS is facing the greatest crisis in its history. Covid has not gone away, and the covid pressures on the NHS certainly have not gone away. Instead, it is in the unenviable position of having to deal with those ongoing challenges at the same time as trying to address the significant backlog that existed before we went into the pandemic, when a record 4.5 million people were already on NHS waiting lists.
Today, we see that there is a staff shortage of 110,000 across the NHS as well as 105,000 vacancies in social care. Six million people are now waiting for NHS treatment—the longest waiting lists on record—and they are waiting longer than ever before. Cancer patients are not being seen by specialists on time; they are waiting too long for diagnosis when every day matters. Stroke victims are being left to wait hours for an ambulance—except in the north-east, where over the winter heart attack patients were told to phone a friend or call a cab. It is therefore no surprise to learn today that public satisfaction with the NHS is at its lowest level in 25 years, since 1997. Of course, that was the year when Tony Blair led Labour to victory at the general election and delivered shorter waiting times and the highest patient satisfaction in the history of the NHS. The Government could do a great deal of good by learning from the example left by the last Labour Government and trying to rebuild the legacy that they have trashed over the last 12 years.
It is not just patients who are dissatisfied with the NHS. I know from speaking to frontline staff and NHS leaders across the country that they are exhausted after their heroic efforts of the past two years. They are burned out, they are overstretched, and there are simply not enough of them. They are proud of the NHS and proud to work for the NHS, but, in too many cases, people are going home at the end of a long shift and agonising about whether they did the right thing, agonising about whether they made the right decisions for their patients and agonising about whether they had forgotten a crucial detail. It is getting worse, not better. Some 27,000 NHS workers voluntarily left the health service in just three months last year, the highest on record. The Health Secretary has admitted that the Government will not meet their manifesto commitment to recruit the 6,000 GPs we need to get people seen on time and we know that many cases will simply present in overstretched accident and emergency departments. Today, we heard about the consequences of the failure to safely staff our health service.
On that note, I want to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for Health for his response to the Ockenden review—and to his predecessor, the Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) for commissioning the review in the first place—and the commitment to implement in full not its recommendations, because Donna Ockenden has not made recommendations, but the must-dos she has set out. I cannot imagine the trauma of losing a child and we owe it to mothers who have been through that suffering to ensure that they are never let down again. This is not a party political point. The review spans two decades under Labour and Conservative Governments. I want to acknowledge that and be honest about that. The clear finding is that we must safely staff our maternity wards. Today, midwives are leaving the NHS in greater numbers than it is able to recruit them. That is just one of the reasons why we need a workforce plan for the NHS.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just returned from Lithuania, where I was speaking to the head of migration in a refugee centre who said that they are welcoming their neighbours not just because they should but because they are providing a very valuable addition to their workforce. They are taking tens of thousands of people. Given that 1.4 million EU citizens who are registered to work in Britain have decided to stay in Europe, should we not be opening our hearts and homes and recognise the benefits some of them would bring by working in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is certainly the case that refugees fleeing Ukraine—indeed, other conflict zones around the world—bring enormous skills to our country. For as long as they are here and living with us, we should enable them to make whatever contribution they wish. If some of the people from Ukraine or elsewhere want to work in the NHS, we should absolutely welcome them with open arms.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech. This debate is concentrated on physical health, but if we look at workforce planning on mental health we know we are at a significant deficit. If we are talking about parity of esteem, surely Lords amendment 29 is absolutely imperative, so that we can start investing in the future of our mental health services?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and she will know of our party’s ambitious commitments, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), to ensure that patients receive guaranteed mental health treatment within a month. That would be revolutionary. It will require investment and require recruiting the people we need to help provide that care, but this country is living through a mental health crisis on top of everything else. This has been a deeply difficult two years for our country during the pandemic. Many people bear not just the physical scars and ongoing physical health consequences of long covid, but the grief, the loss and the injury to their mental health and wellbeing caused by this deadly pandemic. Many of those people who are suffering mental health crises are the very people who are still turning up for their shifts in the hospitals, still turning up for their shifts in the GP surgeries, and still turning up at work to help care for others even though they are in need of care themselves.
Lords amendment 29 does not commit the Government to hire thousands more doctors and nurses, although they should. It does not commit to new funding for the NHS, although it desperately needs that. It does not even commit the Government to finally publish the workforce strategy the NHS is crying out for, despite the fact that the NHS has not had a comprehensive workforce strategy since the Labour Government’s plan was published in 2003. All we are talking about today is an independent review of how many doctors, nurses and other staff the NHS needs for the future. That is not just a view put across by Labour Members: it is supported by many Members right across the House, including the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, who is a former Health Secretary. It is not the first time that he has helped to unite the sector, although I remember the days when it was sometimes united in opposition to, rather than in support of, his proposals.
I will say this, actually: when the right hon. Member for South West Surrey took over as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I was really nervous about the prospect of a former Health Secretary effectively marking his own homework, but on this issue, he has shown a degree of honest reflection and has genuinely contributed his experience to the debate about the future of health and social care in this country. Not only has he been honest about where he fell short, and where other Conservative Ministers may have fallen short, but he is determined to make sure that we improve the quality of the health and social care debate in this House. I very much welcome his contribution to the debate about the NHS workforce challenge.
Jim Shannon
The shadow Minister is always kind in giving way. I want to back up his comments about the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). On Lords amendment 29, does the shadow Minister acknowledge that Macmillan Cancer Support said that it needs an additional 3,371 cancer nurse specialists? That would double the nurses by 2030, and it gives us a reason why we need to support Lords amendment 29 and why workforce safety is critical.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If I am honest, I suspect that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also agree that Lords amendment 29 is needed. I suspect the truth is that they are not the ones blocking it. They are in a Treasury-imposed straitjacket from the Chancellor, preventing them from doing what they know to be necessary for the NHS, because the Treasury would rather stick its head in the sand and not acknowledge the scale of the challenge or the reality of the cost. It hopes that ignorance is bliss and that we can carry on as we are, and perhaps nobody will notice—even the 6 million people on NHS waiting lists.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s speech; he is addressing absolutely the issues that the sector faces. All of us support the NHS and want to see it thriving. Does he agree, however, that the challenge is about the Treasury and the Prime Minister and the lack of support and understanding from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at this crucial time, when the NHS has gone through such a difficult period?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. To be honest, I do not know whether No. 10 or No. 11 is running the show. We hear that the Chancellor also blocks the Prime Minister from time to time. I can think of a few occasions during lockdown where that would have been good, if the Chancellor had bolted the door to the back garden, but we will not dwell on that now, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will tick me off—
Wes Streeting
As you already are, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I could not resist.
The problem is that unless we face up to the scale of the workforce challenge, the Government simply will not deliver the shorter waiting times that patients need until they break out of their straitjacket. They should start today; otherwise, patients will be left wondering why they are paying more in taxes but waiting longer for care.
Government Members may argue that we do not need Lords amendment 29, because there is a planned update to “Framework 15”, Health Education England’s 15-year strategic framework for workforce planning—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) cannot wait; she is watching her inbox daily, waiting for it to arrive. The truth is that this is inadequate. Previous iterations of the framework have not quantified the staffing numbers needed. The Secretary of State was recently unable to confirm when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee that the revised framework will set out the required numbers of staff. The truth is that the recent past is littered with promises of workforce strategies and frameworks that have either not materialised or failed to deliver the action needed.
Let me turn to the Minister’s claim that we have record numbers of doctors and nurses—it is today’s equivalent of, “You’ve never had it so good.” We all know—he knows this very well—that the population is growing and ageing, and as it does so, we need the numbers of nurses, doctors and carers to keep up. This is a question not just of recruitment, but of retention. When I ask frontline staff, “What would make the single biggest difference to your morale? What would be the thing that keeps you going even though you are exhausted, stressed and burned out?”, their answer is very simple: they just want to know that the cavalry is coming and that significant numbers of staff will be recruited to help provide the support they need. Their greatest fear is that the people who have slogged their guts out to get us through the pandemic will be left alone as they try to help the NHS to recover from the pandemic and from the problems that existed before it. If we are not careful, we will risk losing those staff, creating even greater pressures—a greater cost to patient care, a greater cost to patient safety and a greater cost in recruiting and training new doctors and nurses. With the best will in the world, and with the best training available at our brilliant medical schools, doctors and nurses take years to develop the skills and experience to make them outstanding clinicians. Those are the people we risk losing at this very moment.
While I have the opportunity, may I say to the Minister that I cannot understand why there are 791 medical school graduates who still do not have a junior doctor post? These people are qualified, they are ready and there is a shortage—get them to work!
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Along with Mr Speaker and Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been in a similar position in Lancashire with the A&E unit under threat at Chorley and South Ribble Hospital. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman’s point, I have found that even with a meeting with the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House and the Health Secretary, and with a very compelling case as to why the local trust has made the wrong decision, there is nothing in law to allow them to do anything about it. I therefore very much welcome the amendments to ensure that local bureaucrats are not too tied in.
Wes Streeting
I really do understand the hon. Member’s point. She would like to be able to save her services and lobby her colleagues in Government to make those decisions, but—speaking from experience—saving our accident and emergency department was not about using politics or political pressure to change the decision. Public support was really important and we did our fair share of parliamentary petitions, marches and everything we could to keep the pressure up, but in the end it was about the evidence base that we put together to save the department.
When it comes to matters of clinical provision and of providing the best services for patients, clinical factors have to be paramount. I worry about how decisions turn into a political football either side of a general election and become a party political knockabout, when the primary consideration should be patients’ safety and concerns. Although I have cited an example in which saving our A&E was the right decision, I can think of cases right across the country in which communities feel very strongly, and we understand why, but passion, emotion and sentimental attachment to particular services do not always align with the clinical interests of local populations. Patient safety and evidence must come first. I really worry about the introduction of a party political knockabout in that context.
Ministers have argued that the new powers are necessary to ensure democratic oversight of health service decisions, but the existing system allows appropriate democratic oversight and allows contentious service change decisions to be resolved. I do not believe that the wholesale upheaval of the system and the introduction of sweeping new powers for the Secretary of State are justified.
Let me now deal with some of the other amendments— very briefly, as I am conscious of time. We support Lords amendment 48, which requires the Secretary of State to ensure that health service procurement does not violate the UK’s international genocide obligations. The amendment is consistent with the UK’s obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.
Lords amendment 89 deals with a related issue, prohibiting organ tourism involving both forced organ harvesting and black market organ trafficking. We welcome this change in the Bill, which amends the Human Tissue Act 2004 to prohibit UK citizens from travelling to countries such as China—although the wording of the amendment is not country-specific—for the purpose of organ transplantation. The restrictions are based on ensuring that there is appropriate consent, no coercion, and no financial gain. In some parts of the world, organs are not given freely but are taken by force, and we must bear that in mind in the drafting our legislation.
Lords amendment 57 is intended to retain the current safe haven for patient data
within NHS Digital, and to prevent NHS England from taking on responsibility for it. Keeping patient data safe is important. It can be powerful when it is used well, and has enormous potential for better population health and better clinical outcomes in individual cases, if data is used wisely, safely and ethically. The amendment will keep statutory protections in place for a patient data “safe haven” across health and social care, required for national statistics and for commissioning, regulatory and research purposes. It also ensures that NHS England does not take on this responsibility, because of a potential conflict of interest in its role.
Lords amendments 42 to 46 deal with procurement. We welcome these changes. The years of the pandemic have also been years of crony contracting. After the scandal of billions in taxpayers’ money being handed out to mates for duff PPE and testing contracts, and PPE literally going up in smoke—along with taxpayers’ money—we hope that this is the start of Ministers’ looking again at where they went wrong during the pandemic.
This afternoon the House faces a simple choice. We must decide whether we are going to be honest with ourselves, with the NHS and with the country about the genuine staffing challenge in health and social care—and whether we are going to have a more responsible and grown-up political debate about how we meet that challenge—or whether we prefer to be the ostriches of the Treasury, with our head in the sand, pretending that these issues will go away, hoping for the best, hoping to squeeze a bit more efficiency out of the NHS through new efficiency targets. That really will not cut it. The recruitment of staff already announced by the Government really will not cut it.
For as long as we allow this situation to continue, patients will wait longer. They wait in agony. Their health outcomes are worse, and they lose confidence in the national health service. It is the greatest institution that this country has ever built, and it is going through the greatest crisis in our history. Let us be honest about that—with ourselves, with the NHS, and with the country—and support their lordships in their amendment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I shall try to be brief. I rise to speak to amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 48, which refers to genocide. Along with 19 colleagues, some of whom are present, I tabled amendment (b) to recognise first a problem for the Government, and secondly an absolute imperative for all of us here.
The problem for the Government with Lords amendment 48 is, I understand, the inclusion of genocide. There is a reason for that. I disagree with the Government about this, but that is where they are. The Government talk of a “competent court” having to decide questions of genocide. We have been through this again and again recently, but the fact is that we will never get a decision from a competent court when it comes to countries of the scale and dimension of China, either because they veto it in the Permanent Assembly or because they are not members of the International Criminal Court, so we cannot get them that way.
I recognise that the purpose of this is really more to do—quite rightly—with slave labour, so the title of my amendment alludes to slave labour. That is much more focused, and makes clear what I should like to think we are all after. I abhor the genocide that I absolutely believe to be taking place in Xinjiang, and I think we need to take much greater action on that, but in the context of the Bill, the purpose of the amendment was to make clear to the Government that a significant number of Members—and more would have signed it had I bothered to ask them—are very keen to see such a measure included. I say those words carefully, because I have read what the Government have written down and I have discussed this at length with the Minister and the Secretary of State, and I fully accept what they are trying to do here with this amendment on review, but that amendment on review cannot tighten up the time because it can only be post hoc, as it were, after the Bill goes through. My determination is that, by the time this Bill comes back from the Lords, we will have an amendment specific to modern slavery in it.
The reason I say that is that this is clear, with a reference even in the last two days to the use of equipment made by slave labour in Xinjiang in at least one of our hospitals. That equipment has been tested, so there is no excuse for not knowing. There is a company called Oritain—there are others—that now has the digital and genetic fingerprints of all the products from these areas. It has spent 10 years getting this information, and it can test a product and tell us not only where in rough terms it comes from but even which factory made it. There is no excuse now. This is being used in the United States, which has declared genocide, for testing these products.
The NHS is a phenomenal purchaser and has huge capability to change people’s direction. I say to the Minister that I understand that behind closed doors—if any closed doors exist in Government generally, but these ones—some members of the Government have asked the Secretary of State to do an impact assessment. We love impact assessments in Government. Most times they mean absolutely nothing because they tell us what happened before, but not what will happen in the future. That is because almost every time the Government try to forecast the future, we get it wrong. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility manages that quite regularly.
What difference would an impact assessment make to this amendment in my name and that of 19 other Members? For example, an impact assessment might tell us that we should no longer buy from a particular area because we are certain it provides through slave labour, but that the procurement would be, say, £20 million more expensive as a result. Does that impact assessment then mean we cannot do that because we do not want to lose £20 million—or £20 billion or whatever it happens to be—because that is too expensive, and that we will on balance therefore purchase from a known slave labour provider? Is that what we are saying? Is that what the impact assessment will say to us? I say to those who call for an impact assessment: be careful what you call for. There is a simple impact here: are we to purchase equipment made by slave labour?
I have also heard that someone else in the Government has said that the balance is between provision for those who need it here in the UK and our use of a product that comes from a place using slave labour. I say: be careful of that comment. It is not a choice we have to make. Our choice is to care for those here in the UK, but also to care for those who are being brutalised and beaten into product production and often losing their lives; we have to have a care for them as well. There is no choice here. It is simple: do we or do we not wish to have products in circulation in our NHS, of which we are all very proud, that were made by slave labour? This is the single point.
I understand the problem with Lords amendment 48; it is that the Government will never recognise genocide, so that amendment would never have a bearing or an effect because they would simply say, “We do not recognise that genocide has taken place in that area and therefore we are let out.” It is let-out for them. This amendment of ours is very specific. It deals with slave labour, and we can prove slave labour. So I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends: this unites the whole House. If this comes back amended either by the Government or by somebody in the House of Lords, I give a little warning—not a threat—to my Government that the choice when this comes back will be: do you support the use of slave labour or do you not support the use of slave labour? There is no other choice. It is not a moderated choice. It is very simple for us. I will vote against slave labour for an amendment coming back from House of Lords, and I believe that many of my colleagues here—all of them, I hope—will do the same. I am certain that that will be the case for those on the Opposition Benches.
I have huge regard for my hon. Friend the Minister, and very much so for the Secretary of State. I have spoken to them at length, and I believe them to be completely onside with my argument. I ask a wider group in the Government to stop it. This is more important than moderated impact assessments, which mean nothing; this is about human lives. When it comes to human lives, the best impact we can have is ending brutality, intolerance and slave labour. If we can bring that to an end, it would be the biggest impact we ever have, and we could be proud of it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It has only just become obvious to me that so many people wish to speak on this group of amendments. I will have to set an immediate time limit of four minutes, which might be reduced to three minutes. People who intervened on the Front Benchers will be considered to have already made their contribution.
Geraint Davies
It is, of course, 125 years since the birth of Aneurin Bevan, who famously said:
“Illness is…a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community”.
That cost, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, should not be borne by the victims of genocide, abuse or slavery, so I support amendment 48 and, indeed, amendments (a) and (b).
I am the trade rapporteur of the Council of Europe in respect of safeguarding human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I very much hope that where there is abuse or slave labour, we pursue filtering out such imports from procurement in general. Curing illness should not be at the cost of creating illness and harm abroad.
Obviously we need security of supply. We have seen China use embargoes and trade sanctions against Australian wine and Lithuanian products, or whatever, so we need a safe supply, much of it home-grown, for when we face such a problem or a pandemic. I put it to the Minister that we need to look much more at generating production and procurement in the public sector. It is no good going to the pub landlord of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) to get expensive PPE. We need both value for money and ethical sourcing.
Some of the proposals for integrated care boards involve corporations that have a vested interest. If we remove competitive tendering, waiting lists and costs would both go up. It is critical that we get value for money.
Looking at what happened in Wales during the pandemic, we find that the cost of PPE was, in fact, half the cost of PPE in England. The £1.1 billion given to Wales for test and trace was a Barnett consequential, but we spent only half of that, £533 million, because we used public sector procurement and production effectively.
Through a combination of ethical procurement and public sector provision, we can keep the light of the health service shining, we can keep the faith and we can build a stronger, more successful and cost-effective health service.
Jeremy Hunt
Like the shadow Health Secretary, I rise to speak in support of amendment 29, which the Government plan to vote down. This wholly innocuous amendment simply asks them to publish, every two years, independent projections of the number of doctors and nurses we should be training. The Government are rejecting the amendment because they think it would compel them to train more doctors, which is true, but it ignores the fact that this is the best way to reduce the £6.2 billion locum bill that is currently devastating the NHS budget.
The shadow Health Secretary was very generous to me, and I return the compliment by saying that I think he is doing an excellent job. I hope he remains shadow Health Secretary for many years.
I ask the House, in the nicest possible way, to reject the compromises proposed by the excellent Minister. The Government are publishing a 15-year framework, but he knows and we know that it will simply detail the number of doctors that the Government think they can afford, not the number of doctors we actually need. In the past—even last year—when the NHS has tried to publish the number of doctors it thinks it needs, it has been stopped by the Government. Why is there this reluctance to publish the number of doctors we are going to need in 15 years’ time, given that 97% of hospital bosses say that staff shortages are having an impact on the quality of care they are giving and there are 110,000 vacancies? The answer is simple: it is because the Government know we are not training enough right now. What message does it send to young doctors, newly qualified midwives and newly qualified nurses, who are incredibly stressed and pressured by the situation on the frontline, if we are saying to them, “Look, it is really tough now, but we are not even prepared to train enough doctors, nurses and midwives for the future to relieve that stress and pressure later on in your career”?
Steve Brine
I will support my right hon. Friend in standing up for Lords amendment 29, because when I look back to our time together at the Department, when we published the long-term plan and when I published the cancer plan, I know that the thing that undermined us most of all was when the stakeholders came back and said, “Where’s the people plan that goes alongside it?” Because we could not answer that, we were always playing catch-up. This Lords amendment sets that train back on the right track.
Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He was an excellent cancer Minister. In our time, the biggest pressure was funding, but now people say that the biggest pressure is workforce. It is devastating for morale to refuse to address this issue at a time such as this. Any Government who care about the long-term future of the NHS have an absolute responsibility to make sure that we are training enough doctors and nurses for the future. Any Government who care about value for money for taxpayers should welcome a measure that will help us control a locum and agency budget that has got massively out of control. That is why opposing Lords amendment 29 makes no sense either for the Department of Health and Social Care or for the Treasury. This is why it is supported by more than 100 health organisations; every royal college and every health think tank; people in all parts of this House; many peers in the other place, including Lord Stevens, who used to run the NHS; and—this is the point I wish to conclude with—by thousands of thousands of doctors and nurses on the frontline.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
Is it not the case that what my right hon. Friend is proposing is custom and practice in very many developed countries already?
Jeremy Hunt
It is absolutely the case. We need something like this because, as I know—I will do my self-reflection now—when a Health Secretary negotiates a spending settlement with the Chancellor, the number of doctors they are going to have in 10 or 15 years’ time is quite low down their list of priorities because they are thinking about immediate pressures. So we need something that deals with that market failure. I did set up five new medical schools and was proud to do so, but I do not know whether that was enough. That is why we need something to make sure that we never have to worry, whoever the Government and the Health Secretary are, that this fundamental thing that is vital for the future of the NHS for all of us is always properly looked after.
Let me conclude by remembering what we were discussing this morning in the Ockenden review. We talked about the agonies faced by families. We did not talk enough about the agonies faced by doctors, midwives and nurses who find themselves responsible for the death of a child—it is psychologically incredibly devastating for them. We need to be able to look them in the eye and say, “The No. 1 thing in the Ockenden review that came out was that staffing shortfalls can make a difference. We understand that.” They know and we know that there is no silver bullet; this cannot be solved overnight. It takes seven years to train a doctor, 10 years to train a GP and three or four years to train a nurse or a midwife. No one is expecting a solution tomorrow, but we do at least have a responsibility to look each and every one of those people, who worked so hard for us in the pandemic, in the eye and say, “We do not have a solution right away but we really and truly are training enough for the future.”
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Minister made a valiant effort to dissuade some of us from supporting Lords amendment 29—the workforce amendment—but I suspect he knows he is not kidding anybody.
We have learned today that public satisfaction with the NHS is at its lowest level since 1997. We should not underestimate the blow that that news will deliver to the health and care workers who turn up, do an amazing job, and go above and beyond every single day. To say that that news is dispiriting is an understatement. It is important that those workers know that the public, and every Member of this House, loves our NHS; it is just that we want it to work a bit better. It is hardly surprising that people’s biggest frustrations are waiting times, a lack of proper funding and staff shortages. Those things are the fault not of health and care workers but of this Tory Government, who are driving our health and care services into the ground.
Cancer Research UK says that without the workforce amendment the Bill will fail to address the biggest barrier to the achievement of world-class cancer outcomes in the UK: the staffing shortages and pressures. The King’s Fund has said that the health and care workforce crisis will be the key rate-limiting factor in the reduction of the NHS elective care backlog. The workforce amendment may not be a silver bullet, but it is the closest thing to one, which makes it all the more frustrating that the Government will not accept it. As I suspect the Minister knows, the Government’s objections just do not stand up to scrutiny.
As the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) said, framework 15 simply sets out the number of staff the Government think they can afford, rather than the number of staff we actually need. I urge the Minister to think about what message that sends to my constituent, who is a newly qualified midwife. She wrote to me just a couple of months ago and said:
“I am extremely concerned about the crisis in maternity care. This isn’t caused by Covid-19—the systemic failings have been crippling the service for a generation—but the pandemic has made a bad situation worse.”
She said:
“I am being harmed, my clients are being harmed. Staff are being harmed. For every 30 newly qualified midwives, 29 are leaving. Parents are reporting bullying and coercion. Threats are being used to ensure compliance. Unnecessary medical interventions are at epidemic levels. Trauma—amongst parents and midwives—is rife.”
She said that “concerns are being missed” and interventions “made too late”, and that the reason was “staffing problems.” If that is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is.
I wish briefly to express my concern about the powers the Bill will give the Secretary of State. At best, the change will create a bureaucratic nightmare; at worst, it will lead to meddling and the politicisation of the day-to-day running of the NHS. The Government have tried to argue that the pandemic showed the need for Ministers to have more powers, but we know that during the pandemic the Secretary of State had powers over PPE and test and trace, both of which issues were handled extremely badly. The NHS’s operational independence is critical, but it will be undone by the introduction of the Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so Liberal Democrats will oppose them.
Finally, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on his impassioned speech. I agree with him wholeheartedly that we have a duty as a nation and as a society to ensure that the goods used in our publicly owned NHS are not tainted by modern slavery or linked to the behaviours that may lead to genocide.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 29, in the context of those who suffer brain tumours. I wish to take a moment to reflect on the fact that Tom Parker, a member of The Wanted who had done so much work to raise awareness of brain tumours and who worked with the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, which I chair, died today of his brain tumour. I wish to take a moment to remember him, his family and the two young ones he has left behind.
As I say, I chair the APPG on brain tumours, so I wish to discuss the need for Lords amendment 29 in that context. As we have heard, there is currently no data on how many healthcare staff the country needs, but we know that staff are overstretched. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), £6.2 billion was spent on locums in the financial year 2019-20 to plug the gaps. The NHS and social care will never be able to keep up with demand without regular assessment of the numbers needed. As we know, the Government have so far dismissed this workforce planning amendment on the basis that the Department of Health and Social Care has commissioned a long-term strategic framework. We have heard already this evening why that is not good enough, although I am extremely aware of how much the Minister is engaged in, and concerned about, this workforce subject, and he has been generous with his time in talking to colleagues about what the Government hope to do.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I concur with the comments made by every hon. and right hon. Member today, with the exception of the Minister. There is no question but that the NHS workforce is in crisis; that is what so many organisations say. The Government response has been limited to stopgap measures, so I am grateful to the Lords for their hard work on this Bill, which has been much improved since it left the Commons. The Lords are clearly on the side of the NHS. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will recognise that Lords amendment 29, which I support, is perfectly reasonable, and will welcome it with open arms. If they do not, the question is: why not?
I have had many emails from nurses and other healthcare professionals who are calling for such a measure to be supported. The amendment refers to a report on workforce needs, and says that it must include independently verified assessments of current and future workforce numbers required to deliver care to the population of England. What is wrong with that? It seems perfectly sensible. Planning the NHS workforce is central to the smooth operation of the service. The Lords amendment seeks to ensure that.
In north-west England, NHS vacancy rates have increased over the past year; they are reaching 13,500. That puts huge strain on the remaining workforce. There is a chronic workforce shortage in the NHS, driven by years of insufficient investment, and that needs to change. Mental health issues, alongside covid-related absences, are having a lasting effect on the mental health of NHS staff. British Medical Association surveys have consistently shown that the pandemic has, since its start, left staff reeling, and they are increasingly burned out as a result of the lack of support.
The number of people in the general practice workforce has lagged behind demand in recent years, as people have said time after time, and the pressure is becoming unsustainable. It is driving GPs out of the workforce and threatening to destabilise general practice. That is also the case for many other allied professionals across the whole spectrum. To address that, it is vital that the Government develop and implement a detailed plan to fill workforce shortages, but they have not yet seized that opportunity. The granularity of the assessment of the workforce situation sets the scene for the bigger picture. The chronic lack of resources and support has been keenly felt in the Liverpool city region. Hospital trusts in Liverpool plan to reintroduce car parking charges for NHS workers from 1 April. After everything those workers have done during the pandemic, it is dreadful that, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, they are being asked to cough up substantial resources just to get to work.
Workers are working two, three or four extra shifts per week. That is dangerous. NHS healthcare workers in Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust and St Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust are campaigning to be re-banded because they are doing work that they should not have to do, and that they are not necessarily trained for. That is why I support Lords amendment 29, which is sensible and proportionate. As for the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, I say: there are 100 healthcare and related organisations saying, “This amendment is the right thing to do.” If those on the frontline think it is the right thing to do, why do the Government not also think it is the best thing to do?
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
At its best, our national health service provides truly world-class care. That is down to the skill, passion and professionalism of its workforce. As hon. Members will know, I have personal reason to forever be grateful to the NHS, and particularly the staff at Russells Hall Hospital in Dudley. While new hospitals, equipment and technology are all crucial, they are nothing without the health and social care staff who are the beating heart of our health service.
However, I am concerned that Lords amendment 29 does little more than add to an already onerous level of bureaucracy in our NHS. Providing a report every two years instead of every five does not improve the record number of doctors and nurses. The Government are already committed to reviewing the long-term strategic trends in the health and social care workforce, and to developing a workforce strategy, and clause 35 of the Bill already commits to a workforce review every five years. That in itself will be quite an arduous task.
Huge steps have been taken in investing in the future of the NHS workforce, including by funding a 25% increase in places since 2016-17. That means 7,500 more medical schools training places in England over the past six years. The shadow Health Secretary is obviously right to say that the population has grown in recent decades, but I think it has grown by 8% since 2010, while the number of doctors working in our NHS is up by about one third. Clause 35 allows for medium and long-term workforce plans, and offers a sensible balance between the need for such work and the need to minimise unnecessary bureaucracy. That is why I will not support the amendment.
Turning to Lords amendment 30, while I recognise the arguments made by Opposition Members, I do not agree with them or believe that clause 40 should be removed from the Bill. I believe it contains sensible powers. We expect the Secretary of State to be responsible for our national health service—for the services provided in every part of the country. There was much opposition and controversy when provisions reducing that responsibility were introduced in previous legislation. If he is to exercise that responsibility, he must have the powers to do so.
Voters and Members of Parliament expect the Secretary of State to be able to take action where health services have been reduced. On 11 November, a few weeks before the by-election in North Shropshire, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), questioned the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions about the closure of Oswestry ambulance service. If we are to question the Prime Minister or the Health Secretary on the closure of services such as ambulance stations or hospitals, then it is only right that the Secretary of State should, in extreme circumstances, have the power prevent those closures. Our voters expect that, and frankly so do the Opposition.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I wish to speak to Lords amendment 29 on the workforce. The most important thing I learned during my five years as a shadow Health Minister is that everything comes back to the workforce. We can have the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations—all of which are probably in this Bill, in various forms—but it will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine, the workforce, is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in, and provide a plan for, the workforce, so that it can meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of the challenges that the NHS and social care face today. We now have a chance to correct that.
Let us look at some of the challenges. There are 93,000 NHS staff vacancies; £6 billion-plus has been spent on temporary staff to fill gaps; and more than half of staff are working unpaid extra hours each week, with 44% saying that they have felt ill with work-related issues—little wonder, given that retention remains a huge issue. We need a plan, and we need to give staff some semblance of hope that we are listening—that the claps on a Thursday were not just an empty gesture; that the tributes that we rightly pay here to their dedication are not meaningless platitudes; and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean that staff are both exhausted and demoralised.
The Health and Social Care Committee report on staff burnout says:
“It is clear that workforce planning has been led by the funding envelope available to health and social care rather than by demand and the capacity required to service that demand.”
That is rather the nub of it. Health and social care are both demand-led systems, yet the funding and therefore the workforce capacity are not linked to demand. Until that central issue is addressed, we will keep coming back to the many varied and unfortunate consequences of an overstretched and under-resourced workforce.
I suspect that the Minister—who I have a lot of time for, even though he is often wrong on these things—might privately think that a long-term workforce plan might be a good idea, not just to ensure that the NHS can plan properly and to move forward on a sustainable footing, but because that might help his Department when it goes into negotiations on the spending round with the Treasury, as it will be able to point to an independently verified assessment of workforce need. If the amendment has a weakness, it is that it does not ensure that any plan is actually feasible, because there is no requirement in it that any plan be fully funded. However, a plan that shows, for all the world to see, a clear funding gap would be helpful to the Minister, because it would allow him to go to the Treasury with a clear and objective demand. As he knows, I like to be helpful to him, so I hope that on this occasion he can support the amendment.
This debate is timely because it comes on a day when two surveys have been released that lay bare the crisis that we face. One survey shows that public satisfaction ratings with the NHS are reported to be at a 25-year low—a quarter of a century of surveys there—and another shows that the number of NHS staff who would recommend their trust as a place to work has plummeted. Those two facts are intertwined and symptomatic of the workforce crisis that the amendment is trying to address.
The question we must ask ourselves, if we choose not to support the Lords amendment, is whether the Government’s existing plans create sufficient accountability and rigour to deliver the transformative approach that the amendment would. In my view, it introduces a level of robustness to workforce planning that is currently missing. For the reasons I have set out, we owe it to the workforce, to patients and to those in receipt of social care to put workforce planning on the strong footing that the amendment would deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does not wish to speak. [Interruption.] Oh, he does. I hope he will be brief, so that the Minister will have time to answer the debate.
Jim Shannon
I certainly will make my points quickly. My first is on the organ transplant amendment, to which the Minister referred. I fully support the measure and have been asking for it for a number of years in the House, so I am pleased to see it moved tonight. Secondly, I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is going to push his amendment to a vote—[Interruption.] He is not, but if he did, he would have my support and probably that of my party, too.
Thirdly, I am pleased to lend my support to Lords amendment 29. It would create a national independent view of how many health, social care and public health staff are needed to keep pace with projected patient demand over the next five, 10 and 20 years. I wholeheartedly agree with Macmillan Cancer Support that the Bill will fail to address the biggest challenge facing the NHS and social care right now: staffing shortages and pressures. The Government need to take Lords amendment 29 seriously. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) referred to it, too. We recognise that we need to address staff shortages as soon as possible. I have referred to Macmillan and their request for an additional 3,371 cancer nurse specialists to help address that issue.
I will conclude with this point. I understand that the Government may come back with all the justifications as to why this is not the right amendment—the Minister is a real good man; we all know that, and he responds well to all our requests—but I am content that it would begin to address the issue that our NHS workforce is disintegrating. One of my constituents is in a prestigious medical school here on the mainland. She went to do her rotation with a GP as part of the work she does. He told her, “Do any job but this.” I thought that was disappointing. He said, “It will consume your life. You will work long hospital shifts and you will not have a personal life.” This is a seasoned GP who simply cannot cope, so we must do something, and this amendment is a way forward. I therefore will support it whenever it comes to a vote.
Edward Argar
As ever, I thank hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for all their contributions to this important debate on an important set of amendments. Even if I do not always agree with everything he says, I welcome in particular the contribution from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). He and I spent a productive period—I was going to say happy—sitting opposite one another for two days a week over many weeks in Bill Committee, taking this legislation through. While I miss him from his previous role as effectively my shadow, I wish him well in his current shadow ministerial role. I also put on record my gratitude, although he cannot be here today, to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for his work on the Bill.
I gently tease, and this is no reflection on the current shadow Minister, that in Committee it took two shadow Ministers to try to keep me on my toes. It appears today that it takes three, but in saying that I cast no aspersions on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who I am fond of, even when he is gently or less so gently pushing me on certain issues.
I turn first to the organ tourism amendment, and I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for his approach on this issue. We have a shared objective here, and I assure Members that our approach would target not only transplant tourists, but anyone involved in making the arrangements for the purchase of the organ who may be a British national. The Government amendment, paired with our commitment to work with NHS Blood and Transplant to make more patients aware of the legal, health, and ethical ramifications of purchasing an organ, will send an unambiguous signal that complicity in the abuses associated with the overseas organ trade will not be tolerated.
Turning to reconfigurations, I strongly believe that the public rightly expect Ministers to be accountable for the health service, which includes the reconfigurations of NHS services. This House rightly voted to retain these clauses on Report. The reconfiguration power will ensure that decisions made in the NHS that affect all our constituents are subject to democratic oversight. Without it, the Secretary of State’s ability to intervene and take decisions will remain limited, and usually be at a very late stage in the process. Although I hear what hon. Members have said, I note that many hon. Members from both sides of the House none the less seek to persuade the Secretary of State and seek to raise issues relating to their local services with the Secretary of State with a particular outcome in mind.
As now, the Secretary of State would not be alerted to a potential change in services until the change had become a relevant issue and would not be able to intervene without that formal referral. We have retained the independent reconfiguration panel. The shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of the clinical appropriateness of the changes. Nothing that is proposed here alters the fact that clinical appropriateness and clinical and patient safety remain central to any decisions and remain an obligation on the Secretary of State in any decisions that he or she makes in that context.
Briefly, on the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State about waiting lists, he will be aware that we published a comprehensive and ambitious but realistic elective recovery plan that is backed by record funding and resources for the NHS to tackle those waiting lists, which have grown as a result of the pandemic. I am straight enough with him to recognise that there were waiting lists before the pandemic. He always makes that point and I highlight that we have a plan to fix that, which is exactly what we are doing.
The shadow Secretary of State also highlighted several other factors relating to the workforce and the workforce clause, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the shadow Secretary of State—sorry, the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee; I do not think we will be fielding shadow Secretaries of State from the Conservative Benches for some time yet. I entirely understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from on this issue, but I believe the approach that the Government have adopted, with the framework 15 commission and review and the broader commission that the Secretary of State has set out to look at drivers of workforce supply and demand, absolutely reflects our recognition of the centrality and importance of the workforce, and the right workforce, to the delivery of all our ambitions for constituents and for recovering waiting lists and waiting times.
We have not waited for any projections to get on with that; we are already investing in increasing our workforce and we are seeing record numbers of people working in our NHS. I have already highlighted that we are well on target to meet the commitment of 50,000 more nurses, with a current increase in the number of nurses of 27,000. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) highlighted the same issues in her remarks.
I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his contribution on a challenging issue. There is a considerable degree of consensus on both sides of the House about the abhorrence of modern slavery, slavery or anything linked to it. We remain of the view that this is not the right legislation for the proposed changes.
As I set out in my previous remarks, new rules for transforming public procurement will further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct—or extreme misconduct in the case of slavery, forced labour or similar. In developing the modern slavery strategy review, it will continue to be important to engage across Government and civil society, nationally and internationally, to collect the necessary evidence to agree an ambitious set of objectives. It is right that the Government take action on the crime of modern slavery and it is right that the NHS is in step with all public bodies in doing so.
From listening to my right hon. Friend, I expect the issue to reappear when their lordships consider our amendments. In that context, I hope that he and other hon. Members are willing to continue to engage with the Government and my Department on this hugely important issue. As he rightly said, it is important not just in this House but outside this House to those we represent. I look forward to continued engagement with him.
Edward Argar
I have literally 30 seconds left, so if my right hon. Friend’s intervention can be in five seconds, I will give way.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Can the Minister tell his colleagues in the Government that there is never a good time? Now is the right time, and let us get on with it.
Edward Argar
I think that was exactly five seconds, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I suspect that colleagues across Government will have heard what he said and will pay very careful attention to it, as I know Ministers across Government do to all that my right hon. Friend says in this House.
With that in mind, I ask the House to accept the motions in my name on the amendment paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I congratulate the Minister on his perfect timing. That is very rarely done with such precision.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 11.
Lords amendment 51, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 80, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (n) in lieu.
Lords amendment 81, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 90, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 105, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 10, 12 to 28, 31 to 41, 49, 50, 65, 83, 102 to 104, 106 and 107.
Edward Argar
Let me repeat, quite legitimately, what I said in opening the debate on the previous group of amendments. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South. It was also a pleasure to serve opposite her in the Bill Committee. She was not the shadow Minister then, but she brought her expertise and, as I said earlier, her forensic knowledge of these areas of the Bill—occasionally to my slight discomfort—and, overall, a degree of informed deliberation to our proceedings.
The amendments in this group relate to integration, commissioning and adult social care. The Government’s amendments strengthen our expectations of commissioners, especially in relation to mental health, cancer, palliative care, inequalities and children. Lords amendments 1, 25, 27 and 49 strengthen our approach to mental health. Amendment 49 makes it clear that “health” refers to both physical and mental health in the National Health Service Act 2006.
Sir Charles Walker
I want to thank my hon. Friend for making that clear, because there was some concern that the Bill broke with parity of esteem by not recognising that mental health was as important as physical health. A number of Members raised concerns about that, and I want to thank my hon. Friend and his team for getting it right. They should be congratulated.
Edward Argar
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. He has come in at just the right time, because I was about to thank and pay tribute to him and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Both of them have, in their typically determined and persistent but very courteous way, pressed this issue and highlighted the need for it to be explicit in the legislation. I think we have made the Bill stronger and clearer through Lords amendment 49, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for that.
Lords amendments 1, 25 and 27 also require the Secretary of State to publish, and lay before Parliament, a document setting out the Government’s expectations for mental health spending for the financial year ahead. Lords amendment 105 requires a member with experience of mental health to sit on each integrated care board. Although we have adopted a permissive rather than a prescriptive approach throughout, we are persuaded of the need and the benefits—given the parity of esteem—of having that experience on the ICBs, and, while we are proposing some changes in the drafting, we agree with the principle. I hope that the shadow Minister shares that view.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and to Members of the other place, for their engagement and continued support in relation to Lords amendments 2, 3 and 4, which relate to cancer objectives in the NHS mandate. The amendments change the focus of the cancer outcomes objectives so that they capture all cancer interventions. Those objectives will have priority over any other objectives relating to cancer, not just those relating specifically to “treatment”. I also pay tribute to Baroness Finlay, who has long campaigned to add explicit reference to palliative care services to the list of services that an integrated care board must commission. That is why we are accepting Lords amendment 12.
Lords amendments 22, 83, 102, 103 focus on addressing the needs of babies, children and young people. Lords amendment 22 would require the ICB to set out any steps it proposed to take to address the particular needs of children and young people, while Lords amendments 83, 102 and 103 specify that the Government must publish a report describing the Government’s policy on information sharing by or with public authorities in relation to children’s health and social care and the safeguarding of children. I pay tribute in that context to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who has long taken a keen interest in these issues.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. On the duties of integrated care boards, he knows that one of my grave concerns about health inequalities relates to rural settings. In Rutland, our citizens receive care in Peterborough, Stamford, Kettering, Corby, Leicester and sometimes even beyond. The big problem at the moment is that their health records are not shared across those different clinical commissioning groups, leading to big problems with them getting the care and support they need. Will ICBs be able to help us to overcome these issues? I have been lobbying the Department of Health and Social Care for months to help us sort out this problem.
Edward Argar
I can reassure my hon. Friend that under the changes we are putting in place through the integrated care systems, ICBs will continue to be able to commission services and to send patients to hospitals outside the ICS area. They will also be obliged to co-operate and work with other organisations in the patient’s best interests. We are setting this alongside the broader work that we are doing in the Department on the interoperability of data. I hope that that has reassured her to a degree.
We are also committed to supporting research, and I ask the House to agree to Lords amendments 6, 15, 26 and 28, which further embed research and provide increased clarity, transparency and oversight in respect of ICBs, NHS England and the Secretary of State’s research duties.
Debbie Abrahams
I want to ask the Minister about two matters. First, why are health inequalities not explicitly mentioned among the triple aims of the Bill? Secondly, on the membership of ICBs, I am sorry if I misheard, but I did not hear him discuss the amendment on how to avoid any conflict of interest involving private providers on those boards.
Edward Argar
The reason for that is that an amendment was brought forward on Report, and the matter was settled at that stage; things have not changed since. In lieu of what had been tabled, we tabled our own amendment on Report, which—even though in our view it was unnecessary—we felt further clarified how to avoid conflicts of interest. In the previous group of amendments, we tabled an amendment to extend that conflict of interest policy and approach to the sub-committees of the boards, in order to ensure that it is explicit that the policy applies to both. It is essentially the same principle, but widened out to the sub-committees to avoid them being inadvertently left out of the legislation.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I really welcome Lords amendment 12 on palliative care. Can the Minister give us any more information about whether statutory guidance will be given to the ICBs? It is important that they get proper guidance on what is expected of them. Can he also reassure us that palliative care will be a priority objective for the trusts?
Edward Argar
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we expect that to be the case. I will turn to palliative care in the context of other amendments shortly, and I might address some of his points then.
We are also committed to tackling climate change. Lords amendments 9, 18, 33 and 40 place duties on NHS trusts, foundation trusts, ICBs and NHS England to have regard to the Government’s key ambitions on climate change and the natural environment in everything they do. The amendments include a guidance-making power for NHS England that will assist in the discharge of these duties by different bodies.
There are also a number of amendments relating to how integrated care boards should operate as statutory bodies. Amendments 19 to 21 and 23 require an ICB to consider the skills, knowledge and experience it needs to discharge its functions and, where there are gaps, to consider what steps it can take to mitigate them. The amendments also require the forward plan to include detail on how the ICB intends to arrange for the provision of health services, as well as its duties under sections 14Z34 to 14Z45. The annual report must also include an explanation of how it has discharged these duties.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned conflicts of interest. We amended the Bill in this place, and the Lords amended it further with Lords amendment 11. We understand the motivation, but the drafting does not fulfil the stated aim, which is why we tabled an alternative amendment in lieu of that amendment.
Edward Argar
I want to make a little progress. If I make good time, I may be able to give way, but I am conscious of the need to give the shadow Minister and other colleagues plenty of time to speak—about, I suspect, one aspect of this group of amendments in particular, but we will see.
We commend a number of additional amendments to the House. Lords amendments 34 to 37 limit the powers to set capital expenditure limits for NHS foundation trusts, so that they cannot apply for periods longer than a financial year. I reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that these powers on expenditure limits are used only as a last resort, as NHS England agreed with NHS Providers. I also ask the House to accept Lords amendments 50, 65, 104, 106 and 107, which are minor and technical changes required to ensure that the Bill functions as intended.
Although we have made progress on a number of amendments, we urge the House to disagree with the other place on others. First, we ask the House to disagree with amendment 90 on dispute resolution in children’s palliative care, and instead support the amendment we tabled in lieu. Our approach will require the Secretary of State to commission a full independent review of the causes of disagreements between the providers of care and persons with parental responsibility on the care of critically ill children, how these disagreements can be avoided, and how we can sensitively handle their resolution.
We also seek to reject Lords amendment 81. Although we agree on the need to make good progress on the Care Act 2014, it is not in the interests of good government to be forced to implement reform of this complexity and scale through a deadline set in primary legislation. We are getting on with implementing social care reform, and operational guidance is out for consultation. We have announced a small number of local authorities that will act as trailblazers to test the reforms from January 2023, but we must take time to engage with local authorities as they build the necessary infrastructure, and use these trials to refine delivery systems and guidance ahead of the national roll-out. We encourage the House to reject Lords amendment 81, which we believe affects the financial arrangements to be made by this House and, as such, is subject to financial privilege.
Debbie Abrahams
I would be grateful if the Minister answered my question about the triple aims, and the impact of not including in them an explicit reference to health inequalities. The Bill refers to health and wellbeing, but not to health inequalities. My main point is on the care cap. More than one in six of my constituents with dementia will not reach the cap, as it stands. The Lords amendments mean it would be one in five, so I would be grateful if the Minister could say exactly why he is prepared to let one in six of my constituents not reach the care cap.
Edward Argar
I will address the care cap, because there is a fair bit to say. I was just addressing the noble Lord Lansley’s amendment. I apologise for missing the hon. Lady’s first point. We do not think it is necessary to have health inequalities explicitly among the triple aims, as we believe that the issue runs through everything that ICBs do and everything the Bill sets out. We therefore feel that the Bill is effective, and that each ICB’s ICS will have regard to health inequalities and will see them as central to its objectives.
Before I turn to Lords amendment 80, I will briefly address Lords amendment 51, which relates to consultation with carers during hospital discharge planning. We have heard about the strength of feeling in the other place on that issue. We wholly agree that we must ensure that, where appropriate, unpaid carers are involved in planning around discharge. Although the Government appreciate the intention behind the amendment and want to address the concerns raised, we want to do so in the most effective way, and in a way that does not create unintended delays to discharge. I ask Members to support our amendment in lieu, which would achieve much of what Lords amendment 51 sought to achieve. It will introduce a new duty on trusts and foundation trusts to involve carers during adult discharge planning. Unlike schedule 3 to the Care Act 2014, this duty applies to all carers where the patient has care and support needs following discharge; and it applies to young carers as well as adults. Our amendment in lieu and the new statutory guidance will ensure that patients and carers are involved in discussions about post-discharge care as soon as they start.
Liz Twist
I am pleased that that concession has been made. However, a number of points of clarification would be really helpful to carers. One is about being given a choice about caring, carers having the right information, and carers being able to express their needs properly. The second is about disabled children, who are not referred to here, and the third is about ensuring that young carers are clearly covered by any guidance issued. Will the Minister say how those issues will be addressed?
Edward Argar
I hope that I can give the hon. Lady reassurance. When we refer to “carers”, we intend that to be a broad term, rather than a narrowly drawn one. She is absolutely right to highlight young carers; they are carers. They also face particular challenges, because they often juggle school and similar things with caring. It is our intention that all carers will be covered by this duty on trusts and foundation trusts to involve carers during adult discharge planning. That would apply to all adults who are being discharged, where a carer is involved. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance. We would look to ensure that these points were suitably emphasised in guidance and in the advice we give to ICBs and ICSs. As she will know, the Department works with NHS trusts and NHS England, and has various mechanisms for guiding and informing trusts. I recognise the importance of the issue.
We ask that this House rejects Lords amendment 80, and that it reintroduces the clause that the Government originally inserted on Report in this House, alongside further amendments to support the operation of charging reform that were originally tabled in the other place. The Government have set out their plan for a sustainable social care system. We want to end unpredictable care costs for everyone by introducing a universal £86,000 cap on an individual’s personal care costs. I pay tribute to the Minister for Care and Mental Health, who, since taking up her post last September, has made driving this agenda forward a personal priority. I should also pay tribute to her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her work in this area.
We entirely recognise and respect that there are strong views on this issue across the House, and it is vital that our approach is fair. The Government believe that the fairest version of the cap would be based on what people contribute towards their care, rather than our counting local authority contributions as well. It simply cannot be fair that two people living in different parts of the country, contributing the same amount, progress towards the cap at different rates because of the differences in the amount that their local authority is paying.
Peter Aldous
The Government’s plans are regressive when compared with the proposals under the 2014 Act. They are less equitable to those with moderate assets, including those living with dementia and working-age adults with disabilities. It would be fairer to keep to the original Dilnot proposals, but can the Minister outline how the £900 million saving that, it is estimated, will result from the Government’s proposals and the use of means-testing will better protect those with lower-value properties?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been open and consistent in expressing his concerns about this issue. He cites the 2014 Act, but it is important to note that those proposals were never implemented and were not deemed to be financially sustainable or deliverable. There were other proposals, including in 2015, but although no proposal is perfect, the proposals before us are a dramatic improvement, in terms of the protections offered and the crippling care costs that many face under the existing regime. This is an important step forward. Let me make a little more progress, after which I may touch on some of my hon. Friend’s other comments.
Edward Argar
I have given way to the hon. Lady already in this debate, as I did in the debate on the previous group of amendments, so I shall make a little progress. She knows that I am always tempted to give way, but I do want to make some progress.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am reminded of some training I had a few years ago, when my trainer said, “Karin, people will often thank you for your brevity at this time of night,” so I shall not detain the House for too long.
As the Minister kindly alluded to, I spent some six weeks in the Bill Committee trying but failing to alter the original Bill from the Back Benches. I therefore praise the work done by my colleagues and others in the House of Lords. The list of improvements that have already been made is impressive. Unlike in Committee, when the Minister batted away every single proposal for change, the Government have adopted some changes and there has been some progress.
We support Lords amendment 90, on palliative care, which is a really difficult and complex subject that involves distressing issues for the people affected. The Government should further consider that amendment.
On unpaid carers, we support the finely crafted solution in Lords amendment 51 to protect carers. The intent behind the amendment is to prevent any further problems with discharge to assess. We need to enhance people’s rights as carers, not take them away. I know from personal experience that the removal of an assessment prior to discharge may result in less priority being given to the assessment once someone has left hospital. Families clearly worry that patients may be “out of sight, out of mind” once they have left hospital. It would be helpful if the Minister clarified the Government’s commitment to ensuring that carers are consulted as part of the discharge process. It is vital that steps go much further than simply “involving” the carer; we need to ensure that the carer is both willing and able to provide care for the patient and that the necessary community services are in place. Community services and primary care are currently badly stretched.
In Committee, I raised many issues relating to the membership of integrated care boards, particularly in respect of their lack of accountability to local people. None of my proposals made it into the Bill, so I was delighted to see that one proposal made it through the House of Lords. We are happy to support the approach agreed in Lords amendment 105, to give some positive recognition to parity of esteem for mental health. The broader issue of who else gets to be on an integrated care board will rumble on for years, but this is a good first step, and we expect it to happen. It is vital that there is a mental health voice on our integrated care boards, but as well as the Minister confirming that he expects that to happen, it would be really helpful if he could clarify what recourse or consequence would be available should that mental health representative somehow be blocked at a local level from serving on the ICB.
Let me turn to the broader issues. As I said in Committee, this is fundamentally another NHS reorganisation Bill. It is a restructuring of the NHS and a centralisation of power within the NHS. It does not nothing to achieve integration and nothing to improve accountability to the public, to patients and to communities. With the publication of the Ockenden report and the deeply worrying staff survey and patient satisfaction surveys, it is not a good day for the health service. It is clear that centralising control in the NHS is very much the wrong approach. Local representatives need much more power over local services, and accountability needs to be much better at a local level.
The Bill also does nothing to improve the appalling state of social care provision. No wait for care will be shortened because of this Bill and nobody excluded from care will now receive it, but we do now have a Bill that lays to rest the worst of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the Lansley Act. Those of us who were on the other side of that Act and its implementation—in fact, it was that Act that brought me to this place, so appalling was it—and who fought and campaigned against it really should be having a bit of a party to celebrate the disappearance of some of the worst excesses of that Act.
With the changes to procurement and the many assurances given from the Government Dispatch Box, the main threats detected in the original Bill have largely been allayed. Compulsory tendering has gone; we have preferred provider in all but name. Procurement from the private sector must now be on a proper, open and transparent basis, which means no more crony contracts or jobs for friends and family, and Virgin Care and other large corporates no longer influencing commissioning.
With Lords amendment 11 excluding private interests from commissioning, we see a dramatic shift that is most welcome. We may start to get back to a public service model. That could start a journey to build an NHS where adequate investment and support means that patients do not have to start relying on the private sector.
The most serious issue in this bunch of Lords amendments has been ducked. The dead hand of the Treasury has clamped down and common sense has departed. Shoehorning the change in the calculation of contributions to the care cap into the Report stage of this Bill was parliamentary sharp practice of the highest order, designed to minimise scrutiny and stifle criticism. Our position is encapsulated by Lords amendment 80. This provision should never have been in the Bill. It is hugely significant to our constituents, and it has never been properly considered and cannot be today. I listened very carefully to the Minister outlining various scenarios. I, too, could outline various scenarios from the Dispatch Box, but I will not do so today. This is not the place to do that; there needs to be proper consideration and proper scrutiny. The Department has sneaked out the view that restricting contributions to the cap for those being means-tested for their care charges would save an estimated £900 million by 2027-28 in cash terms. Surely that means that there is time to look at this properly, and we are willing to work with the Government to do just that.
Let us be clear: if that is the true estimate, then that is what the Treasury is talking about saving from the poorest—from working-age adults with a disability and older people with few assets. That is where that money comes from. That is not fixing social care; that is asking people with less to pay more to protect the assets of the wealthiest—the less a person has, the more the Treasury will take.
Members of Parliament from across the north-east of England, Yorkshire and the Humber and the midlands really need to take note, because, from what we can gather at the moment—we do not know enough about this to be totally clear about how it impacts people—it looks like those areas will be worst hit by the Government proposals. Why are those MPs not here? Why are they not outraged by this? I suspect that it is largely because they do not know, and the Government do not want them to know. It is so hard to follow the detail of this.
It has been almost 3,000 days since the Care Act 2014—a carefully crafted piece of legislation, agreed across party lines and after a huge engagement with stakeholders— was granted Royal Assent. If the calculation towards the cap is to be changed, that change must come the same way, through cross-party working with the sector, patients and people involved, understanding the evidence on impact and considering the consequences—not through this half-arsed addition to an NHS reorganisation, which is essentially what the Government are doing.
If the Government are determined to leap into action, they should accept amendment 81 and get on with implementing the Care Act and the Dilnot proposals as originally agreed. I followed the implementation of the Act very carefully when I came to this place in 2015, and I think I have heard from the Government Dispatch Box today for the first time that it was never agreed, that it was undeliverable and not financeable. That is not what the people producing the Care Act or the Conservative Government of the time led us to believe. They moved the implementation to April 2020, expecting there to be a general election in that year, and never really came back to explain the rationale.
We will not get mired in details tonight because, as I said earlier, this is not really the place for it, but our constituents are being led up the garden path by this Government. This place should be considering the proposals properly. That is what the Lords have asked us to do, and the Opposition will support them in doing that. This question is too important to be left to a last-minute addition.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I will speak briefly in favour of Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 51. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. My predominant interest is that this is a cause that I care very deeply for.
Ultimately, the aim of Lords amendment 51 is to focus on carers and the safe discharge of hospital patients. The Government’s amendment (a) in lieu will achieve most of what the noble Baroness Pitkeathley originally attempted to achieve in her amendment, ensuring that carers are involved at the point of hospital discharge.
Across the UK today there are about 6.5 million carers supporting a loved one who may be older, disabled or seriously ill. That is one in every eight adults providing unpaid care for their family or friends, whether around the clock or for a few hours a week. It is an enormous contribution and saves the health and social care system billions of pounds a year. It has an untold impact on carers’ own lives and livelihoods, but for the people they care for, it is literally a lifeline.
The amendment in lieu recognises the vital role that carers play and avoids any suggestion of their losing their rights, which could have been an unintended consequence with the wrong wording. It is important that carers are recognised in this legislation; it is clear that the Government have listened and reflected the strength of feeling about that, and I am grateful. We must do more to equip carers to care safely and well, and to juggle other aspects of their lives. That is why the requirement to consult carers prior to patient discharge is so important. The Lords amendment had cross-party support in the House of Lords, and I hope the amendment in lieu will achieve the same thing in the Commons.
According to Carers UK, there are still some worrying statistics on discharge: 56% of carers were not involved in decisions about discharge from hospital and what care and treatment the person they cared for needed, 82% of carers did not receive a carer’s assessment and 68% of carers were not asked about their willingness and ability to care at discharge. I am sure the House will agree that those are deeply distressing statistics, and that we have a lot of work to do to address them.
There are a few important points of clarification and assurances that I would like from the Minister. He mentioned earlier that young carers were covered, but the language is a little opaque, so can he confirm for me that he is talking about not only young carers who are looking after adults, but young carers who might be caring for brothers or sisters? Some young people perform that incredibly difficult task at enormous disadvantage to themselves, and I want reassurance from the Minister that this House and this Government have not forgotten them.
The second point of clarification is that the original amendment 51 included a test on whether a carer was willing and able to care, as in the Care Act 2014, and I want to ensure that this amendment in lieu will secure that. There are also important clarifications to be made around what “feasible” means; I hope the Minister can help me with that, so that carers are absolutely sure what he means by their rights.
Unpaid carers are so often invisible, their efforts unacknowledged, and I am pleased to see the Government taking steps to address that through their amendment in lieu. It is a start. There is much further to go to give unpaid carers the support and recognition they need—that is a discussion for another day, but it is a discussion I intend to have.
Daisy Cooper
I would like to start by talking about carers and safe discharge. I welcome the Government’s concession on this point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who talked so eloquently about the fact that unpaid carers are often, in effect, invisible. She is seeking a number of assurances from the Minister, and I wonder if I might add another.
The Minister will be aware that on Report I tabled an amendment calling for a new NHS duty to recognise and identify unpaid carers who come into contact with the NHS so that their health and wellbeing could be taken into account when decisions are made concerning the health and care of the person or the people for whom they care. The amendment now before us is not as strong as that. In fact, it is not as strong as the Lords amendment. I welcome the Government’s concession on this, but I wonder whether the Minister might provide some assurances that the nub of my amendment at an earlier stage could, for example, be included in some of the ICB guidance. It is important that carers are consulted but also important that their health and wellbeing is taken into account when decisions are made about those for whom they care.
I have a couple of thoughts on the social care cap. First, it is a really terrible way to come up with policy to change a policy halfway through a Bill, because it starves important policies of public debate and parliamentary scrutiny. It is a very bad habit. We have seen it with other Bills, such as the Building Safety Bill—a national scandal that I have spoken about many times. This is a bad way of making law. It is important that the Government do not fall into bad habits.
The other point is on broken promises. The Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 and pledged to
“fix the crisis in social care once and for all”.
He also promised that no one would have to sell their home to pay for care. He has now broken both those promises, because this Bill does not fix the social care crisis and it does continue to see people facing the prospect of losing their home to fund care costs. Quite frankly, it is appalling that the Government are arguing that they cannot afford to accept this amendment when the savings that are going to be generated for the Treasury come off the backs of the poorest people in our society. The Government really should think again.
Steve Brine
I have sat through all this debate and taken issue with the Government in some places and supported them in others. I am going to take issue with them on amendment 51. It is always hard to take issue with this Minister, but I seem to have done it twice already today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and I did not compare notes but seem to have exactly the same comments, which suggests that this is an important amendment.
I want to make a few points about young carers in Hampshire and nationally who have been in touch with me about amendment 51. The amendment that we are being asked to strike out says at paragraph (5)(b) that
“a ‘carer’ means any person, including any child under the age of 18”.
It does not say that in the Minister’s amendment in lieu, but I have heard what he has said today and I hope that it will be heard clearly, because what is said at the Dispatch Box matters a great deal. The Minister in the Lords said on Report that there will be statutory guidance that hospitals “must have regard to” and that that is a sufficient measure for carers. Again, I hear that, but what is said at the Dispatch Box in the Lords matters as well. As young carers have said to me, ahead of today, this is not the same as primary legislative rights and it can be withdrawn or changed at the stroke of a Minister’s pen, intentionally or unintentionally. It does not mean the same for carers and young carers in the daily operation of the system. I would suggest that very few carers, especially young carers, have the energy, the means or the knowledge to go to judicial review if their rights are not followed.
When the Minister winds up, I beg him once again to make it absolutely crystal clear that his amendment in lieu does the same as the Lords amendment that he is asking us to strike out, because young carers, in particular, want and need that reassurance. Other than that, it is a good amendment that is worthy of our support, but I just want to hear a little bit more from my excellent Minister—and now that I have flattered him he cannot deny me.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 51, 11 and 105. With this Bill, the Government are legislating so that a controversial approach known as “discharge to assess” can be used when discharging patients from hospital. This would see patients discharged from hospital before their social care needs have been assessed, with vulnerable patients potentially sent home without the support that they need in place, leaving families to pick up the pieces and those without family at risk of neglect. Lords amendment 51 is important in relation to that.
The amendment would retain the principle and duty on a hospital, whether an NHS hospital or an independent hospital, to ensure that a patient must be safe to discharge from hospital, and it mirrors carers’ rights established by the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003. This important amendment would recognise the vital role played by carers across the country in looking after their loved ones. However, it does not stop the Government from legislating for discharge to assess, a policy that has been piloted and was included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 as a temporary measure. I am concerned that the Government are not only going ahead with an approach fraught with risk for vulnerable patients, but are doing so in the knowledge that an independent evaluation commissioned by NHS England of the implementation of the hospital discharge policy has still not been published, despite the Government promising that the evaluation was due to report in autumn last year.
I am concerned, too, that the Government do not even understand the clinical outcomes of discharge to assess. When I submitted a question last year asking the Government how many patients discharged in this way were readmitted within 30 days, the Government said that they did not hold the data. I believe that to be a dereliction of duty.
Lord amendment 51 would put in place important rights for patients and carers at what can be a very difficult time. I note that the Government disagree with the amendment and have tabled an amendment in lieu, but I believe that it waters down carers’ and patients’ rights. It merely proposes that
“the relevant trust must, as soon as is feasible after it begins making any plans relating to the discharge, take any steps that it considers appropriate to involve…the patient, and…any carer of the patient.”
That gives inappropriate levels of discretion to trusts over patients’ and carers’ involvement, instead of guaranteeing their rights.
Lords amendment 11 is a step in the right direction, although it does not go far enough. It would ensure that conflict of interest rules that apply to integrated care boards would apply to commissioning sub-committees of integrated care boards. The Government have said that they disagree with the amendment and have proposed an amendment in lieu that would prohibit a chair of an ICB from approving or appointing someone as a member of any committee or sub-committee that exercises commissioning functions
“if the chair considers that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise.”
I am concerned that the phrasing is clearly open to interpretation, and it by no means rules out people with interests in private healthcare from sitting on these sub-committees.
It is wrong, too, that the power should rest with one person, namely the chair of the ICB. If we are serious about providing governance that rules out the possibility of the private sector influencing the expenditure of public money, an organisation carrying out the functions of an ICB on its behalf should be a statutory NHS body. It is a great pity that the Government have not legislated for that.
We cannot forget that NHS guidance last year stated that the Health and Care Bill, if enacted, would enable ICBs to devolve budgets to provider collaboratives, which are one of a complex array of sub-committees that could take on commissioning functions. Representatives of private companies, which are accountable to shareholders, should not be able to influence these commissioning sub- committees in any way. Lords amendment 11 at least improves the original Bill, and I therefore welcome it.
I also welcome Lords amendment 105, which would mean that the membership of an ICB must include at least one member with expertise and knowledge of mental health in the integrated care board’s area. The fact that the Government did not provide for that originally shows that they are still not treating mental health with the level of seriousness it deserves. It is disappointing that the Government have indicated that they disagree with the amendment.
The amendment in lieu that the Government have proposed makes provision for the chair of an ICB to act
“with a view to ensuring that at least one of the ordinary members has knowledge and experience in connection with services relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
The Government have watered down the amendment, and it is regrettable that they have removed expertise in mental health as a characteristic that this member of an ICB must have. It is feasible that that person could be a manager who once dealt with mental health rather than a mental health clinician or health professional. I noticed that in the Minister’s opening remarks, he commented that ICBs would be able to commission out of area. I would be grateful if he gave some clarity about how A&E services will be guaranteed to people should they happen to fall ill out of area.
This is a devastating piece of legislation and it is all the more shocking that the Government have pressed ahead with it at a time when NHS staff are exhausted and patients and people across the country are still struggling with the pandemic. It will embed a postcode lottery and open up the NHS to widespread privatisation. In so doing, it does a disservice to patients in England and to NHS staff.
The Bill provides for the scope of “Agenda for Change”, the pay and terms and conditions of about a million people who work in the health service, to be undermined; it allows for NHS professions to be taken out of regulation; and, as I have mentioned in relation to Lords amendment 51, it will allow for vulnerable patients to be discharged from hospital before their social care needs assessments have been carried out. The NHS is our most treasured institution and I pay tribute to all those campaigners across the country who have fought hard to oppose the Bill.
Sir Charles Walker
I congratulate the Government on their amendments on mental health. As a former Minister with responsibility for mental health, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I have long taken an interest in the subject, so I am delighted that parity of esteem is included in the legislation. It is a very important amendment.
Parity of esteem must mean something, however, and should not be a jumble of words. It was the case that too many voices on both sides of the House fell silent during the covid pandemic. That may have been due to the fog of war, but the scarring of that silence runs deep in the communities that we represent—there are some very ill and damaged people out there. It is fine for us to talk about parity of esteem, but we have to live it and deliver it, and I am afraid that we fell short for 18 months.
I welcome the amendment and the recommitment of hon. Members, but we were all found wanting when it counted. I have the witness statements of more than 2,000 people who suffered with mental health problems during the pandemic and who wrote to me detailing what that was like. One day, I will make those statements available to the Government and to the inquiry, but today, I just thank the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who joined me in initiating the amendments. I hope that the next time that the country and this place are challenged, we rise to it, because mental health is as important as physical health.
Liz Twist
It was not my intention to speak in the debate, but I need to ensure that the point that has been raised about Lords amendment 80 and the cap is not missed. The Minister talked a great deal about fairness, but how can it be fair that my constituents and people across the north-east and the north generally will face what the King’s Fund described as
“people with low levels of wealth”
being
“exposed to very high care costs”?
It cannot be right that the northern regions and other areas will face that unfairness. The Government should reconsider the issue and come forward, as other hon. Members have said, with further discussions about how to resolve it. The proposal in the Bill is very different from that originally presented to the House on care costs.
On carers, I agree with other hon. Members who have raised the issue. As I mentioned earlier, we need much more detail and certainty for those carers and we need to be able to take part to ensure that the guidance issued is effective and represents and meets their need.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I believe that everyone should have high-quality, personalised palliative care, and that is why I am speaking in favour of Lords amendment 12 on palliative care. I wholeheartedly welcome the benefits that this Bill can bring to those in need of that care. I must mention the tireless campaigning of Baroness Finlay, as referenced by the Minister in his opening statement, and Hospice UK, which acts as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group on hospice and end of life care, of which I am a co-chair along with Baroness Finlay. Without their campaigning, we would not have been able to welcome this step forward. I should also declare my interest as a trustee of a hospice, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On the day of the publication of the Ockenden report and our discussion of good births, it is time that we started to talk about good deaths, too. There is far more that we need to do to ensure that hospices and palliative care providers have the tools they need to achieve this, and Lords amendment 12 certainly moves us forward. We need to ensure that the impact of the measures in this Bill are maximised. The Bill specifies appropriate palliative care, but we should expand on this to ensure that a fair minimum standard of care is provided. We should be providing statutory guidance to integrated care boards on the commissioning of palliative care, ensuring that the new requirements are clear. That point was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey).
Funding certainty for hospices is essential. Certainty can enable them to better plan, support the needs of their local community and give commissioning boards confidence in relying on them as an integral part of local services. Certainty of funding will allow hospices to invest, innovate and integrate with the NHS and care system. Before the pandemic, adult hospices on average received 34% of their funding from Government, with some receiving little or none. Hospice funding came primarily from charitable donations, with the sector needing to raise £3.1 million every day. The pandemic saw donations, retail sales and fundraising activities fall dramatically, at the same time as an increase in service delivery. I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for the support that was given to all our hospices during the pandemic—and, in particular, to St Teresa’s in Darlington—but we need to see some certainty of funding for our hospices to deliver on this promise.
I am pleased that the Government accept Lords amendment 12. It is an important step forward for hospices and palliative care, and I welcome it.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). He made some very strong points in his speech with which I absolutely concur. I want to speak to Lords amendment 80, and his constituency—I know it pretty well, having been there and spent a bit of time there prior to the last election—is the kind that will be affected by it. The Government’s decision is to resist that Lords amendment, which I cannot support. In my view, this is a classic policy for levelling down, not levelling up.
The Minister is absolutely right—both Ministers involved in this Bill are good friends of mine, and I do not want to make their lives more difficult in any shape or form—when he says that the policy across the board is a significant improvement on anything we have had before. That is absolutely right. He said that in his speech, and I agree with it, but I do not agree with him when he says that it is fair. I do not believe it is fair, and that must be the basic criterion on which we judge any proposals, not least these.
I think everybody, including the Minister, accepts that it is quite clear that a £900 million transfer is happening here, which was introduced just as the Bill went on to Report stage. That is a direct transfer of £900 million from household wealth to somewhere else. That is what it is: a transfer of assets—household wealth—to healthcare, the Treasury or wherever else it is going, because that is the way that council contributions are used when it comes to the speed at which somebody reaches the cap.
I could live with that, if we were trying to make the system more affordable, as the Minister says—if the burden was going to fall equally on everyone’s shoulders in different parts of the country. It also true to say that most people will not be affected, because only people on very long care journeys tend to be affected badly, but there are quite a few of them: according to the Department’s own figures, about 6,000 a year—10 people per constituency—would be affected in this way, and most of them have dementia. We know that there are 900,000 people with dementia in the UK today; according to the Alzheimer’s Society, there will be 1.6 million by 2040; and 70% of care home residents are dementia sufferers, and they are the sort of people who will suffer because of the changes. They have very long care journeys, and they move out of their house so it becomes one of the assets that we take into account when assessing how much people contribute to the care cap.
The Minister says we are making these changes to make the system sustainable. Well, okay, make it sustainable, but make it fair too. I do not believe that this is fair. I know I am comparing this with a system that never existed—my hon. Friend is right to say that—but one was proposed in which the council contributions would count in calculations of people’s contribution to the care cap. That is the change we have made—the specific measure to make the system more sustainable is that change, and that affects people with limited assets and wealth. We are balancing this on the shoulders of people with fewer assets and less wealth, and on certain areas as well, as people in some of the regions in the north that we represent tend to have fewer assets and less wealth.
Particularly affected are people who have wealth or assets worth between £75,000 and £150,000. The research provided by the Alzheimer’s Society is clear: under the Dilnot proposals, about 50% of people living with dementia benefited fully from the care cap—they reached the care cap. That was true across all the wealth quintiles—it was very fair. This is not. Only 13% of people in the least wealthy quintile will reach the cap, whereas 28% of the most wealthy will. Such huge disparity cannot be right, yet that is the change that we have made. That £900 million has been found from people with less wealth. That cannot be right, nor is it consistent with levelling up. Look at how different regions are affected: only 13% of people in the north-east reach the cap whereas 29% of people in the south-east do so. Previously, in almost every part of the country, about 50% of people did so. The cap was not as generous, but it was very fair across different wealth quintiles and different regions of the country. I cannot see how this is fair.
Instead of each of us having 10 people in our constituency affected, some will have more and those representing wealthy constituencies will have fewer. I and other Members representing the north-east will have more constituents affected by this change and less generously treated because of it. For that reason, and because in my view it levels down, I cannot support the Government and will vote against them this evening on Lords amendment 80.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to all colleagues who have spoken this evening. A number of the arguments were made on Report, and rightly, right hon. and hon. Members have reiterated some of those points where they felt it was appropriate. I will address a number of the points raised relatively briefly.
What we are legislating for in this Bill represents an evolution of our health and care system, and improved integration. My hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and for Winchester (Steve Brine) both spoke about carers. Young carers are included, which I hope reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. In respect of the statutory guidance, I hope that it will provide reassurance if I can set out that we will develop that guidance in partnership with Carers UK to ensure its input and so that it captures exactly the things that hon. Members have alluded to. Again, in statutory guidance, we will look at how to ensure that the duty to give people the information that they need is properly and effectively discharged.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead—she is now in the Chamber—for the work that they have done on the Bill to ensure that parity of esteem for mental and physical health is not forgotten and is explicit.
On a point made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I will clarify what I said earlier on the triple aim, which may give her a little reassurance, even if not necessarily sufficient reassurance. We have not created a quadruple aim or a fourth limb, but we have included a reference to health inequalities under the existing triple aim in the other place. It is not forgotten. I hope that gives her a degree of reassurance on that specific point.
Lords amendment 80 was the crux of much of the debate. I fear that many are comparing our proposals with something that was never done. We are significantly improving provision around the sustainability and affordability of social care. The Prime Minister was clear that he would grapple with the issue and resolve it. When the Opposition were in power, they had two Green Papers, one royal commission and one spending review priority on the issue and they utterly failed to address it. We are a Government who have made huge strides in creating a better system.
I listened, as always, with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I am sorry that he will not be joining me in the Lobby tonight. While I respectfully disagree with him, I know that he has thought long and hard about this matter and has strong and sincerely held views. With that in mind, I regret that we will have to ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment on care metering.
Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 11.
Lords amendment 51 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 51.
Clause 140
Cap on care costs for charging purposes
Motion made, and Question put, that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 80.—(Edward Argar.)
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 5th April 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 145-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (4 Apr 2022)
18:42 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 151 - Motion B1 agreed.
18:56 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 161 - Motion C1 agreed.
19:09 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 177 / Noes: 135 - Motion D1 agreed.
19:23 - Division on Motion G1 - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 151 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:42 - Division on Motion J1 - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 132 - Motion J1 disagreed.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 11A in lieu.
“(4) If the constitution includes provision under this paragraph allowing committees or sub-committees to exercise commissioning functions, the constitution must—
(a) provide for the members of any such committee or subcommittee to be approved or appointed by the chair of the integrated care board, and
(b) prohibit the chair from approving or appointing someone as a member of any such committee or sub-committee (“the candidate”) if the chair considers that the appointment could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of the candidate’s involvement with the private healthcare sector or otherwise.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) “commissioning functions” means the functions of an integrated care board in arranging for the provision of services as part of the health service.”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I start with the amendments on ICB membership, children’s palliative care, hospital discharge and adult social care.
On integrated care boards, I hope noble Lords will recognise that the Government have listened to both this House and the other place. We have proposed some changes to the drafting of Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, which I am aware that the noble Lord has seen. We hope that he recognises that our amendment in lieu meets the original intent of his amendment.
On Amendment 11, we hope that Amendment 11A in lieu, proposed in the other place, meets the expectations of your Lordships’ House. To avoid a number of unintended consequences or implications, we proposed an amendment in lieu that will ensure that those who pose a threat to the independence of the health service are excluded from the ICB and its committees. We have applied the same test to committees as we have to the main board, and the conflict of interest provisions and safeguards in the Bill also apply. We are grateful for the discussions on this question that we have had with noble Lords, including with the Front Bench opposite, and we hope that this amendment will be satisfactory.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I remind the House that we have three noble Baronesses beaming in. The first is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and vice-chair of the APPG on Adult Social Care.
I thank the Government for their Motion E relating to carers and safe discharge, which goes a considerable way to providing the reassurance that patients and their unpaid carers will be included in discharge planning. I am pleased to hear that Carers UK is working closely with the department on the guidance, and it is good to see that the guidance will be further updated when the Bill is passed and will include more mentions of carers and young carers—that is also welcome.
The guidance links to a number of background documents, such as action cards and the Home First documents, which are short, summary versions to help discharge from hospital but seem to be slightly out of step with the new provisions. So, while I am grateful for the Government’s amendment, will the Minister clarify whether these will also be updated?
I turn to Motions G, G1 and G2 on the social care cap. The Government’s changes to the care cap announced, late in the passage of the Bill in the Commons, that the amounts accrued towards the £86,000 cap are now based solely on the individual’s out-of-pocket expenses. Although individuals will still qualify for means-tested financial support if their assets fall below £100,000, in practice this will no longer act to protect people with more modest means and will simply see them contributing over a longer period. This is much more regressive and would leave poorer, older people and working-age adults with less protection from the catastrophic care costs than others who are wealthier.
I have been happy to sign previous amendments to remove the social care cap, and these Benches support Motion G1. The measures in Motion G1, especially in Amendment 80P, ensure that the original principles of the Dilnot commission recommendations are fully implemented. It is also important that the results of the trailblazer pilot schemes can be fully evaluated with an impact assessment and that Parliament has a proper opportunity to debate that review. The changes proposed by the Government just before the Bill came to your Lordships’ House are very different from those that Parliament understood right at the start of the Bill’s passage.
This is not just a problem for older people. Mencap has reminded us that the Government’s impact assessment shows that their proposals will benefit only around 10% of working-age care users and that there will be a limited impact on improving the funding spent on working-age disabled adults. It is still a disgrace that the arrangements for older people, which assume decades of working and earning, are also used for younger adults with disabilities, who we know are much more likely to be assets and savings poor and to need care and support for much longer, and who will therefore accrue much higher levels of cost than older people. These proposals from the Government are just not fit for purpose and need to be reviewed for this group of younger adults. That is why we support Motions G1 and G2.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the second beaming Baroness is the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to and strongly support Motion G1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. These amendments will ease the catastrophic effects of the Government’s proposed charging cap reforms on the lives of those dependent on social care.
Disabled people who rely on social care just to survive, let alone thrive, are deeply disappointed that the Government’s charging proposals have been overturned by the other place and are now returning to this House. Amendment 80P would help to alleviate these detrimental effects by addressing the worst affected, particularly those under the age of 40. The trailblazer pilots are also very welcome, but evaluation is key. Crucially, it must assess the impact of charging reform on a variety of social care users, including younger adults, where there is so little current data, and should cover every aspect of their rights. These people are not statistics.
A further impact assessment is also vital. The current one is totally illogical. It needs to focus on the impact on younger adults and encourage proper mechanisms for data analysis: for example, the significant impact on the under-40s of having their contributions paid from benefits. The chronic financial hardship that long-term disabled people endure, with additional costs averaging £583 a month, remains a very worrying issue.
This is a bleak time to endorse charging for social care, capped at an extortionate £86,000. Hundreds of thousands of disabled people in Britain are in crisis because of the ever-increasing cost of living. Local authorities in England are imposing stricter charging policies for care because they are basically running out of money. Disabled people are already being referred to debt collection agencies because they cannot pay their care charges.
The Government talk about levelling up for disabled people, but really they are doing the opposite. These charging reforms force them to contribute to their care and stop local authority care costs counting towards the cap. They deny disabled people the life opportunities that others take for granted.
If Motion G1 is not supported, the Government will be defying the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The UK is signed up to the convention. Article 19 recognises the equal right of all disabled people to live in the community, with the same choices as others; it requires parties to the convention to ensure that they can enjoy full inclusion and participation in the community. Yet this Bill does not respect it.
Far from ensuring the rights enshrined by the convention, I fear the Bill will lead to increased poverty, ill health and poorer life outcomes for disabled people. Some will undoubtedly die. What does that say about our moral compass, especially when disabled people have already endured two years of disproportionate suffering and death during the pandemic?
This Bill provided a small opportunity to take action before it was too late, but it was squandered by the other place. I hope the Government will think again when the White Paper on social care integration is finally published, and address this deep injustice. For now, I urge noble Lords to support Motion G1.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the final remote participant is the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak about disputes in the critical care of children.
First, I thank and congratulate the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on his hard work in trying to understand the enormity of the Health and Care Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff for her persistence in including the importance of palliative care in this Bill, especially dealing with the heart-rending problems when there are disputes between parents or legal guardians responsible for critically ill children and their doctors and care staff.
To understand the anxiety and fear parents have, and their wanting to do the very best for their child, they need a sympathetic doctor in charge. Some treatments are available abroad, and desperate parents sometimes know better than the doctors if they are not experienced in the very rare conditions. There is a vital need now, in this difficult time of staff shortages, to listen and help solve the problems if there are disputes.
I will understand if my noble friend thinks that today, unfortunately, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. I also support many of the other amendments.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I open this group from these Benches by speaking to Motion G1 on the care cap. My noble friend Lord Hunt will speak to Motion A on integrated care boards, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley will speak to Motion E on carers, and we will leave the issue of palliative care under Motion L1 in the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell, for their support in respect of the social care cap.
I hope that my Motion G1 on social care will provide the opportunity that the Government so sorely need to think again about how the care cap is to be implemented—in particular, the impact that its proposed changes to the eligibility and charging rules before the cap kicks in will have on hundreds of thousands of lives across some of the most deprived areas of the country.
I remind the House that, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge that nobody should have to sell their homes, the fact is that somebody with assets of £100,000 will lose almost everything while someone with assets worth £1 million and over will keep almost everything. People with low levels of wealth will be exposed to the same care costs as the very wealthiest in society. They will end up spending the largest levels of their income on care. As my colleague, the shadow Minister Karin Smyth, succinctly put it:
“No wait for care will be shortened because of this Bill and nobody excluded from care will now receive it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; col. 941.]
Since the Government’s announcement of the £86,000 cap last year, and then, two months later, the body blow of not allowing local authority contributions to people’s care to accrue towards the cap, designed to save £900 million, the evidence for all this has been stacking up every day, and it is overwhelming. Extensive modelling and evidence by stakeholders such as Age UK, Mencap, the Alzheimer’s Society, and from the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation expert think tanks, prove just how badly older people and working-age disabled adults with no assets or with modest means will fare under the current charging proposals.
Even the Government’s own impact assessment figures show more than one in five older people will not see the benefits of the cap at all, and poorer care users are much more likely to die before they reach the cap than others with the same care needs. Alzheimer’s Society research shows that, without means-tested local authority funding counting towards the cap, only 21% of people with dementia will reach it, and it could take people drawing on care double the amount of time to get there, compared to the original Dilnot proposals.
On top of this—and particularly alarming in light of the Government’s professed levelling-up ambitions—the joint research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation clearly demonstrates that, among older people, those affected and worse off will be the ones with modest assets and wealth living in the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, and the Midlands. Regionally, just 16% of people with dementia in the north-east and 19% of people with dementia in the east Midlands would hit the cap, compared to 29% in the south-east. The Minister’s repeated claim that no one will lose out when compared to the current system, or face unpredictable care costs, flies in the face of all this. As the Health Foundation says of the new charging basis,
“the changes are poorly conceived and a step in the wrong direction”,
taking protection away from poorer home owners and working-age adults with care needs.
The Government must therefore look closely at the evidence and think again. My Motion provides a structured way of enabling them to do just that. We are calling for: regulations to be drawn up that define how the costs accrued to meeting eligible needs are determined, as well as specifying the timescale for care cap implementation; ensuring that local authority care contributions, as well as individual private contributions, count towards the care cap; ensuring that the results of the much-vaunted, but little explained, five local authority care cap trail-blazer pilots that have just been set up are evaluated and open to parliamentary scrutiny before the cap is implemented; and, just as important, ensuring the completion of a further impact assessment that provides a detailed regional analysis and breakdown of eligibility for social care and the effect of the cap on working-age, disabled adults under 40. The final point in the Motion concerns this, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has again spoken very movingly on this vital issue, which any plan to fix social care—and particularly this one—has to address.
The five trail-blazer councils—Wolverhampton, Blackpool, Cheshire East, Newham and North Yorkshire —are developing and testing the new charging system, and they will be early implementers of the cap in January 2023 before rollout in October. I noticed the DHSC fanfare press release announcing them claims that they will,
“implement a new and improved adult social care charging reform system”.
Can the Minister explain how a system which has already started cutting costs at the expense of some of the poorest people in our society can be “new and improved”?
The press release also says of the pilots that the
“insight … and lessons learned … will be useful to providers and authorities … allowing the Department of Health and Social Care to test key aspects of the reforms … The initiative will generate valuable evidence and insight to help the Government to monitor progress, identify challenges and improve understanding.”
In the light of the growing evidence of the impact that the charging proposals will have in some of the most deprived areas of the country, can the Minister explain why the trail-blazers’ remit has not been widened to look closely at these vital issues too? These pilots must focus not only on systems and implementation but also on the vital work and analysis that the impact of the revised charging arrangements will have on the communities they cover and on people desperately in need of social care support.
We must ensure that we understand the full impact of the changes before they are implemented. That is why the further impact assessment on regional eligibility and other issues such as the impact on working-age disabled adults, called for in my Motion, is also important. These are all issues not addressed in the Bill’s current impact assessment.
The savings that the Government are aiming to make by reducing eligibility for the care cap and not allowing local authority costs to accrue towards the cap will result in older and poorer people in some of the most deprived areas of the country, and working-age disabled adults, paying more towards the cost of their care, particularly those with life-long conditions. My Motion provides a structured way forward for the Government to look closely at the mounting stakeholder and independent evidence and think again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in very much welcoming my noble friend’s introduction to her amendment, I refer to Motion A, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks and to which he has brought Amendment 11A in lieu. This relates to potential conflicts of interests within membership of committees or sub-committees appointed to exercise commissioning functions on behalf of integrated care boards. This is important because those committees will form the basis for what is widely described in the NHS as place-based decision-making.
The Minister in Committee—which must seem a long time ago to him—referred to his hope
“that the ICB will exercise functions through place-based committees, where a wider group of members can take decisions”.—[Official Report, 20/1/22; col. 1852.]
This was in relation to the series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about primary care and the need for it to be round the table. I see the potential of that, but as they are given increased responsibilities, there are questions about how placed-based committees are to be held to account. It is important that they are transparent, have robust governance arrangements in place and are properly held to account. Equally important is to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are avoided —particularly that members with private sector interests who could undermine the independence of decision-making should not be appointed to such bodies.
I welcome the Minister’s amendment in lieu but there are a couple of points I want to raise with him. First, in Lords Amendment 11, to which the Commons disagreed, there is in proposed new subsection (c) a reference to members of a committee or sub-committee of the integrated care board obtaining
“information that might be perceived to favour the interest or potential interest”
of that member. However, in the noble Lord’s amendment in lieu there is no reference to access to information which could undermine the independence of the health service. Is this point regarding information implicit within his own amendment? Can he assure us that the issue must be covered when each ICB sets up its governance arrangements?
I also want to ask him about the chair of an integrated care board committee or sub-committee. His Amendment 11A follows the approach of the Bill and prohibits the chair of an ICB appointing someone who would undermine the independence of the health service. Can the Minister confirm that no chair would be appointed if they were also someone who would undermine the independence of the health service because of their involvement with the private healthcare sector?
I conclude by reiterating to the Minister that there are clearly more general conflicts of interest within integrated care boards that are going to prove challenging in the future. With NHS healthcare providers playing an increasing role in the commissioning and funding of local services through ICBs, there is a blurring of the line between those procuring a public service and those being paid to deliver it. It is very likely that conflicts of interest issues will emerge, with decisions potentially taken to benefit providers, with limited due process and transparency.
It is vital that, alongside the Bill, there are very strong governance arrangements to ensure that ICBs and their committees and sub-committees make decisions in the best interests of local populations. I hope the Minister agrees.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to express support for the Motion in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench but principally to comment on Motion E. I know that the Minister and his officials listened carefully and took note of the strength of feeling about unpaid carers expressed on all sides of your Lordships’ House in Committee and on Report. I am most grateful for that strength of feeling and the wise advice given by this House, which has resulted in what I would describe as a satisfactory outcome in the form of a new amendment.
The other place has replaced the amendment passed by a large majority in your Lordships’ House and put forward its own, which was accepted there and brought to us today. I am most grateful to the Minister and all his officials for the work that they have put into drafting this amendment, and for the understanding shown for the position of unpaid carers and the importance of involving patients and carers in discharge planning, as soon as is feasible in that process.
I seek the Minister’s further assurance on a couple of other points. The first is that parent carers are not excluded when a disabled child is discharged from hospital. This is referred to in the guidance when their own discharge is happening but not when the child they care for is being discharged. We need to ensure that services across different disciplines are married up. I know that other Lords and colleagues will be seeking assurances about this and about young carers.
My second point is that the guidance contains references to checking that a carer is willing and able to care. I hope that the Minister may be able to enlarge on this a bit. There will be occasions when the carer’s own situation makes caring impossible: they may simply be too ill to take on the responsibility, for example, however willing they may be. We need to ensure that no pressure is brought to bear in such a situation and that no assumptions are made in the discharge process about the carer’s ability. We have all seen too many examples of where this was not acknowledged, inevitably leading to the readmission of the patient.
We all seek to make hospital discharges as safe and efficient as possible, while not exerting undue pressure on the most important components: the patient and their carers. Of course, we shall need to monitor carefully how the guidance is applied, and we have to be sure too that carers are informed about their rights. I hope that the Minister’s department will promote suitable publicity as the reforms are implemented. I assure him that I, Carers UK and, I am sure, other Peers will be constantly on the case to ensure that carers and patients can trust the discharge system to support them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to contribute to this group and speak to Motions G1, G2 and H. As context, I say that my noble friend, the Front Bench team and their Bill team have gone to enormous efforts to try to reach a number of compromises; at this stage it is incumbent on us to recognise that. If we were to send further amendments to the other place, we should confine ourselves to doing so only in circumstances where we believe that there is a realistic prospect of reaching a compromise on them.
I was a signatory to Amendment 80. There was a compelling reason to send that to the other place and ask it to consider again the question of excluding local authority contributions from the calculation of the social care cap. The reason was, very straightforwardly, that it was introduced in the Commons at a late stage in the passage of the Bill. At that point—on Report—MPs themselves complained vociferously that they had not had an opportunity to consider it for any period of time, so it has gone back. In sending it back, we have done our job, but I am afraid I see no evidence that the Government, given their majority in the Commons, are going to reconsider the central question of excluding local authority contributions from the cap. I think they are wrong but, particularly given the substantial financial consequences it would entail, it would be wrong for us to think that we could insist—and if we cannot insist, we should not send it back.
Where Motion H is concerned, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who kindly moved my amendment—which was entirely in my name— as at that point I was down with Covid for the first time. I would not now insist on that provision, not least because it entails financial privilege. From my point of view, it was to say, “Would you please get on with it?” My noble friend said in his introduction that the Government are getting on with it. I can promise him that, if they do not get on with it by the latter part of next year, we will be complaining and will be right to do so.
I turn to Motion G. Why have I tabled Motion G2? I confess that I have done it not in the expectation that we will send it to the other place because, as my noble friend said, that would be to intervene with quite a significant argument at this very late stage. However, I think the development of these arguments on the part of the Government has been quite interesting. First, they said, “Well, we are doing something and something is better than nothing.” Indeed, something is better than nothing, but it is not necessarily the best thing. So we said, “Hang on a minute. You said you would do this last September and introduce the cap.” We thought they were doing something that was very much in line with the Dilnot recommendations, even if the cap was set at a higher level, but it then turned out that they were not and that they were excluding local authority contributions.
On the financial implications of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, set out very well, if it saves £900 million, from whom principally is that saving to be derived? It is from those who are otherwise the beneficiaries of local authority contributions and who, as a consequence, are not asked to pay towards the cap. As the noble Baroness said, particularly if they have dementia and long-term care needs, over the years their assets will be substantially more depleted than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think we should kid ourselves: the Government are planning to do something which, in my view, exacerbates significantly the inequitable characteristics of the way the cap works. It is regressive in its effects.
Curiously, when they were debating this at the other end, they looked at the risk that incorporating local authority contributions would mean that, in different places across the country, different local authorities would provide different levels of contributions and therefore people would end up with some inequity in the amount they had to pay. This is no doubt true, but it feels like the Government shrieked at the mouse of inequity that would result from that and ignored the elephant of inequity that is in the removal of the local authority contribution to the cap.
I am always rather amused when the Minister is briefed—this happened at the other end as well—to tell us about what happened in 2012 or 2014 on the Care Act. Yes, Andrew Dilnot looked at whether the cap should be expressed as a percentage of people’s assets and did not recommend it, but that is not what is proposed in Motion G2. The model that was rejected was that there would not be a cap figure and that the cap would simply be expressed as a percentage—the so-called limited liability model. We did not support it, but the Dilnot model also had a lower cap and its structure, with the changes in the means test, would have had the effect that nobody would have lost more than about 45% of their assets. The structure the Government are now bringing in will mean that people with relatively few assets will continue to lose, in effect, 100% of their assets. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, correctly said, people who have substantial assets will only ever lose a modest proportion of those. It is not fair.
I am going to retreat, but I tell my noble friend that I think the Government should say, and I hope he will say in response, that if this turns out to be inequitable, which I believe it will, and the Government want to find the money to do something about it, they have the means to do so. I think that using the concept of a percentage of one’s assets is a legitimate way of doing it. Finally, just to put this on the record, my noble friend said that we cannot do that and that it is unworkable because people’s assets are constantly changing. No: if you do it in the context of the cap, people whose assets are significantly in excess of the requisite calculation of the amount of relevant assets would never have to be checked again. It is therefore perfectly possible to do it in relation only to those people whose financial means have to be regularly assessed for the purposes of the local authority means test in any case.
It is entirely workable; it could be done. Frankly, I think that with the passage of time the Government will realise that it is a better way of managing the cap; saying, for example, that 50% or 60% of one’s assets may be required to meet the cap but never as much as 100%. So I am retreating, and I encourage noble Lords not to insist on something that has substantial financial implications and on which the other place—as was quite clear from the debate—is not willing to shift. I hope my noble friend will say that, if this or indeed any future Government were to decide that they wanted to ameliorate the regressive effects of the exclusion of local authority contributions, there are other routes to doing so. Setting a percentage of the assets of people who are subjected to the means test as their contribution to the cap would be an effective way.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, as others have spoken fully to other amendments in this group, I will confine my remarks to Motion L1 in my name. I thank the Minister for the open-door policy that he has had and for his willingness on many occasions to discuss with me the problems for parents who can feel completely overwhelmed in the face of not being listened to by clinicians. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Masham and Lady Stowell, for their helpful comments and advice behind the scenes, and to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who has shared with me his extensive experience on mediation.
In drafting my amendment to the amendment, I was particularly concerned that we must take evidence directly from parents, including parents whose dispute has not necessarily progressed to court. While it is quite extreme to progress as far as court, there seem to be a lot of parents who have felt completely overwhelmed in the face of personal tragedy. In an interview, Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, said about mediation:
“We’ve got to get better at communicating with complainants, better at learning from bad experiences, and better at using early resolution and mediation so that sometimes we don’t have to use adjudication at all.”
He went on to point out some of the cultural characteristics of the health service that make these encounters hard. He listed professional dominance, clinical hegemony, hierarchy and defensiveness as characteristics that make it particularly difficult.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for flagging up parent carers. They often feel deeply disempowered because they are completely dependent on the help of others to manage a very difficult situation and so particularly inhibited in the face of any professional dominance; of course, there have been some stories in the press.
In response to the Minister, I will gladly be involved in developing the scope of this review. I hope that he will rapidly put me in contact with the official who will be responsible for it because we need to start as soon as possible. The government amendment stipulates a year—actually a very short time to run an inquiry—so it needs to happen quickly. I hope that there will be funding resources attached to this; it cannot be done on thin air or a shoestring. I hope also that there will be support for it to be done properly so that we can take evidence. Developing the scope of the review will be very important and I think there are parent groups who would particularly wish to be consulted at that early stage as well.
In the letter that we were sent, I note that the Government said:
“Should the review make recommendations for legislative change, and the Government agrees with those recommendations, we would seek to bring forward legislation where parliamentary time allows.”
I see that the Government have left themselves a small out, but, if this is to be a properly conducted review with clear recommendations, I hope that they will listen to that evidence and will not shirk at taking whatever steps are necessary.
I conclude simply by thanking the Minister, the Bill team and the other officials who have engaged in many hours of discussion on this issue. I look forward to working with speed on getting this review up and running.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Motion Q: Amendments 105 and 105A. I declare my health interests as in the register, particularly my role as a trustee for the Centre for Mental Health.
I was disappointed that the Government did not accept my Amendment 105, which was passed in this House on Report, regarding mental health membership on integrated care boards. I repeat my thanks for the support I received for the amendment from Labour and Liberal Back-Benchers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, some Cross-Benchers, and from my own Front Bench, my noble friends Lady Wheeler, Lady Merron and especially Lady Thornton, who has been tremendously supportive throughout. I am also extremely grateful for the continuing and unstinting support of organisations outside Parliament, such as the Centre for Mental Health and the Mental Health Foundation.
However, I am satisfied that the Government’s amendment in lieu, Amendment 105A, captures the essence of my amendment: that the voice of mental health should be at the board table at the inception of the 42 ICBs, and play a crucial part from the start in determining service priorities, budget and resource allocation, workforce growth and development, and commissioning arrangements, among other things. The chairs of ICBs will now have responsibility for the appointment of mental health representation and will be held accountable for their decisions. This House, the other place, external bodies, the public and I will all scrutinise these appointments very carefully.
The Government’s amendment, devised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and passed on Report, will put a double lock on mental health representation because of its intention to review the skill mix and expertise of ICB membership in the future. We had further assurance in the Minister’s letter to all noble Lords, which said:
“We strongly agree with the principle underpinning Lord Bradley’s amendment and with his view that ICBs will be strengthened by having at least one member with knowledge of Mental Health on the Board. As it stands, however, the current drafting would create significant legal ambiguity, which is why we tabled an amendment in lieu in the Commons to ensure that the principle is maintained in a legally robust way”.
I am grateful to the Minister for this assurance, and I believe that in taking it together with the two amendments, the ambition for parity of esteem between physical and mental health will, as a result, take a further significant step forward.
The Government’s amendment in lieu of my amendment should ensure that the voice of mental health is heard clearly on ICBs and in the wider integrated care system, and that the mental health and well-being services needed and demanded by the public are at the heart of integrated health policy in the future.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motions L and L1. Where we have got to today is a good example of what the House of Lords is for. When this Bill came to the Lords it had nothing in this area—but by working together, particularly with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, we have produced an acceptable clause. I would have liked more, but it is acceptable.
My skill, so to speak, was mediation, not health. What I hoped to do was to alter subtly but importantly the power relations in the hospital setting. The aim of compulsory mediation is that the patient would be given some power, although only the power to ask for mediation, which is, after all, a system whereby both sides have to agree. None the less, it would give them a way of articulating an issue. One of the jobs of a mediator is to make sure that both sides of any case are understood not only by the other side but by the side presenting it. I did the odd mediation in my time, and when we got down to it, it was clear that the people asking for it were not quite sure what they were asking for. So mediation is a way in which to calm things down, and that is what I was hoping to do. In the middle of all this, the Ministry of Justice came forward and said that it would cover certain legal costs. My aim was actually to reduce costs on the NHS by producing a rather cheaper way—but I am sure that that is something to be welcomed.
I will make just two or three small points. First, when this review is done, it is important that the mediation system that comes out is capable of being enforced. There are basically two types of mediation—what in lay man’s terms we used to call family mediation, and commercial mediation. The weakness with family mediation was that it was non-binding. I never did family mediation, but I belonged to a group with both sides in it, and one of the most distressing things was the huge amount of time that could be put in, and then the mediation agreement was just renounced and set aside. That has to be avoided; we cannot be in a situation where there is an NHS mediation and, let us say, the senior consultant says, “I’m not having that—I refuse to agree.” There has to be something equivalent to what in commercial mediation is known as the Tomlin order, which is the order whereby the court underwrites the mediation; it does not intervene in it but it gives it the force of law so that it can be enforced.
The detailed points that I would like to make to the Minister are as follows. First, in the clause that he has tabled, the department refers to
“the carrying out of a review into the causes of disputes”.
It needs to go a bit wider than the causes; it needs to be a review into the causes and the ways of solving disputes. It is no good having a catalogue saying, “This is where there are disputes.” It has to actually provide a solution to the disputes.
My second point is about where the provision refers to
“a report on the outcome of the review, within one year beginning with the date on which this section comes into force.”
It is a very simple question here: when does the Minister envisage that the section will come into force? There are things in Acts that have been around for years and which have never actually come into force. When will this come into force? I also hope that he will be able to give us a favourable answer on Motion L1, and the additional amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It adds a couple of very important points to this amendment, and I hope that it will be accepted.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I wish to comment extremely briefly on Motion E, in relation to unpaid carers and hospital discharge, and to ask the Minister one question. I want first to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for her unstinting leadership on this issue. I very much welcome the amendment in lieu which the Government have brought forward to ensure that carers and patients are properly involved in discharge decisions.
My one point is that the cost of living crisis is a reality and life is getting tougher for many people. Involving carers at the point of discharge gives them the opportunity to say that they are unable to care, or unable to get the support they need for caring because they are juggling work and care—for example, if it is impossible for them to give up work fully because they need to feed the family or pay the bills. Can the Minister give me assurance that carers’ needs to juggle work and care will be both properly covered and explored in the guidance which I know that the Government are committed to producing, and which I am very much looking forward to seeing?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall make a few brief comments about Motions A, E, G1, L1 and Q. On Motion A, we very much welcome the Government’s amendments in lieu, to make it clear that no commissioning organisation within the ICS can have a member appointed to it who could reasonably be regarded as undermining the independence of the health service because of their involvement in the private sector. The Government have listened to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whom I congratulate for spotting the loophole, and that is very good and welcome.
On the matter of carers and safe discharge in Motion E, we on these Benches were concerned that unpaid carers would not be sufficiently consulted and their own health and well-being might not be sufficiently taken into account. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out, at my request, how the impact on carers will be assessed before a patient is discharged into her or his care. However, at the moment, when there is an outbreak of Covid-19 in a hospital ward, the carers are not allowed to visit the patient. Therefore, those conversations are not taking place. I should be very interested to know what the Minister will suggest about how those conversations can take place in that situation.
It is very important that appropriate action is taken to address the carer’s needs as well as those of the patient. Indeed, if those needs were not addressed, it would affect the ability of the carer to look after the patient, so both would suffer. I know this is a big responsibility for local authorities, which are strapped for cash, but it is vital that these needs are catered for, especially in light of the fact that those many thousands of unpaid carers save the public purse a massive amount of money, as well as looking after their loved ones with the loving care and attention that it would be very difficult for professionals, however dedicated, to give.
On Motions L and L1, I have listened carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and she is quite justified. Governments have a habit of promising action but then moving on to something else, so we on these Benches, like the noble Baroness, will be looking out very carefully for the results of the review and the actions which we hope will follow.
We very much welcome Motion Q and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on achieving what he has. We particularly welcome the mention in the amendment in lieu of the word “prevention” of mental ill-health, as well as diagnosis and treatment.
Finally, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, we support Motion G1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. I want to add just two comments to those of my noble friend. We should support the amendment because the government savings will be paid by the poorest and most vulnerable, and 80% of those with dementia who have very long-term caring needs will be worse off under the Government’s proposals, and that is not right.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this wide-ranging and interesting debate. Perhaps I can deal quickly with some of the issues. On mental health membership of the ICBs, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for his persistence, but also for accepting the amendment that we produced in lieu.
On conflicts of interest, I thank all noble Lords for acknowledging the work that the Government have done, and I shall try to answer a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the chairs of the ICBs. They are appointed by NHS England, with the Secretary of State’s approval, which is the route by which the Department of Health and Social Care can ensure that the chair does not undermine the independence of the NHS. NHS England and the Secretary of State will want to appoint people who meet the highest standards and will not undermine the interests of the NHS. On the second question, ICBs will have to make arrangements to manage conflicts of interest to ensure that they do not affect, or appear to affect, the integrity of ICBs’ decision-making. This would implicitly include data sharing and access to information. I hope that that meets with the noble Lord’s approval and addresses his concerns.
On palliative care, I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for all her work and for teaching me so much about the subject. Indeed, the officials in my department are very grateful for what they have learned about the whole palliative care process: the noble Baroness has definitely put it right on the agenda for consideration.
It is clear that the views of parents are very important, and it is essential that their voices are heard. That is why we expect the review to include evidence from both parents and clinicians who have been involved in disagreements in the care of critically ill children.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for the points that he made and I hope that we will have further conversations. I would be happy to put my noble friend in touch with officials in my department, so that they can benefit from his wisdom and many years’ experience of mediation.
There are already robust duties to involve parent carers in hospital discharge planning. Parent carers of a disabled child are covered by the right, under the Children and Families Act 2014, to request a carers assessment at any time. We will continue working closely with the Department for Education to ensure that, in guidance, we signpost to existing rights and protections for these individuals. The existing guidance stresses that discharge teams should ascertain whether the carer is willing and able to provide care and support post discharge, before an assessment of longer-term needs. No assumptions should be made about their willingness or ability—that includes all forms of ability—to care. This will be set out in the new statutory guidance. As the noble Baroness rightly knows, we will be working with Carers UK on the guidance.
I will finish on the adult social care cap. I understand the concerns that many noble Lords have expressed. In the current system, individuals with more than £23,500 face unlimited costs. The cap is not a target to work towards; it is a backstop to make sure that people are not liable for unlimited costs of care. There are a number of different issues and views on this, but we believe that our proposal is better than the current system. Although I understand the concerns of this House, I once again urge noble Lords to consider that the other place has considered this and rejected noble Lords’ amendments. The Government Benches will be opposing Motions G1 and G2.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for the points he raised. We will look at all aspects of the trailblazer schemes; it would not be wise to limit what we look at. We want to get the best from that discovery and learning process, and perhaps spot with the trailblazing and piloting any unintended consequences. So we will look in a holistic way at how the trailblazer schemes are working before we roll them out nationally. We believe that that is wise and prudent.
I think that completes my points.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 29, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 29A.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I have the notes just in time. I just hope I have impressed noble Lords with our lean operation—although sometimes the leaner the operation, the more brittle it is.
The amendments in this group all relate to questions of accountability. Amendment 29 addresses the question of workforce projections. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the sustained disagreement of the other place to this amendment. The Government are committed to improving workforce planning and we recognise the importance of having a properly trained workforce. Indeed, during my short time as Minister, noble Lords have asked a number of parliamentary Questions on workforce issues.
We are taking a number of steps to ensure that we have record numbers of staff working in the NHS and we are committed to continue to grow and invest in the workforce. This year, we have seen record numbers of staff in NHS trusts and CCGs, including doctors and nurses. The monthly workforce statistics for December show that there are more than 1.2 million full-time equivalents.
These workforce numbers come on the back of our record investment in the NHS, which is delivering on our manifesto commitment of 50,000 more nurses. We are on target with that, with nursing numbers a little over 27,000 higher in December 2021 than they were in September 2019. The spending review settlement will also underpin funding the training of some of the biggest undergraduate intakes of medical students and nurses ever. We recognise that doctors are liable to stay in the places they are trained, which is why we have opened up a number of new medical schools. That will take time to come through, but it is making sure that we are looking at the workforce in terms of longer timeframes.
The Secretary of State must, at least once every three years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) This report must include—
(a) an independent assessment of health and social care workforce numbers, current at the time of publication, and the projected workforce supply for the following five, ten and 15 years, and
(b) an independent assessment of future health and social care workforce numbers based on the projected health and care needs of the population for the following five, ten and 15 years, taking account of the Office for Budget Responsibility long-term fiscal projections.
(3) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(4) The organisations listed in subsection (3) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence and plans provided by local organisations and partners of integrated care boards.””
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that wide-ranging introduction on workforce. There are a lot of issues that we will want to consider later, but at the moment we have before us the issue of what the Commons have done. They have returned our amendment back to the Lords, and it is now for us to consider whether we wish to pursue it.
I want to go back to the situation on Report in this House, and the amendment to Clause 35 of the Bill on the subject of workforce planning. That was passed by your Lordships with an overwhelming majority in this House. I thank noble Lords who gave their support and welcomed that we wanted to return this issue to the Commons on that occasion. I want to stress strongly that it was supported not only in this place but by over 100 different organisations throughout the country—charities, patient groups, think tanks, royal colleges, professional bodies and organisations representing NHS management and those working in the service. They are extremely worried about our workforce numbers and the future. What is going to happen to our services if we do not have enough people in the workforce? We need a proper plan. We need to know how we are going to take this forward.
We had hoped that the Government would listen to the strength of the arguments put last time and the strength of feeling, not to mention that in the Commons. We also hoped that the Government would agree that workforce planning is the greatest problem facing the NHS and social care and that we are in crisis. We have to handle this problem. We hoped there would be agreement that we need better planning, because we know that, without improved planning, we will not be able to tackle the growing backlog in procedures and appointments, with people waiting to be treated by the service. Even this morning, on the “Today” programme, one of our charities—Macmillan Cancer Support—came forward to speak about cancer services and to strongly say, “Please will you sort this problem because it needs sorting?”
Regrettably, despite the extraordinary consensus in favour of the amendment, it was, as noble Lords know, rejected in the other place. The case for improvements to workforce planning has been made by me and many others many times during the passage of this Bill. The current NHS waiting list stands at 6.1 million, and it is rising. More people are joining the waiting list every day—more than those who are being treated. This is not a new problem; according to the King’s Fund, it has been like this since 2016. Of course, we have had to deal with the pandemic, which has made matters a great deal worse.
I thank my noble friend the Minister very sincerely for the time he and the Bill team have spent with me trying to sort this problem out. But today, and often in previous debates, we are told that there are record numbers of staff in the health service. The fact remains that this does not seem to be enough—but of course we do not really know. We can experience it but we have not got the figures. We do not know whether we have the right people in the right place at the right time. We do not know if we have a plan for retention of the wonderful staff already working within the NHS and social care. As the backlog figures suggest, we are not meeting, and we will not meet, the public’s expectations when they turn to the NHS for care and support.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, although my noble friend Lady Walmsley will be speaking from our Benches on the workforce amendments, I just want to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the eloquent speech she made on the need for proper and effective workforce planning. I support everything she said.
I will now speak to Motions D and D1 on genocide and modern slavery, having added my name to amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. I thank the Government for their Amendment 48A in Motion D. Frankly, a review of the NHS supply chains should undoubtedly happen, regardless of the Bill, but the amendment does not go nearly far enough to stop the practice of suppliers to the NHS purchasing goods where there has been a risk of slavery and human trafficking. The amendment talks only about the Secretary of State having to “mitigate the risk”. In the linguistic range of a Minister making commitments, mitigation does not hit even the halfway bar.
We need to be blunt. A very large quantity of NHS medical equipment is sourced, in whole or in part, from the People’s Republic of China. Despite the Government denying that any equipment is sourced from the Uighur region, reports have found that the UK Government have bought more than £150 million-worth of PPE from Chinese firms directly linked to abuses of Uighur rights abuses. As recently as this month, supply chain specialists revealed that the NHS continues to be supplied PPE from a company known to use Uighur forced labour programmes. Without legislation mandating transparency and due diligence, it seems very unlikely that the Government will be able to ensure that they are not sourcing goods from companies practising modern slavery.
Amendment 48B in Motion D1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, goes beyond the Government’s proposals for a review by seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State must by regulation make provision to ensure that all procurement of goods and services for the health service in England avoids slavery. The UK Government have to face up to their obligations to prevent through the law any forced labour and people trafficking in UK health supply chains. From these Benches we will support Amendment 48B in Motion D1.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Motion B1 on workforce planning and Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfiguration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just reminded us, there is a huge groundswell of support for the need to do proper workforce planning in the NHS, but the fact is that today we do not need to relitigate the fundamental arguments, because your Lordships have already decided, by a margin of 171 to 119 votes on 3 March, that that is indeed what is required.
Of course, if the facts change, we should change our minds. Have the facts changed since 3 March? Have we seen the long-awaited detailed workforce plan for the health and social care sector that has been promised yet suppressed for the last six years? Regrettably, we have not. Have we even had concrete commitments to the detailed, costed and quantified five, 10 and 15-year outlooks that will supposedly be forthcoming in the spring? No, we have not had commitments that those numbers will be able to be produced without fear or favour, or Treasury veto.
However, we have before us two new data points. One is the survey of 650,000 NHS front-line staff, half of whom—52%—are now telling us that they cannot do their jobs properly because of a shortage of staff in their local service. The second data point is the results of the British Social Attitudes survey, telling us that nearly half of our fellow citizens have noticed that fact; they too believe that one of the fundamental problems standing in the way of performance by the health service is the shortage of staff.
If the Government are not inclined to listen to the hundred or so organisations that have supported this amendment or, indeed, to the results of surveys of front-line staff or the public, perhaps they will listen to a commentator from the Spectator:
“The lack of workforce planning by the Government—and its continual refusal to commit to it—means satisfaction from patients and staff is likely to plummet still further.”
I do not believe the Government want that. Nobody wants that, which is why we should take this opportunity to listen to the clear message that we have been sent by patients, staff and the public.
I turn briefly to Motion C1 on the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfigurations. There is an obvious read-across between the discussion on workforce and the discussion on reconfigurations. In the real world, it is often staff shortages which give rise to concerns about the safe provision of services, hence the request for reconfigurations. In these circumstances, and coming just a few days after the Ockenden review of maternity safety, it is all the more dangerous that the new powers in Clause 40 and Schedule 6 would allow the Secretary of State to suppress changes needed to keep patients safe and to pre-empt and override the concerns of local clinicians, local patient groups, local authorities and even the Care Quality Commission.
There could be safeguards but, unfortunately, to date at least—perhaps, depending on what we do today, this will resurface after Easter—we are being asked to support the original text of the Bill, which has taken no account of any of the concerns that have been raised in both Houses during its passage. Instead, on the reconfiguration powers, today the Government are essentially praying in aid an argument not on the substance but on the merits of democratic oversight by the Secretary of State. This is despite the fact that previous Health Secretaries have managed democratically to supervise the National Health Service without requiring these new powers, despite the fact that former Health Ministers—Conservative Health Ministers, Labour Health Ministers and Liberal Democrat Health Ministers—all oppose these measures and have spoken out, including in your Lordships’ House, and despite the fact that democratically elected Health Ministers in just about every other European country have never sought and do not possess these types of powers.
If the Government want to argue Motion C on the crucible of democratic oversight, it seems that by that logic they should indeed support Motion C1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which further enhances the democratic oversight of the use of these proposed new powers, giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise these types of interventions. Therefore, for those reasons, frustratingly, perhaps, I find that we are in a position where Motions B1 and C1 are still necessary.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on her excellent speech and to support her on Motion B1. Addressing workforce shortages in our health system is a wicked problem. It is complex and complicated and it is a problem that is shared by every healthcare system in the world. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister and the Government are sincere in their belief that they are doing a lot to address the problem but, as my noble friend said, the problem is that we do not know its scale. Until we do and we are open and honest about the complexity and size of the problem. we will not be able to move forward.
Sadly, this ought to be one of the reasons why the NHS is the best healthcare system in the world. It, above all other healthcare systems, ought to be able to do this sort of long-term, complex, detailed planning as a single-payer, state-provided system. Most developed countries do not have those benefits, yet today we are in a place where the Government appear to be saying that we should just keep doing what we have always done. There is a basic maxim in life that if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always got. The reality is that unless we are willing to bend and change, we will not get any meaningful, sustained solutions to this burning problem. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has bent and changed and has adapted her amendment to try to address what I know were some of the major concerns of the Government about the risk of a verified, firm and unwavering false certainty in a forward forecast and the need to recognise that this is a complex problem where there is likely to be a range. If we are not open and honest about that, we will never really address the issues.
This is a wicked problem that requires us to be brave enough to admit that we do not have all the answers. That is the courage we would need to see in publishing a workforce plan and is why I support Motion B1.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Motion D1. It is straightforward and I need not detain the House long. We all know the situation in Xinjiang province; it has been set out in graphic detail in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others.
In recent years, the Government have procured billions of pounds’ worth of medical equipment sourced in whole or in part from Xinjiang. Despite widespread reports of forced labour in that region, our supply chain laws have failed to prevent such procurement. The Government have repeatedly condemned China over its treatment of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province and has imposed sanctions in response to its human rights abuses. Indeed, my right honourable friend the then Foreign Secretary said that torture “on an industrial scale” was happening there. Then the new Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Liz Truss, told our ambassador to China that China was committing genocide—at last someone in the FCDO was admitting the truth. Everyone knows that it is genocide. The independent Uyghur Tribunal, the US Government, our own Parliament and five other Parliaments determined it.
However, every time we try amendments, however modest, on trade with companies using slave labour in Xinjiang, the Government throw a wobbly if we use the word “genocide” and give the usual, simply unbelievable answer that only a court can pronounce on that, despite there being no court capable of holding China to account. There have been an awful lot of government pronouncements in the past two days about Putin and Russia committing war crimes and atrocities, and rightly so, but there has been no suggestion of a court needing to pronounce on that. However, let us park all that.
The Government will not accept any amendment which remotely hints at genocide. So my amendment does not seek to go there. Instead, it uses the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is already on the statute book. We sent a simple, three-section amendment to the Commons: first, to make regulations ensuring that the DHSC did not buy goods and services from a country which may be in contravention of the genocide convention; secondly, a Minister should assess whether there was a serious risk of genocide; and, thirdly, a Minister had to make that assessment if a chair of a Select Committee requested it. That was rejected in the Commons and the Government gave us back the complicated and rather complex Amendment 48A in lieu. As we see from the government amendment, the Secretary of State would have to carry out a review in case there was slavery and human trafficking. He would determine the scope of the review and what parts of the NHS it might apply to. Then he must lay it before Parliament within 18 months and give his own views on how he would mitigate it.
My amendment combines that government review amendment with a simple one-line clause. This one-line amendment was moved in another place by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith MP and was supported by all Opposition Front Benches and Conservatives who included the former Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt MP, and the latterly Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland MP. In the other place this simple amendment was rejected by my honourable friend Ed Argar MP. Now Ed Argar is a good Minister but someone drafting his speech obviously found an old “Yes Minister” script and wrote a classic Sir Humphrey response:
“In developing the modern slavery strategy review, it will continue to be important to engage across Government and civil society, nationally and internationally, to collect the necessary evidence to agree an ambitious set of objectives … We remain of the view that this is not the right legislation for the proposed changes.”
Can your Lordships not just hear Sir Humphrey adding, “A very courageous decision, Minister”?
Well, the right time is right now and the right legislation is this Bill. Of course, the Government always have a better Bill coming along in the future. The government amendment in lieu relies on the Modern Slavery Act, and so does mine, and while I criticise the obfuscating waffle of the government amendment in lieu, I am not attempting to replace it or reject but will support it. I am merely adding a one-line sentence to it. It is simple and does what the Minister in the other place said the Government wanted; that is, to
“further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude suppliers from bidding for contracts where they have a history of misconduct—or extreme misconduct in the case of slavery, forced labour or similar.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; cols. 926-27.]
Ignoring the fact that genocide and slavery are a wee bit worse than misconduct, my amendment gives the Department of Health and Social Care the opportunity to desist from buying goods and services from anywhere practising modern slavery.
I do not blame those involved in procurement for the sorry fact that slave-trade goods have entered our supply chains. Those working in the Cabinet Office, NHS procurement and the Department of Health have worked jolly hard in very difficult circumstances over the past few years. The fault is not theirs. We clearly need better tools to keep slavery out of our supply chains and this neat little amendment would allow the Government to do exactly that.
We do not need to engage the whole of government, nor civil society here and abroad. After all, Dominic Raab has just cancelled a contract for solar panels on prisons because parts were made in Xinjiang province, and I am certain that he did not consult civil society here or overseas before doing so. If the Secretary of State for Justice can make that unilateral decision, so can the Department of Health and Social Care. Nor need we worry that we will be deprived of essential PPE from Xinjiang. On 31 March, I found the following announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care:
“Personal protective equipment for sale by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) including visors, gowns, aprons and goggles”,
alongside a link to a site listing:
“Various Locations - Online Auction of Pallets of New PPE Equipment to include Gowns, Visors, Goggles, Sanitizer & Aprons - NO RESERVE!”
Let us be honest: the DHSC is the Government’s biggest procurer and happens to be the department with the biggest problem. More than any other department, it needs extra help to keep slavery away. I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said, but in view of the fact that the Government will not support my amendment, I regret that I shall have no option but to test the opinion of the House in due course.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said. I find it extraordinary that the Government are taking such a slow pace in relation to the important issue he raises. Of course, I relate it to my own amendments on forced organ harvesting, which is yet another example of the deplorable behaviour of the Chinese authorities. I refer the House to the China Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice in 2019, which stated:
“The Tribunal’s members are certain—unanimously, and sure beyond reasonable doubt—that in China forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience has been practiced for a substantial period of time involving a very substantial number of victims.”
Current human tissue legislation covers organ transplantation within the UK, but it does not cover British citizens travelling abroad for transplants. My amendment, which the House accepted, went to the other place. It was not accepted there but, as the Minister has kindly said, the Government put in their own amendment in lieu which we see here this afternoon. I am very grateful to the Minister for this. The impact of the Government’s amendment is to ensure that offences under Section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004, which currently prohibits people in this country from commercial dealings in human material for transplantation, will now be extended to acts outside the United Kingdom. The amendment covers people who give or receive a reward for the supply or for an offer to supply an organ or any controlled material. That is very welcome indeed. It is welcome because it deals with a gap in UK legislation, but it is especially welcome because it sends a powerful message internationally that the UK will not be complicit in this appalling crime. I am very grateful to the Minister and very much support the amendment he brings.
I now turn to my Amendment 57B, set out in Motion F1, which relates, as the Minister said, to issues to do with patient data and the proper protection of it. Laid out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is the concept of a safe haven for patient data across health and social care. Because of the sensitive nature of that data, I sought, and the House agreed, to keep those statutory protections in place and not allow NHS England to take on that responsibility because of a potential conflict of interest in that role.
The issue arises because, last November, the Secretary of State announced that NHS Digital and NHSX would merge with NHS England to accelerate the digital transformation of the NHS. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to do this by the transfer of a function from one relevant body to another. NHS Digital is currently the statutory safe haven for patient data and my concern is whether it is appropriate to place that responsibility in NHS England, in view of the inherent conflict of interest that might occur in its wider role. As a matter of principle, I and a number of other noble Lords consider that the collection, analysis and publication of public data should be independent of any operational body. In effect, NHS England will be able to decide that its legitimate interests override those of the citizen and the patient, with little or no external constraint or scrutiny.
The noble Lord and I are at one in wanting to speed up digital transformation. I will set out what I am trying to do here, with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We are trying to be helpful. We want to make sure that the integrity of the safe havens is retained within this digital transformation. As the noble Lord said, we have had an extremely useful discussion with officials who are leading this programme in the department. I hope the Minister will be able to offer assurances that the integrity of the safe haven concept will be retained; that no transfer will take place until those safeguards are fully set out in the regulations necessary to bring the transfer into force; and, in particular, that strict governance arrangements will be put in place, subject to external independent scrutiny and oversight established on a statutory basis.
Can the Minister also confirm that the merged entity will at the least maintain the status quo of transparency and, indeed, go further for the patients whose data it is and whose trust and confidence are so necessary? Can he further confirm that a data usage register will be published which covers all projects accessing patient-level data and shows which data was accessed? Will the National Data Guardian be consulted on all this before the Government progress the regulations? Finally, will the Minister ensure that the regulations will avoid the need for NHS England—this was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—to be in the difficult position of sending legal directions to itself, and can he say how in practice this would work?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, at earlier stages of this Bill, with my noble friend Lady Finlay, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, it was a great pleasure to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in moving his amendments on organ transplantation. It is a crucial issue and I congratulate the Minister on responding so constructively and positively with that amendment. I think that we all wish it a fair wind as it goes on to the statute book.
No one was more relieved than me to see my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Blencathra back in his place today, because it fell to me on Report, when he was afflicted by Covid, to move his amendment. It is a pleasure to follow the speech he made earlier and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, committing her Front Bench—I think the Opposition are of a similar mind—to support this amendment if the noble Lord takes it to a vote. I have only a couple of additional points to make to your Lordships.
One is about the sheer volume of items of personal protective equipment for which China is recorded as the country of origin—I raised this during Oral Questions earlier today. Since Report, the Minister has confirmed that 24.1 billion items have been bought from the People’s Republic of China, where of course the Chinese Communist Party exercises control over all companies. The cost to the British taxpayer has been £10.9 billion.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, in our debate on 31 January, I made the point at some length that it was not possible to trust accreditation of products based on paper and supply chains. I assume that the Minister has been briefed on this. After that debate, on 3 March, he wrote a long letter to me and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and towards the end of it raised my point about the supply of cotton-based products.
I had explained that it is possible, using the techniques of element analysis, to take a product and find out where the cotton was grown. You do not need paperwork to do that, or trusted supplier chains. The technique and the technology are there. You can find out whether it was grown in Xinjiang, another part of China, or another part of the world. The Minister said in his letter that bidders to the NHS supply chain will have to certify that they are better-cotton-initiative certified. That is the very thing that we need to avoid. You cannot trust paper-based systems of supply. You must use the technology to find out where the cotton is grown.
In the government amendment that has come from the Commons, paragraph 3 specifically refers to cotton-based products—so, given the final paragraph of the Minister’s letter, saying that the NHS supply chain does not have a contract to use the element-analysis services supplied by Oritain, what has happened since? Has there been any contact between the Department of Health and the NHS supply chain with the company that has the technology? I have no interest to declare here. I made it absolutely clear in the debate that this came out of a “long read” in the Guardian way back in September. The technology is there, not just in cotton but in other issues. Here I am just using it for cotton—the uniforms, the mattresses and the products. In subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 48A, the Government are going to assess cotton. Have they done anything since our debate in Committee to make arrangements to use the technology, on the basis that you cannot trust paper-based supply chain accreditation? It is a simple question, and I would like an answer.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment D1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Last night I was part of a BMA web conference mounted by the Ethics Committee, of which I am an elected member, looking at the powerful evidence coming out of Xinjiang province in China. The concern is that, if we are purchasing products from there, we are complicit in the appalling human rights abuses that we were shown evidence of in this webinar. Therefore, I hope the House will support that amendment.
I return to the very important Amendment B1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. This is not just a static situation. It is worsening. All that we have done is not just more of the same; we are actually sliding downhill rapidly. I want to give a little bit of data to the House to support that statement. There are now 1,565 fewer GPs than in 2015, meaning that there is a shortfall of 2,157 against the target that was set by the Government in their manifesto promise, in terms of where we are tracking to date.
The number of fully qualified GPs by headcount has decreased by over 600, so there are now just 0.45 fully qualified GPs per 1,000 patients in England, down from 0.52 in 2015. This means that each GP is responsible for about 300 more patients than previously. In terms of physiotherapy—I declare an interest as president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy—the model shows that 500 new physios are needed each year for multiple years to meet demand. There needs to be a trebling of the 6,000 NHS physio support workers. In nursing, the district nursing numbers have dropped from 7,055 in 2009 to 3,900 in 2021, which is a 45% drop. This is all going in the wrong direction. From the data that I could obtain, it looks as if three-quarters of nursing vacancies are filled by temporary staff.
This amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is crucially important. It would be a dereliction of our duty to ignore supporting that amendment, given all that we know and all the work that has gone on. That is not to be critical of the Minister and his team at all, because I am sure that it is not his personal wish that we do not have this in place—but we certainly do need a completely new approach to workforce planning.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I wish to lend my support very briefly to Motion B1, moved so very compellingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I simply wish to pick up and echo the telling point from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who I think broadly said that if you carry on doing the same thing, you are going to get the same results.
I have had a look over the last week at what results we are getting. We have had the frankly shocking revelations in the Ockenden review, highlighting the really severe implications for patient safety, particularly for women and babies, when there are just not enough suitably trained staff around to do the vital job that they are there to do. I looked at that review last night and found it truly shocking. In the last 24 hours, we have had a Care Quality Commission report looking at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. It said that they lacked enough qualified clinical staff to keep women and infants safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right treatment. There is also today’s report—it may have been yesterday’s—from the Health and Social Care Select Committee, highlighting the critical NHS staff shortages affecting cancer services in England, meaning that too many people are missing out on that critical early cancer diagnosis which is so vital to their chances of survival.
I know those are the worst things happening and that there are lots of good things, but those things are not acceptable. Things like that are why public satisfaction in the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, is sadly going down. That is a real problem; it is the reason I so strongly support Motion B1 and why there is such strong cross-party support for it in this Chamber.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I will be brief and not repeat what others have said. However, it is worth noting that in the Statement on the Ockenden report, the Secretary of State for Health said:
“I am also taking forward the specific recommendations that Donna Ockenden has asked me to. The first is on the need to further expand the maternity workforce.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; col. 819.]
That phrase could be repeated for every part of the NHS and social care workforce, so I believe that has changed the situation since the other House debated this issue.
The public are asking what the national insurance levy is for if not to increase the number of professional staff in training. We are turning away people who want to be paramedics and nurses, as my noble friend has just said, who want to train locally. Of course we should undertake ethical overseas recruitment as well, but we need both. I firmly believe that this amendment needs the full support of this House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and to ensure that full support for Motion B1 has been presented from all round your Lordships’ House, including the Government Benches. The Green group also supports Motion C1 particularly strongly, and Motions D1, F1, G1 and L1, but I will speak briefly only to Motion B1 because it is so crucial.
In introducing this group the Minister spoke, as the Government often do, about the record numbers of staff in the NHS. I do not think anyone has yet mentioned the NHS staff survey conducted between September and November. Just 21% of nurses and midwives thought that there were enough staff in their unit to do their job properly and provide an adequate standard of care; almost 80% thought there were not enough. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the Ockenden report: that helped to highlight that, despite the fact that the Government have been trying to recruit more midwives, in the last year the number of midwives has actually gone down.
We really have to ask ourselves why the Government are so opposed to this amendment when there is such strong support for it around this House and among all the key bodies around the country. It may be that the Government have an ideological objection to the word “planning”, or that the Minister does, but this is about the future of our NHS and all the evidence says that this is an essential amendment. Surely the Government are not going to let ideology stand in the way of the future of our NHS.
I finish by commenting on the typically wonderful introduction to this group from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who referred to the strong civil society campaign. The hashtag for it on Twitter is #StrengthInNumbers, and that says so much. We need the numbers and the facts so that we can get the numbers of staff in the NHS.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, regarding Motions F and F1. He, assisted by my noble friend Lady Brinton and I, has pursued the question of the future of data governance in the NHS with great determination and persistence. I pay tribute to him and to medConfidential in that respect. I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is equally determined to make sure that data governance in the new structures is designed to secure public trust. I very much hope that he will give the assurances sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
The key problem we identified early on was the conflict of interest referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with NHS England in effect marking its own homework, and those who have data governance responsibility reporting directly to senior managers within the digital transformation directorate. I hope that the assurances to be given by the Minister will set out a clear set of governance duties on transparency of oversight, particularly where NHS England is exercising its own statutory powers internally. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I plan to address matters in the group that have not been addressed by my noble friends. They are workforce planning, reconfiguration and organ tourism.
First, on Motion K, on organ tourism, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, my noble friend Lady Northover and others on their success in convincing the Government that something must be done about this dreadful trade. I also thank the Minister for listening.
On Motions B and B1, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and will be right behind her when she leads us into the electronic Content Lobby on her Motion B1. It was made clear during earlier stages of the Bill that Peers across the House believe proper planning for training and providing a safe health and care workforce is essential. We also hear that almost 90% of trust leaders do not think the NHS has robust plans in place to deal with the workforce shortage. We are asking a lot of the NHS and care workforce at the moment; they are badly understaffed but, at the same time, are being asked to reduce the backlog of treatments that built up during the pandemic, while Covid-19 is still rampant in the population and thousands of patients are still in hospital with that as the primary cause.
In these circumstances, we have a desperate need for a reliable system to plan for and provide the staff we need, but nobody has confidence in the current system—if you can call it that. However, it seems that the Treasury has stuck its oar in. I find that rather odd, since neither the Bill as drafted nor the various amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, have mandated the Treasury to fund the numbers of workers at every level who may be identified as necessary to deliver the health and care we need.
I accept that, when the yawning gap becomes clear between the numbers we have and the numbers we need for safe care, there would indeed be pressure on the Treasury to provide the money. However, it has been pointed out many times—including this afternoon, by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—that the NHS spends £6.2 billion every year on expensive agency staff, whose roles could be provided much more cheaply, and with better continuity for patients, by permanent employed staff. Considerable savings could be made to offset this.
It is significant that the Government are resisting the noble Baroness’s amendment. They know very well that the reviews she recommends would shine a light on the fact that the NHS and care systems do not know what they have got or need, and are badly short-staffed. The Government would be pressured to do something about it.
Since the Ockenden report, something else which is rather crazy has emerged. The Government have agreed to comply with all Ockenden’s recommendations, including on planning for and providing adequate staff in obstetrics and gynaecology. Hopefully, all maternity units will be safer in future, but it would be ridiculous to have a maternity unit adequately staffed in the same hospital as a cancer or stroke unit that was not. In voting for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, we will attempt to save the Government from making such a dreadful and unnecessary mistake. We will be voting for safe health and care services in the future, in the interests of patients and staff alike.
On Motions C and C1, we support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which she will no doubt speak to in a moment. In voting for this amendment, we will again be attempting to save the Secretary of State for Health and Care from getting himself into an awful pickle. There may be far too much temptation for a Secretary of State to use the powers in the Bill as it stands to meddle in matters far better decided by the professionals and local authorities on the ground. A clear process, which is rooted in local accountability, already exists for reviewing proposals for NHS reconfiguration—there is no call for the Secretary of State to be further involved except now and then if an election is in the offing. The Government have emphasised accountability throughout this Bill, but that accountability must be at the right level. Many of the decisions that might be made under the power that we are attempting to curtail today should be accountable to local people through those operating the local integrated care systems. By interfering, the Secretary of State may well corrode the very accountability that the Government say they want. We will be voting with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I sense a deepening of support in your Lordships’ House for the issues contained within this group. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for introducing Motion B1. I also put on record my thanks to the 100 organisations which have indicated their support and got involved to make this an even better Motion for us to consider.
Yesterday’s Health and Social Care Committee report said:
“Neither earlier diagnosis nor additional prompt cancer treatment will be possible without addressing gaps in the cancer workforce”
through a workforce plan. The lack of staff, both currently and projected, is not restricted to the cancer workforce but extends to the total staff shortage of some 110,000 across the NHS as well as 105,000 vacancies in social care, while some 27,000 NHS workers voluntarily left the health service in just three months last year, the highest number on record.
As we have heard, just last week your Lordships’ House debated the Ockenden review, which I believe has provided great focus on the issue of workforce planning. The review shockingly laid bare the reasons why hundreds of babies’ lives were avoidably cut short or damaged and mothers died; to their great credit, the Government have accepted every one of the recommendations. The clear finding here is that we must safely staff our maternity wards, yet midwives are leaving the NHS in greater numbers than it is possible to recruit them. If the Ockenden review does not illustrate why we need a workforce plan then I do not know what does.
It is worth reflecting on what Motion B1 is not about, in case that offers some late reassurance to the Minister. Despite needing all of these things, it does not commit the Government to hiring thousands more doctors and nurses, nor does it commit to new funding for the NHS. It does not even commit the Government to finally publishing the workforce strategy that the NHS is crying out for—even though the NHS has not had a comprehensive workforce strategy since the Government’s plan was published in 2003.
What Motion B1 talks about is an independent review of how many doctors, nurses and other staff are needed in health, social care and public health, both now and for the future, and that the report, which must be brought before Parliament, must be informed by integrated care boards, employers, trade unions and others—people with expertise and a great contribution to make. This is not just a question of recruitment, important though that is, but one of retention. There is absolutely no way out of planning and preparation; without them, it is just not possible to magic up the necessary staff. Motion B1 is about facing up to the scale of the workforce challenge so that we can see safe and efficient health and care. These Benches will certainly be supporting Motion B1 if the will of the House is tested.
I turn now to Motion C1 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. The inclusion of a clause about changes to reconfiguration shows that not all of the Bill was what the NHS was asking for. The powers in this clause are unnecessary and introduce a very considerable new layer of bureaucracy. Just about every commentator and representative group has said that this approach of an interventionist Secretary of State is quite wrong. As many have pointed out, the power that any proposal can be taken over by the Secretary of State takes us down a road of politicisation and will deter some from even trying to pursue necessary but controversial changes. It matters not that we are told that this power will be used only sparingly; if it is there, that will influence behaviour.
Given where we are in the parliamentary process, outright rejection of this provision would, of course, be problematic. Our alternative in this Motion is to say that, if the power is only rarely to be used—in exceptional circumstances, when intervention is justified—then the way to deal with this is to make that case to Parliament, to put it up for proper scrutiny and to show the evidence. If we are potentially to deprive people of their right to be consulted, then at least let Parliament do a proper job of examining this.
I now turn very briefly to Motions D1 and K. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for presenting Motion D1 today. It seeks to ensure that health service procurement of all goods and services avoids modern slavery; in other words, it takes us further than Motion D. I thank the Minister for the move forward contained within that Motion; however, if the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wishes to test the will of the House, we on these Benches will certainly be in support.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords for their persistence in ensuring that Motion K is before us today. Again, I thank the Minister for being so responsive on this point. I hope that, in the votes that follow, your Lordships’ House will swiftly take the opportunity to ask that we might further improve this Bill.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and their constructive debate and engagement, not only this evening but throughout the process of the Bill. I thank noble Lords also for their agreement to the measures we have drawn up on organ tourism. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the way he pushed the Government, making sure that we were able to find a constructive way of closing that gap.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kamall for that masterful summing up. It has been such a wide-ranging debate, so full of interest, and I thank all those who have supported the amendment, which is rather narrow compared to the enormous expanse of interest that we have had—and it has not only been about the UK. People have gone abroad and talked about China and all the things that are happening over there.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has been such a stalwart friend of mine and a great supporter of workforce planning. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has, of course, had more experience of this than most of us, running the great NHS England and NHS Improvement. I very much want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who has been a really strong supporter. I remember that in an earlier debate she said that no great organisation would run without knowing their workforce. Here we are with the NHS, this tremendous organisation that we have in this country, and we really do not know where it is going or how many staff are employed. We must look forward to see how it is going. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, it is a wicked problem that we have to solve.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so much. The noble Lord said that he supported this amendment, and then we had this very interesting segue to China and other countries, about the way in which certain products are sourced from around the world and how we have to be very careful that they are not subject to slavery. Certainly, that was true of the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Alton and Lord Rooker, and I thank them all very much for that very interesting part of the debate.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who really works in the NHS. She knows what it is like, and she can understand what it is like not to have enough staff to do what you want to do, and her figures were so worrying and interesting. She described it as a dereliction of our duty if we do not grab this issue and come to some resolution on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, so much, too, for her support, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Walmsley, who again has always supported the workforce plan. Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, very much for what she was saying, and for the support that she has given us. We have to face this challenge and come to some resolution.
I say to my noble friend Lord Kamall that I really am very grateful for the work that he has tried to do on this, and the meetings that I have had with him and the Bill team. He has explained the other issues that he and the Bill team want to explore. However, rhetoric is very compelling. We have the most wonderful wordsmiths in the Department of Health, and in the Civil Service generally. They can win our hearts with the words that they use—the rhetoric—but that is not good enough. We want the numbers; we want to know exactly where people are working, what their skills are and what the future is, to take this forward.
I thank my noble friend, whose patience is amazing and inexhaustible. We have been round this issue so often, but I am afraid that I was not convinced by what I heard today. I am not convinced by strategies or reports, unless they really have the figures, and I have no confidence that the reports that he mentioned, and the strategy, will have that. So with great regret, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Penn
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30 and 108, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 30A and 108A.
Baroness Thornton
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 30B and 108B as amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
“(1A) In section 272(6) of that Act (regulations), omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and after paragraph (c) insert “or
“(d) regulations under paragraph 6A of Schedule 10A,”.”
“6A (1) A direction under this Schedule may only be given if made in regulations.
(2) No direction may be given under this Schedule unless the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that the proposal for reconfiguration would be in the best interests of patients.””
Lord Kamall
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 48A in lieu.
48A: Page 49, line 3, at end insert the following new Clause—
“Review into NHS supply chains
(1) The Secretary of State must carry out a review into the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in NHS supply chains.
(2) The Secretary of State may determine which NHS supply chains to consider as part of the review or otherwise limit the scope of the review.
(3) But the review must at least consider a significant proportion of NHS supply chains for cotton-based products in relation to which companies formed under section 223 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (taken as a whole) exercise functions.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the review before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(5) The report must describe—
(a) the scope of the review, and
(b) the methodology used in carrying out the review.
(6) The report must include any views of the Secretary of State as to steps that should be taken to mitigate the risk mentioned in subsection (1).
(7) NHS England must assist in the carrying out of the review or the preparation of the report under this section, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.
(8) In this section—
“health service in England” means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006;
“NHS supply chain” means the supply chain for providing goods or services for the purposes of the health service in England;
“slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Lord Blencathra
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 48B in lieu—
48B: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Health service procurement and supply chains: modern slavery
The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the purposes of ensuring that procurement of all goods and services for the purposes of the health service in England avoids modern slavery.””
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 51 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 51A in lieu.
“(a) for section 74 substitute—
“74 Discharge of hospital patients with care and support needs
(1) Where a relevant trust is responsible for an adult hospital patient and considers that the patient is likely to require care and support following discharge from hospital, the relevant trust must, as soon as is feasible after it begins making any plans relating to the discharge, take any steps that it considers appropriate to involve—
(a) the patient, and
(b) any carer of the patient.
(2) In performing the duty under subsection (1), a relevant trust must have regard to any guidance issued by NHS England.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a relevant trust is responsible for a hospital patient if the relevant trust manages the hospital.
(4) In this section—
“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
“carer” means an individual who provides or intends to provide care for an adult, otherwise than by virtue of a contract or as voluntary work;
“relevant trust” means—
(a) an NHS trust established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or
(b) an NHS foundation trust.”;
(b) omit”.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 57, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 57A.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 80 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 80A to 80N in lieu.
“(a) in relation to eligible needs met by a local authority, to any amount the local authority charged the adult under section 14(1)(a) or 48(5) for meeting those needs;
(b) in relation to eligible needs met by a person other than a local authority, to what the cost of meeting those eligible needs would have been to the local authority that was the responsible local authority when the needs were met.”
“(b) the adult has at any time either—
(i) asked a local authority that was, at that time, the responsible local authority, to prepare an independent personal budget, or
(ii) had needs met by a local authority as mentioned in section 24(1).”
“(a) the current cost to the local authority of meeting those needs,
(b) how much of that cost the adult will be required to pay under section 14(1)(a), and
(c) the balance, if any, of the cost referred to in paragraph (a).”
“(a) the current cost to the local authority of meeting those eligible needs,
(b) how much of that cost the adult will be required to pay under section 14(1)(a), and”
“(a) what the current cost would be to the responsible local authority of meeting those eligible needs, and”
“(7) In section 31 (adults with capacity to request direct payments), in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) a personal budget for an adult specifies an amount under section 26(1)(c) in respect of any needs, and”
(8) In section 32 (adults without capacity to request direct payments), in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) a personal budget for an adult specifies an amount under section 26(1)(c) in respect of any needs, and”.”
“(5A) In relation to section (cap on care costs for charging purposes), different days may be appointed under subsection (4) for different areas.”
Baroness Wheeler
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 80, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 80A to 80N in lieu, and do propose Amendments 80P and 80Q instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“Cap on care costs for charging purposes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Care Act 2014 as regards how “costs accrued in meeting eligible needs” for the purposes of section 15 of that Act are to be determined.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any costs incurred by any local authority to meet eligible needs are included within that determination.
(3) The regulations are to have effect in accordance with a timetable specified in the regulations.
(4) The regulations may not be made unless—
(a) the results of the Trailblazer pilot schemes have been evaluated, and the Secretary of State has laid that evaluation before Parliament, and
(b) the Secretary of State has completed a further general impact assessment covering distributional regional analysis, regional eligibility, and the effect of the care cap on disabled adults under 40.
(5) The regulations must ensure that no charges may be imposed under section 14 for any adult under the age of 40 with a disability.”
“(ca) regulations under section (Cap on care costs for charging purposes);””
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should inform the House that if Motion G1 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Motion G2 by reason of pre-emption.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kamall, who has already spoken to Motion H, I beg to move.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 to 88, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 85A to 88A.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion J and, with the leave of the House, I will speak to Motions M, N and P. This group of amendments relates to questions of patient safety, patient engagement, public health and building a learning culture in the NHS.
Last week in the other place we tabled amendments to ensure the full operability of Lords Amendment 91, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism. We have discussed and agreed these changes with the noble Baroness, and together these amendments will require all health and social care providers who carry out regulated activities to ensure their staff receive specific training on learning disabilities and autism.
At Report stage of this Bill the Government committed to accept in principle the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on reciprocal healthcare and to change the process for regulations that give effect to international healthcare agreements so that they are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. To ensure this Bill achieves the intended effect, the Government tabled Amendment 95A in lieu, which achieves the same objective but amends the international healthcare agreements clause, rather than the regulations clause. This will ensure that all regulations made under the soon to be named healthcare (international arrangements) Act 2019 are subject to the affirmative procedure, including any regulations made by the devolved Governments. I urge noble Lords to accept all these amendments.
I now turn to the issue of abortion at home pills. This group contains Lords Amendment 92 and related amendments. Both this House and the other place voted to make provision to permanently allow both pills for early medical abortions to be taken at home. These were, rightly, free votes of both Houses, but the Government brought forward this amendment in lieu to ensure that the legislation operates in the way that this House intended it to. I therefore ask noble Lords who agree with the intention of my noble friend Lady Sugg to instead support the Commons amendment in lieu.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Eaton for bringing the important topic of safeguarding before the House. I reassure her that the well-being and safety of women and girls accessing abortion services has been, and will continue to be, our first and foremost priority. Safeguarding is an essential aspect of abortion care, and it has been long-established that a doctor or health professional is legally able to provide contraception, sexual and reproductive health advice, and treatment, including abortion, without parental knowledge or consent to a person aged under 16 years, provided that the doctor or healthcare professional is satisfied that certain conditions, including ability to consent, are met.
As a matter of best practice, every effort should be made to encourage those under age 16 to involve their parents, and if they cannot be persuaded to do so, they should be assisted to find another adult, such as another family member or specialist youth worker, to provide support. All abortion providers are already required to have effective arrangements in place to safeguard vulnerable children and to assure themselves, regulators and their commissioners that those are working. Having effective safeguarding arrangements in place will be essential for clinicians to make a robust assessment of whether a home abortion is suitable for anyone under age 16 and those under age 18.
I noted the statement from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which stated that all young women aged under 18 and care leavers aged under 25 should be actively encouraged to attend an abortion service in person. With that in mind, we will work with the royal colleges, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and NHS safeguarding leads, to ensure that children and young people are actively encouraged to take up a face-to-face appointment and that anyone at risk of harm is identified and supported appropriately, including through referrals to other agencies.
The Government will continue to work closely with relevant professional bodies to ensure that the principles and duties of safeguarding children, young people and adults at risk are consistently and rigorously applied and that we continue to monitor all impacts of home use of both abortion pills. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured to hear that we will work with NHS England, the Care Quality Commission and abortion providers to ensure that they can safely offer telemedicine abortion services on a permanent basis and that all women are genuinely offered the choice of a face-to-face appointment.
On other issues, the Government cannot accept Amendment 88B, which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as an amendment in lieu of Lords Amendments 85 to 88, which were rejected by the other place. It would bind the Government in statute to consult, to a particular timeframe, on all recommendations within the Khan independent review which in the opinion of the Secretary of State require a consultation to implement. The review itself is not yet complete and is not scheduled for publication until May, when we will of course consider our next steps.
As the review is currently in the process of being drafted, the Government should not pre-empt what it will include. Importantly, the Government should not be put under a duty to consult on a range of proposals that they have not yet seen and may not support. Some proposals may require further development and agreement across government and across the UK before a consultation. We risk wasting government resource and time to consult, and stakeholders’ time to respond, by consulting on proposals that we may not intend to pursue.
The Government are firmly committed to Smokefree 2030 and we look forward to the outcome of the independent review. The review will inform both the health disparities White Paper and the Government’s new tobacco control plan, which will be published later this year. If any changes to tobacco legislation are proposed by the Government in that plan, I can commit that they will be consulted on. The need for additional spending to deliver our Smokefree 2030 ambition—and possible funding mechanisms—will be considered as part of the tobacco control plan and agreed with Her Majesty’s Treasury in the usual way.
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name and commend many of these amendments to the House.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
“Smokefree 2030 consultations
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than the relevant date, consult on—
(a) any recommendations of the independent review into tobacco control announced by the Secretary of State on 4 February 2022 which in the opinion of the Secretary of State require consultation before implementation, and
(b) any other options for tobacco control considered appropriate by the Secretary of State.
(2) The Secretary of State and the Treasury must, no later than the relevant date, consult on one or more statutory schemes to regulate the price of tobacco products which fund delivery of— (a) the Government’s Smokefree 2030 ambition, (b) a reduction of inequalities related to health, and (c) improvements in public health.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) the relevant date is the earlier of—
(a) the last day of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
(b) the last day of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the report of the independent review referred to in subsection (1) is published; (c) 31 December 2022.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay reports before Parliament on the consultations carried out under subsections (1) and (2) and a Minister of the Crown must, within 12 weeks of completion of the consultation, arrange to make a statement to each House of Parliament setting out in detail any steps which will be taken to implement the findings of the reports, and the proposed timescales for doing so.””
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this amendment replaces the “polluter pays” tobacco levy Amendment 85 and consequential Amendments 86 to 88, which were passed by this House on Report by 213 votes to 154.
I very much thank the Minister for the time that he and other noble Lords and colleagues in the Bill team and Treasury have taken to explore with us opportunities for reaching an agreement. We are disappointed that we have not yet been able to achieve a compromise. I also thank other Lords very much for their support for this Motion, which has come from all sides of the House.
The reasons for moving this amendment are very obvious. They are about the impact of smoking on health and about inequalities and levelling up. First, Members of your Lordships’ House understand very well that smoking is the leading avoidable risk factor in health and is responsible for years of ill health—chronic illnesses, years of misery, early death and, for the country, loss of talent and productivity to the nation as a whole. What noble Lords may not appreciate—I did only relatively recently—is that it is also a leading factor, perhaps the leading factor, in the differences in health outcomes between different sectors of the population. Some 50% of the difference in health outcomes between those in the highest socioeconomic group and those in the lowest socioeconomic group is due to smoking.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment J1, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I also join him in thanking my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Kamall, the two Ministers involved, for their engagement with movers of the amendment on Report and for the genuine attempt they made to seek agreement to narrow the small gap between the Government’s position and ours—an attempt which, I fear, was blocked by HM Treasury.
On this subject, on Report, my noble friend Lord Howe said:
“Our strong preference is to continue with high tobacco taxation and excise as the best means and the most efficient process through which to generate revenue that can be put back into public services.”
I wish I shared his optimism, given the current pressure on the public purse and the recent experience with the levelling-up White Paper, published in February. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that
“the White Paper contains no new funding; instead, departments will be expected to deliver on these missions from within the cash budgets set out in last autumn’s Spending Review. Departments and public service leaders might reasonably ask whether those plans match up to the scale of the government’s newfound ambition—particularly in the face of higher inflation.”
The same is true for tobacco control. Even before the rise in inflation, budgets for tobacco control and smoking cessation had been cut by a third since 2015. Already by 2019, it was clear that the Treasury’s claim that the tax system would provide funding for tobacco control was misplaced. That is why, when the Government announced the smoke-free 2030 ambition in 2019, they also promised to consider a polluter pays approach to funding tobacco control and smoking cessation, which is the substance of the amendment before your Lordships this evening.
On Report, my noble friend Lord Howe said:
“The proposal may look simple on the surface but it is complex to implement. It may also take several years to materialise.”
Our proposals build on the pharmaceutical pricing scheme operated by the Department of Health, which is a far more complex industry with far more complex products. If the Department of Health can successfully run a scheme for pharmaceutical products—an industry and set of products that are complex and evolving—I fail to see why it cannot operate such a scheme for cigarettes. These are simple, commodity products produced by an oligopolistic industry, with four main manufacturers responsible for more than 95% of sales.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who I am pleased to see in his place, said on Report that
“if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential and life-saving, it does not seem too far a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying.”—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 294-98.]
I agree. However, I also accept that further investigation of our proposals would be needed, which is precisely why a consultation without commitment is the appropriate way forward, as the all-party parliamentary group’s amendment proposes.
I hope that, even at this late stage, my noble friend might demonstrate some flexibility in order to try to bridge the narrow gap between the Government’s position and that in the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in his amendment. My noble friend Lord Faulkner would of course have been in his place to speak in favour, but he is unable to be here, so perhaps I may make a few remarks which I think he might have made.
Going back to Report, the Minister suggested that the tobacco industry is already required to make a significant contribution to public finances through tobacco duty, VAT and corporation tax. But I do not think that states the case as accurately as possible, because we know that tobacco manufacturers are skilled at minimising the amount they pay. For example, between 2009 and 2016, Imperial Brands, the British company that is market leader in the UK, received £35 million more in corporation tax refund credits than it paid in tax. The largest amount of tax collected by the Government comes from excise tax and VAT. This, of course, is not paid by the manufacturer; it is passed on to the consumer. That was a point HM Treasury made in 2015, when the Government consulted but, alas, decided not to put an additional tax on tobacco products to pay for tobacco control.
My understanding is that, in total, smokers spend nearly £11 billion on tax-paid tobacco products, more than three-quarters of which goes to the Government in taxes. We know that the majority of smokers are not well off; they often suffer multiple disadvantages. We must compare that huge tax take with the pitiful amount that is actually spent by the Government encouraging people to stop smoking. It is certainly not enough to make England smoke-free by 2030.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s introductory remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, objected to the terms of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because, he said, the independent review had not yet reported and therefore we were seeking to pre-empt what the review will say. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, responded to that incredibly well. I do not think he is seeking to pre-empt the review; his amendment asks the Government to consult on recommendations in the review if the Secretary of State thinks that it is required. It is left entirely in the Secretary of State’s hands to act according to whether he or she considers that the recommendations should be consulted on.
This is a sensible amendment, it points us in the right direction, and I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers may be sympathetic.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly in his introductory remarks, he was saying that the Government’s case against the amendment is that they do not want to consult on something to which they are not already committed. So what is the point of consultations if they are only on things to which the Government are already committed? Should the Government not consult on what they might do, and take into account the opinions of experts and others?
Amendment 85B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has the support of these Benches. It is in accordance with my party’s policy but, more importantly, it is essential to the Government’s stated objective of reducing the prevalence of smoking to below 5% by 2030. The amendment does not require the Government to do anything that they do not want to do; it just asks them to consult on something which they have said that they would consider—namely, to make tobacco companies pay more towards helping save and prolong the lives of their customers.
Last year, I found myself outside the HQ of British American Tobacco. It is an enormous headquarters: it looked like a palace of which any Russian oligarch would be proud. This company makes huge profits that could be diverted towards ameliorating the damage done by its products. The amendment would mean taking action to help people live longer and more healthily, with fewer families living in poverty because of smoking.
I expect we will have more warm words from the Minister and from the Department of Health and Social Care, but I believe that Parliament wants to adopt the polluter pays principle in relation to tobacco. So I end with a quote from a great parliamentarian, John Pym, who, in 1628—I am sorry that I do not have the Hansard reference—said: “Actions are more precious than words”.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 92B in my name. It seeks to reinstate essential, in-person safeguarding checks for girls under 18 when seeking abortion. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, had the best of intentions when she brought her abortion-at-home amendment to your Lordships’ House in support of women’s right to choose in respect of pregnancy. Unfortunately, Amendment 92A leaves a glaring gap: that of the interests of young and vulnerable females. My Amendment 92B is simply about requiring a face-to-face consultation with a qualified health professional for girls under the age of 18.
This is an amendment purely about child safeguarding: specifically, minimising the risk of harm to children through the use of abortion pills. It is not an amendment about the moral question of abortion. There would be no change to where the pills are taken or administered. The amendment is supported by the NHS body made up of doctors and nurses who are the leading experts in the field of children safeguarding, the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for children, or NNDHP.
The NNDHP, which supports safe access to abortion for young people, has released a statement saying:
“All children and young people—those under 18 and in care under 25—must be seen face to face, and the age of the other applicants must be confirmed. The purpose of this position is to clinically assess the mid-trimester risk and prevent coercion and exploitation.”
The network expressed particular concern that phone and video consultations
“enable unseen and unheard coercive adults to influence the patient”
and
“enable pills to be obtained under false pretences.”
These NHS child-safeguarding experts have also raised concerns about the effects of trauma and neglected birth, pointing to evidence of the home use of abortion pills resulting in highly traumatic incidents. These are traumatic episodes, and they point out that children do not have the emotional resources and the brain maturity needed to access support in these cases. Even worse, they are aware that the policy has led to the births of very premature but potentially viable infants.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the UK’s leading professional body for paediatricians, which represents more than 20,000 child health professionals in the UK and abroad, has backed the amendment. It has voiced its support for the amendment due to concerns about the risks to girls under the age of 18 with the at-home abortion amendment that passed in the Commons. The RCPCH has warned of a “glaring gap” in the legislation—namely, children and young people. Moreover, it has asked for children’s vulnerabilities to be taken into greater account as the Health and Care Bill reaches its final stages. The college points out that
“telemedicine can present particular challenges”
for children and young people, and points to the need to
“assess any safeguarding issues as part of the pathway for early medical abortions.”
I have mentioned the views of the NHS safeguarding experts and the royal college that specialises in children’s health, but I would like to end by touching on the story of a 16 year-old girl in his country that demonstrates the need for this amendment. The BBC reported on a girl called Savannah, who took abortion pills at home after a telephone conversation with an abortion provider. The clinic she had spoken to had calculated that she was less than eight weeks pregnant, but she was neither examined nor scanned. She took the pills and, when she felt terrible pain, she was taken to hospital. It was discovered that she was actually between 20 and 21 weeks’ pregnant, and she gave birth to a baby with a heartbeat. Indeed, she said, “My boyfriend said he could see feet”. Savannah said she had been left traumatised and said, “If they scanned me and I knew that I was that far gone, then I would have had him.”
It is hard to comprehend the trauma of an experience such as this for such a young woman. The BBC report highlighted how her case was just one of dozens. Surely, we in this House owe it to our young women and girls, our daughters and granddaughters, to do more to protect their safety and well-being. This is not an amendment nor a debate about abortion or a woman’s right to choose; it is about children’s welfare and enshrining in law the essential protections for girls under the age of 18. This Government, and, indeed, previous Governments, have rightly prioritised children’s welfare, and all of us in Parliament who make laws should keep this in mind.
I am pleased that my noble friend the Minister has understood the very real concerns of many noble Lords and professional bodies in the medical profession. He has expressed a clear commitment to us today to ensure that the concerns are raised and addressed. It is vital that regulations and guidance deal with the safeguarding of young women. My noble friend has committed to working with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the NNDHP, and I hope that they will be consulted and will work with the Government to make sure that these extremely challenging and difficult conditions for young women are given great concern and protection in any further work on the Bill. Because my noble friend has given such reassurances, I will not push this to a vote this evening.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for raising this issue. I should declare that some years ago when I was a GP, I was responsible for looking after three care homes with children with really quite profound psychological disturbance because of what they had gone through prior to being taken into care. I carefully read the briefing from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. It is very important to listen to that college in particular, which has put out a remarkably strong briefing that also takes account of children up to the age of 25 when they are care leavers.
The last time we debated this I was concerned about contraceptive advice. I therefore contacted an abortion provider to ask about the contraceptive advice provided and was assured that really sound contraceptive advice is part of the telemedicine procedure. Does the Minister have any data on the number of second-time and third-time abortions that are being requested through telemedicine, as compared with those from face-to-face consultation? Certainly, in my time in practice, when one provided contraceptive services, one always felt that when somebody was presenting for an abortion, somewhere along the line one’s contraceptive advice had failed—often because of coercion by the male partner, one way or another. But for those who are emotionally vulnerable it can be very important.
I will address in just one sentence the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Crisp in relation to his Motion J1. I hope the Government will listen to it, because we cannot carry on allowing the tobacco industry to exploit public health in the way that we have.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, is a stalwart of these debates and she always takes a view that is contrary to mine. I say at the beginning of my speech that I do not question her integrity in any way at all, but I do question the briefing on which she has based her speech tonight—and I question the briefing from this particular college. It has a public position which says that young women should have the option and be
“actively encouraged to take up a face-to-face appointment”.
That is the policy now; there is no policy that says that people cannot and should not be allowed to have a face-to-face appointment if they need it.
Secondly, this amendment would require there to be a face-to-face appointment, whereas the position arrived at following the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and in the Commons is that a teleconsultation can happen and that, at that point, if it becomes evident that there is a need for a face-to-face appointment, it must happen. As we explained when we debated this issue a few weeks ago, the greatest coercion is on women not to have an abortion rather than women being forced to have an abortion. Professionals, who took great care to design the telemedicine system at the start of the pandemic, made sure that they included safeguarding as an integral part of what they did.
The noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, is right in one respect and wrong in another. There was one case, within the first month of the scheme being set up, where a woman got her dates wrong. That was discovered and that case was used to change the questions and the training. I have to say that I take exception to her saying that there are dozens of cases, because in the peer-reviewed assessments that have been done in three countries, Scotland, England and Wales, that has not been seen to be the case. If anything, professionals have erred on the side of caution when they think that a woman might be approaching the deadline. I am afraid that in this respect I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, is correct.
More to the point, throughout the discussions here and in another place, the professionals who have been responsible for not just delivering the services but for making sure that they are within ethical and professional frameworks and are monitored closely took into account all the ways in which they thought that young women and girls might be exploited. They took care to make sure that the services discovered that, and they have. They have found young women who have been trafficked. They have found young women who have been pressurised by partners. They have found young women who were prevented from going out to get contraception and therefore became pregnant.
I do not for one minute question the noble Baroness’s motivation, but I say to noble Lords that if they really want to protect young women and particularly girls, they should reject this amendment and accept the government amendment, which has been informed not just by the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and others but by the majority of the royal colleges that practise in this field.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I want to raise one thing that may be an unintended consequence of telemedicine abortion pills. In communities such as the one that I come from, having a girl is still seen as not a good sign of family life. I hope that when we discuss this, we discuss it in the round. There are communities in this country that may take advantage of the facts that women do not have to have a face-to-face and that women in those communities as often as not cannot communicate. We must ensure that we do not become complicit in them being forced into abortions. It is not about not wanting an abortion to be available if you require it. That is my point and my fear. I see it often in my community. It is not as if it is distant. It happens because those women and girls—some of them get married very early in life—do not have the ability to speak up, simply because of the confines of the communities they live in. I do not want it to be an unintended consequence that we end up being complicit in something that by and large is a choice issue but here may well become normalised within families where women and girls have very little say.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion N1 and Amendment 92B. I want to put on record that it is extremely regrettable that a profound change in the way that abortions are delivered has been rushed through at the end of this Bill, without the opportunity for scrutiny and consideration in Committee and on Report of whether additional safeguards needed to be added. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, for proposing a modest, child-safeguarding amendment through Motion N1, Amendment 92B, to the amendment agreed in lieu to continue telemedicine abortion in England.
The concerns about the telemedicine regime were stated, albeit briefly, on 16 March. They focused on concerns about whether all pregnancies really are below the 10-weeks limit set out in Amendment 92A, that complications at home are not properly monitored, and that telemedicine abortions mean that women can be vulnerable to coercion. However, this revised amendment specifically and simply states that the consultation must be in person for a pregnant woman under the age of 18. I welcome that, and hope that young women who want such a consultation will not feel pressured into a remote consultation. As was said in another place last week,
“I do not think that many people in this House would think that a 14-year-old girl should be ringing up and receiving abortion medicines over the telephone, but that is indeed what the legislation allows”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/22; col. 879.]
While either an in-person or a remote consultation meet the requirements of the law as drafted in Amendment 92A, it does not mean that they both meet the health requirements of all sections of the population. Two key organisations qualified to speak on this matter have specifically said that remote consultations do not work for children. Both the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Safeguarding Children have called for face-to-face appointments. In a letter to the Times last Friday, the president of the royal college said:
“However, the change in the legislation through the Health and Care Bill leaves a glaring gap. Children and young people are a distinct group, and telemedicine can present particular risks. We must consider their safeguarding and holistic wellbeing as well as their physical health needs.”
She went on to say that
“a face-to-face appointment would allow a healthcare professional to talk to them, examine them if necessary and spot any safeguarding issues”.
The concerns about telemedicine abortions are more acute for under-18s, so the proposal that we should make a further exception for children in the regime introduced through Amendment 92A on where abortions can take place seems entirely sensible. We do so on a wide range of legislative measures; indeed, the Labour Front Bench only last night advocated for different treatment for children under the modern slavery legislation debated as part of the Nationality and Borders Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will forgive me and not mind me quoting him when he said, quite rightly:
“We do that in every area of law; we provide differently for children than for adults”.—[Official Report, 4/4/22; col. 1942.]
Amendment 92B does exactly that by requiring in-person consultations for under-18s.
I shall end with the closing paragraph of the letter to the Times, which said:
“The bill is nearing its final stages. The government and parliamentarians must make sure this vulnerable group is taken into account.”
I urge your Lordships to adopt this Motion.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motions N and N1. I fully support the Government’s Motion N; it delivers the same outcome as the cross-party amendment supported by your Lordships’ House and received cross-party support from the other place last week. I am grateful to the Health Secretary and my noble friend the Minister for their engagement on this issue, and to the officials and lawyers in the department for their assistance in drafting.
Motion N makes the provision of access to telemedical early medical abortion permanent. It is supported by the vast majority of medical professionals, vulnerable women’s groups and by women themselves. Following the largest ever abortion study, the service was shown to be safe, effective and compassionate.
I cannot support my noble friend’s Motion N1 for two reasons. First, it was debated in full in the other place, including substantive discussions on whether under-18s should be included. MPs voted in support of this service in its entirety, without requiring any changes. Your Lordships’ House also supported making this service permanent. Both Houses are in agreement, and I do not believe we should reopen an already considered and agreed position.
Secondly, I cannot support it for safeguarding reasons. It is absolutely crucial that we protect young people—I am sure all noble Lords agree on that—which is why the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the DHSC and abortion providers have already agreed to produce a set of best practice standards on safeguarding and abortion care for young people. I appreciate the Minister reassuring us on this; it is how clinical guidelines should be developed. It is standard professional activity for medical royal colleges and does not warrant any additional legislation.
If Motion N1 is agreed, as a result of the inequitable provision, young women will be more likely to have poorer access to and experience of abortion care. It would mean that young women who are physically unable to make it to a clinic, as a result of a health condition, or who live in a very rural area, have no access to transport or are at risk of violence and abuse, will have no legal way to access abortion services in England and Wales. They would be forced either to access illegal pills online or to continue with their unwanted pregnancies.
I will address a couple of the points that have been raised. I also have anecdotes about how this has helped women and girls, but I do not believe it is helpful to share individual cases—we should listen to the experts on this—but the poor girl in the terrible case raised by my noble friend Lady Eaton was actually seen in a clinic, so my noble friend’s amendment would not have helped. On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Verma, of course we want to avoid sex-selective abortions, but this goes up to only nine weeks and six days, and it is not possible to find out the sex of your baby until after then. That would not be possible in early telemedical abortion.
Children must be protected. I appreciate and agree with my noble friend Lady Eaton’s desire to do this. However, as my noble friend the Minister has set out, this should be done through clinical guidelines and safeguarding best practice. I am pleased there will not be a vote on this, as I could not support it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I made my substantive points when we debated this on Report, so I will not be tedious in repeating all those arguments about the nature of abortion, why I feel there should be a more thorough consideration of the way the law works in Britain today and why there have been 9 million abortions—one every three minutes. That does not suggest a lack of access to abortion in this country. But I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, said to us about the lack of safeguards in the amendment that we passed, against the wishes of Health Ministers, during the tail end of the Report stage consideration of the Bill.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, was right that there had been substantive discussion, I would feel easier about this, but she will agree that there was no discussion of this at Second Reading or in Committee here, and there was no discussion of it in another place. When this was voted on in another place, there was a relatively close majority at the end of a very short debate—215 votes to 188. This demonstrates that this question is not settled.
If one winds back the clock to 1967, only 29 Members of the House of Commons voted against the Abortion Act 1967. That demonstrates that not only is this not settled but there are deep concerns about the way that this public policy has been enacted. That is why I pleaded, on Report, that rather than making policy on the hoof, it would be far better if—despite our differences of opinion, some of them fundamental, on the substantive issue—at some point, there is a review of the legislation, in which we can at least talk to one another, in a civilised way, about the best approach.
That brings me to this amendment, which was introduced with such sensitivity and compassion by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, and which deals with safeguarding issues. I will not repeat the quotation that was just given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, but it comes from a royal college. The royal colleges may be divided about this too—I do not dispute that—but that is exactly the sort of thing that should be laid before a commission of inquiry or a Select Committee of this House to examine the workings of the legislation.
We have heard the quotation about the safeguarding, well-being and physical needs of children from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, but I was also struck by what a designated doctor for child safeguarding said in a briefing which many of us have been sent by the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Safeguarding Children. Dr Helen Daley says:
“The considered expert position of the NNDHP is that all children (i.e. those under 18) and looked after individuals under the age of 25, should be seen face-to-face when applying to take both sets of abortion pills at home so as to prevent coercion, child sexual exploitation and abuse, and so that clinical assessments can be made to check the risk of an inadvertent mid- or late-trimester abortion.”
I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about specific individual cases. I do not know about the individual cases, other than that one was cited, and one is enough. It struck me, as a parent and someone who has worked with children with special needs, some of whom had significant emotional problems, to think how it would be if, in a home abortion, someone was to abort a late-trimester baby and the children in that household saw what happened. I think that would remain with them for the rest of their lives and it could have a deeply distressing and traumatic effect on them. That is why we should listen to Dr Helen Daley when she says
“We have very real concerns about the harm”
that this amendment to the Bill
“(which would allow girls to take abortion pills at home without a prior face-to-face consultation for any early abortion) will do to children.”
There is one other point, which was not referred to in our early debates. There is evidence about the physical effects on women. For me, this is not a choice between the unborn child and the woman—both lives matter. One in 17 women, or 20 a day, who had taken at least one abortion pill at home in 2020 needed hospital treatment for side-effects. This evidence was provided through a freedom of information request by the previous global director of clinics development at Marie Stopes International. There are significant risks.
I plead with your Lordships: when we make laws on issues such as this, let us always be respectful of each other’s opinions, attitudes, beliefs and principles, and listen to each other carefully, which we are doing in this House tonight; bluntly, I think we are a very good example to others about how this debate should be conducted. When the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talks about the risks of, for instance, sex-selection abortions, we must take that seriously, because there have been examples of it and we know to what it can lead; we have seen that in other jurisdictions and countries. When the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, tells us there could be risks to children over safeguarding, we must take that seriously. I promised to be brief and will now sit down.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly, having contributed quite significantly to the debate on Report. I support the Government’s amendment, which is not a position I find myself in very often. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who said this was not settled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—who has been such a leader, working on this issue in the House with great tenacity and determination to defend the well-being of patients—said, it has been settled in both Houses of Parliament and has been debated extensively.
The point the noble Lord, Lord Alton, just made about the sex-selection question was comprehensively answered. The dates do not work; we are talking about early medical abortion and you do not know by that stage. We have to come back to the evidence. We had an unintended experiment as a result of Covid, which showed us that telemedicine not only reduced the rate of abortion complication but increased the level of safeguarding disclosures. It is really important that we think about an equalities issue here. Access to telemedicine is medically preferable and results in more safeguarding disclosures. We do not want to deny that to young women where it is judged that it is medically appropriate.
I note that the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Safeguarding Children is working with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to develop standards. It says that this should not be subject to discrimination in the law, as the safeguarding standards and guidelines are adequate. If we think about this as an access issue, this minimises the risks of young people going to provision outside the healthcare system. This is a crucial equalities issue.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Eaton. I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said about protections and safeguards offered by the NHS, and the system of abortion provision to young people. But it seemed to me that those safeguards related principally to pregnant children up to the age of 16. There is a gap here, because the age of 18 is important in this debate, and it does not seem to be covered. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, it was only last night that an opposition amendment said that, in the case of child refugees, the Government must give priority to the best interests of the child—and, as I recall, that amendment was passed and is now back in the Bill. But “child” was defined in the amendment as a person under the age of not 16 but 18. So the best interests of the refugee child must take priority but the best interests of the pregnant child are not even mentioned anywhere in the amendment.
If I recall correctly, only last week we were debating a Private Member’s Bill—but one which I believe had government support—which would raise the permitted age of marriage to 18. Marriage is a natural law right, and also arguably a convention right, because there is a right to a family life, but, correctly, we are allowed to moderate how that right is implemented and affected by putting age restrictions on it. We may decide that 16 is an appropriate age or that 18 is an appropriate age; these are all perfectly legitimate decisions to make. But if our movement is in the direction of saying that 18 is the age at which you should be allowed to marry, it seems to me that there is a huge gap in the amendment in Motion N, which my noble friend Lady Eaton is doing her best to correct.
I regret that my noble friend has said that she is not going to move to a vote, so I am left to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can explain to me, when he replies, what it is that the Government see as being the means of safeguarding pregnant children between the ages of 16 and 18, who are regarded so carefully in relation to other types of protection that are debated in this House and command widespread cross-party support but seem to have fallen through the traps here.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I shall be very brief, because it is time we draw this ping-pong session to an end. First, I congratulate the Minister on his introduction to the tele-abortion amendment, and on the reassurance that he gave to the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. The issue has been expressed very eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Barker, and I have no intention of going into detail.
The only other matter before us right now on which we need to take a decision is that of the amendment put by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. From these Benches, I need to say that we absolutely support the noble Lord in his amendment, and we will vote with him, if he divides the House.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and the debates throughout the day. We managed to stick to the point and tried to be as brief as possible. I am afraid I will not be as brief as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I will try to be briefer than I usually am.
I should just make some acknowledgements, looking at the whole group. First, on learning disabilities and autism, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her absence, for her constructive engagement with the Government.
On tobacco, I once again urge noble Lords to reject Amendments 85 to 88 and 88B. The independent review is not scheduled for publication until May, when we will of course consider our next steps. I understand that the noble Lord told us to get on with it, but we do not want to pre-empt the independent review. As it is in the process of being drafted, we really want to make sure that we have proper consultation and agreement, both across government and across the UK with the devolved Administrations.
I hope the noble Lord is in no doubt that we are also committed to the tobacco plan and the reduction of smoking. We just do not feel that this is the right amendment, but the noble Lord may feel otherwise. Any changes to tobacco legislation proposed by the Khan review, a plan supported by the Government, will be consulted on. We firmly want to make sure we reach our smoke-free 2030 ambition or get as close to it as feasibly possible.
There is a debate about the polluter pays principle. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, will recognise the debate about Pigouvian taxes, taxing negative externalities and who is responsible. Who is the polluter? In the car industry we tax the driver, as they put more petrol in. Should it be the smoker or the industry? There is a debate about this, but I hope these issues will be considered by the Khan review.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his constructive engagement on reciprocal healthcare. I am pleased that we were able to narrow the gap and get to the same place.
I turn now to the telemedicine abortion issue. The Government felt that we should have gone back to pre-pandemic measures, but it was right that there was a free vote. We saw the results of the votes in your Lordships’ House and the other place, and we accept them. The democratic will of both Houses is quite clear. At the same time, we also accept that there were some concerns, as my noble friend Lady Eaton rightly said, about underage women being forced to have abortions and safeguarding. My noble friend Lady Verma also made a point about issues in certain communities; we know that these things go on in certain communities and that there are close relationships.
After the reassurances I gave at the beginning, my noble friend Lady Eaton said she was reassured enough not to push her amendment to a vote. I hope that remains the case and that my noble friend has not been persuaded otherwise. It is important that we consult, treat this sensitively and get the appropriate guidance, but the decision has been made by both Houses and we have to make sure that it works and that we address some of the legitimate concerns that noble Lords have raised in this debate.
Given that, I ask this House to accept the Motions in my name.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, let me first say how much I respect the Ministers and appreciate the time they have given to me and other noble Lords to discuss the “polluter pays” amendment. I really appreciate it and found it very useful. I think it was the noble Baroness—I cannot remember the name.
Lord Crisp (CB)
No, forgive me. It was the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—my apologies for that very public senior moment—who earlier commended the Ministers on their patience and good humour, right to the end of this long Bill.
I think there is very little difference between us and that what I am arguing for is very much government policy, but there still is a difference. Let me also thank the other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their support. I was reflecting on this difference while the debate was happening and, at bottom, it is about making sure that something happens. It is not just about consultation, which we did not discuss. It is about the timetable too. It is about ensuring that we have a consultation to a timetable and that there is scope for action.
It is also about the reality. The noble Lord, Lord Young, spelled out for us that we have seen cuts in tobacco control over recent years and that there was a commitment given to considering “provider pays”—I think it was two or three years ago. We are all familiar with the fact that things can slip. At the moment, I suspect that we are going in the wrong direction on tobacco control and that it is slipping down the agenda.
I am left with two questions. First, where will the funding come from for the action that needs to be taken to intervene on tobacco control, which is something that we all want? I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s point on that. Secondly, will action actually be taken? I was very struck at our meeting with the Treasury, which the Minister kindly arranged, to find that the Treasury officials are rather opposed to any levy, despite the attractions and success of the pharmaceutical levy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in Committee.
While there is also enormous waiting list pressure, which we all know about and which I suspect has already been discussed many times during these debates, how will we find the money for something that is going to have a long-term impact, as opposed to dealing with the emergency right in front of us? Of course, we will all be aware that an election will be coming in due course. I suspect some things will rise up the agenda and some slip down it. You do not have to be a cynic to think that this could slip very easily. Therefore, for those reasons, I want to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 89 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 89A in lieu.
“Commercial dealings in organs for transplantation: extra-territorial offences
(1) After section 32 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 insert—
“32A Offences under section 32 committed outside UK
(1) If—
(a) a person who is habitually resident in England and Wales, or who is a UK national and not habitually resident in
Northern Ireland, does an act outside the United Kingdom,
(b) the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under section 32(1), and
(c) the controlled material to which the act relates is controlled material consisting of or including a human organ,
the person is guilty in England and Wales of that offence.
(2) In this section “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.”
(2) After section 20 of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006 insert—
“20A Offences under section 20 committed outside UK
(1) If—
(a) a person who is habitually resident in Scotland, or who is a UK national and not habitually resident in Northern Ireland, does an act outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) the act, if done in Scotland, would constitute an offence under section 20(1), and
(c) the part of the human body to which the act relates consists of or includes a human organ,
the person is guilty in Scotland of that offence.
(2) In this section “United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen,
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject, or
(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
(3) Where a person outside the United Kingdom commits an offence under section 20(1) the person may be prosecuted, tried and punished for the offence—
(a) in a sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or in custody, or
(b) in a sheriff court district determined by the Lord Advocate, as if the offence had been committed in that district.
(4) Where subsection (3) applies, the offence is, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial and punishment, deemed to have been committed in that district.
(5) In this section “sheriff court district” is to be construed in accordance with section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation).”
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion K—more than once. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 90 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 90A in lieu.
“Review into disputes relating to treatment of critically ill children
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the carrying out of a review into the causes of disputes between (on the one hand) persons with parental responsibility for a critically ill child and (on the other) persons responsible for the provision of care or medical treatment for the child as part of the health service in England.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of the review, within one year beginning with the date on which this section comes into force.
(3) In this section—
“child” means a person aged under 18;
“health service in England” means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National health Service Act 2006;
“parental responsibility” has the meaning given by section 3 of the Children Act 1989.”
Lord Kamall
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 91A as an amendment to Lords Amendment 91.
“(1) The Health and Social Care Act 2008 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In section 20 (regulation of regulated activities), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) Regulations under this section must require service providers to ensure that each person working for the purpose of the regulated activities carried on by them receives training on learning disability and autism which is appropriate to the person’s role.”
(3) After subsection (5C) (as inserted by section 145) insert—
“(5D) In subsection (5ZA)—
“learning disability” has the meaning given by section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983;
“service provider” means a person registered under this Chapter as a service provider in respect of a regulated activity.”
(4) After section 21 insert—
“21A Learning disability and autism training: code of practice
(1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice about compliance with requirements imposed by virtue of section 20(5ZA) (requirements relating to training on learning disability and autism).
(2) The code must make provision about—
(a) the content of training; (b) training appropriate to different roles;
(c) circumstances in which it is appropriate for training to be delivered in person;
(d) the involvement of people with learning disability, autistic people, or their carers, in the provision of training;
(e) accreditation of training;
(f) procurement of training;
(g) monitoring and evaluation of the impact of training;
(3) The code may make different provision for different cases or circumstances.
(4) The Secretary of State must, at least once every five years—
(a) review the code, and
(b) lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review.”
(5) In section 22 (consultation in relation to code of practice under section 21)—
(a) for the heading substitute “Codes of practice: consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny”;
(b) in subsection (1), after “21” insert “or 21A”;
(c) in subsection (2), after “21” insert “or 21A”;
(d) in subsection (3), after “(2)” insert “in relation to a draft of a code or revised code under section 21”; (e) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Where, following consultation under subsection (1) or (2) in relation to a draft of a code or revised code under section 21A, the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the draft (in its original form or with modifications), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the draft before Parliament.
(5B) The Secretary of State may not issue the code or revised code if, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve it.
(5C) In this section “40-day period” means—
(a) the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament, or
(b) if the draft is not laid before each House on the same day, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the days on which it is laid before Parliament.
(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5C), no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.”
(6) In section 25 (effect of code under section 21 and guidance under section 23)—
(a) in the heading, after “s. 21” insert “or 21A”;
(b) in subsection (1), for “A code of practice under section 21” substitute “Codes of practice under sections 21 and 21A”;
(c) in subsection (2),
(i) for “A code of practice under section 21 or” substitute “Codes of practice under sections 21 and 21A and”;
(ii) for “is” substitute “are”;
(d) in subsection (3), after “21” insert “or 21A”.
(7) Until the first regulations made by virtue of section 20(5ZA) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (as inserted by subsection (2)) come into force—
(a) the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/2936) (“the 2014 regulations”), and
(b) the Health and Social Care Act 2008, are to be read as if regulation 18 of the 2014 regulations contained such requirements.”
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 92 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 92A in lieu.
“Early medical termination of pregnancy
(1) Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), for “subsection” substitute “subsections (3B) to”.
(3) In subsection (3A)—
(a) the words from “includes” to the end become paragraph (a);
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(b) is not limited by subsections (3C) and (3D).”
(4) After subsection (3A) insert—
“(3B) Subsections (3C) and (3D) apply where—
(a) the treatment referred to in subsection (3) consists of the prescription and administration of medicine, and
(b) the registered medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that, if the medicine is administered in accordance with their instructions, the pregnancy will not exceed ten weeks at the time when the medicine is administered (or in the case of a course of medicine, when the first medicine in the course is administered).
(3C) If the usual place of residence of the registered medical practitioner terminating the pregnancy is in England or Wales, the medicine may be prescribed from that place by the registered medical practitioner.
(3D) If the pregnant woman’s usual place of residence is in England or Wales and she has had a consultation (in person, by telephone or by electronic means) with a registered medical practitioner, registered nurse or registered midwife about the termination of the pregnancy, the medicine may be self-administered by the pregnant woman at that place.””
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 95A in lieu.
“(c) for subsection (4) substitute—
“(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act may not be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”;
(d) omit subsection (5);
(e) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 2A are subject to the affirmative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 2A may not be made by the Welsh Ministers unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.
(5C) Regulations may not be made by a Northern Ireland department under section 2A unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.””
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 105A in lieu.
“(5A) The chair must exercise the approval function mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b) with a view to ensuring that at least one of the ordinary members has knowledge and experience in connection with services relating to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
Health and Care Bill
Monday 25th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 25 April 2022 - (25 Apr 2022)
19:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 278 / Noes: 182 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 183 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 80, 80P and 80Q. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 35
Report on assessing and meeting workforce needs
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29B in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Lords amendments 30B and 108B to words restored to the Bill, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (i) in lieu.
Lords amendment 48B in lieu, Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Government motion to insist on disagreement with Lords amendment 80, insist on Commons amendments 80A to 80N in lieu, and disagree with Lords amendments 80P and 80Q.
Edward Argar
The Lords amendments before the House today relate to the NHS workforce, reconfigurations, modern slavery and the adult social care cap. In respect of amendments 30B and 108B on reconfigurations, I am grateful for the constructive debate on these issue across both Houses. This House has twice voted strongly in favour of the ability for the Secretary of State to call in reconfiguration proposals when needed, and it remains a key principle that decisions on how services are delivered should be subject to ministerial oversight. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have listened carefully to the debates throughout the Bill’s passage, and as a result we have proposed a series of amendments to minimise bureaucracy and ensure transparency.
The first set of changes would mean that the NHS had to notify the Secretary of State only about those reconfiguration proposals that were deemed notifiable, which we will define through regulations. We intend to align that definition with the existing duty on NHS commissioners to consult local authorities where there is a substantial development of variation in the health service. We also propose to remove the requirement for commissioners and providers to inform Ministers of
“circumstances that are likely to result in the need for the reconfiguration of NHS services”.
Taken together, these changes will mean that the NHS will need to notify the Secretary of State only about proposals that are substantive and of great importance to people.
Secondly, we will give local authorities, NHS commissioners and anyone else the Secretary of State considers appropriate a right to make representations to the Secretary of State when he has called in a proposal for reconsideration. We expect this to include any relevant provider. The Secretary of State will be required to publish a summary of the representations he receives, and we will set out in statutory guidance further detail on how local bodies, including providers, will be engaged.
Thirdly, transparency is vital to ensure that these powers are always used by Ministers in the clear interest of the people we all serve. We will therefore require the Secretary of State to provide the reasons for his decisions and directions when he makes them. Finally, we have heard throughout these debates that it is vital that decisions are made expeditiously and expediently in order to give certainty to local bodies so that reconfigurations can be made quickly to improve the quality of services received by patients. We are therefore introducing a requirement that, once a reconfiguration proposal has been called in, the Secretary of State must make any decisions within six months. We believe that this set of changes addresses the key concerns raised in this House and the other place, and I commend it to the House.
I turn to Lords amendment 48B, and the Government’s amendment in lieu, on modern slavery. We share the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses on ensuring that the NHS is in no way inadvertently linked with modern slavery and human trafficking through its supply chain. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment in the first round of ping-pong to create a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a thorough review of NHS supply chains. I am pleased to announce today that we are going further. The Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 48B will require the Secretary of State to make regulations with a view to eradicating the use by the NHS in England of goods or services tainted by slavery or human trafficking. The regulations can set out steps the NHS should be taking to assess the level of risk associated with individual suppliers, and the basis on which the NHS should exclude them from a tendering process.
I particularly commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his consistent and vocal campaigning on this issue. I am delighted that he has confirmed his support for the amendment in lieu. I look forward to working further with him and his supporters to bring these measures forward.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister and the Department on taking this extraordinary step. The public may believe that we already do not use slave-made goods, but unfortunately we do. It is remarkable that the Department has taken this step, and it is incredibly important that we look at Xinjiang in particular, where Sir Geoffrey Nice QC determined there has been a genocide, as there was in Bosnia. The sanctioned MPs and all our colleagues in the inter-parliamentary alliance on China will work with the Department to ensure we have no Uyghur slave-made products in our NHS.
Edward Argar
I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) has also taken a keen interest in this issue. The Secretary of State and I will continue to work closely with others across Government to ensure that our measures to eradicate modern slavery in NHS supply chains are effective and targeted, and reflect best practice.
On Lords amendment 29B, the Government are committed to improving workforce planning and are already taking the steps needed to ensure that we have record numbers of staff working in the NHS. In July 2021, the Department commissioned Health Education England to work with partners on reviewing the long-term strategic trends for the health and regulated social care workforce over the next 15 years. We anticipate the publication of that work in the coming weeks.
Jim Shannon
If the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) were to pursue the matter, my party and I would be minded to support him. Although I understand from the figures in the press today that there are significant numbers of new nurses coming into the NHS, there is still a large shortfall. Will the Minister confirm for Hansard in the Chamber today that every step is being taken to recruit the nurses needed to address the issue of workforce safety?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the work we are already doing, which I will address in a moment, and the number of nurses we have recruited. I believe we have now recruited 29,000 or so en route to our target of 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress, if I may—a few more paragraphs—as I am very conscious of allowing time for Back-Bench colleagues to speak.
Building on this work, we recently commissioned NHS England to develop a workforce strategy. We will set out the key conclusions of that work in due course. In addition, we have committed ourselves to merging Health Education England with NHS England to bring together responsibility for service, financial and workforce planning in one organisation. We will continue to grow and invest in the workforce. There are record numbers of staff, including nurses, working in the NHS.
Sir Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He will know of my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on stroke, and he will be aware of the particular concern of the Stroke Association and others about the number of qualified therapists to provide the therapy people need after a stroke. Will he commit himself to that being part of the workforce strategy and to moving swiftly? This is already a pressing problem for stroke survivors who are not getting the care they need.
Edward Argar
I reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wishes the whole health and care workforce landscape to be considered by Health Education England.
The growth in our workforce comes on the back of our record investment in the NHS, which is helping to deliver our manifesto commitments, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), including our commitment to 50,000 more nurses by the end of the Parliament. The spending review settlement will also underpin funding for the biggest ever intake of undergraduate medical students and nurses.
Although I might not be able to say anything sufficient to fully convince my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), I put on record my gratitude to him not only for the insight, expertise and knowledge he has brought to our debates on this issue but for the typical courtesy he has displayed throughout our interactions and conversations. I do not know what he will say in a moment, but I have tried to pre-empt him. I hope that he may be tempted to stick with it.
I hope that the House will recognise that the Government are already doing substantial work to improve workforce planning, and that placing a requirement such as Lords amendment 29B on the statute book is therefore unnecessary.
Edward Argar
Very briefly, but I am sensitive to Madam Deputy Speaker’s instruction to be brief.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the Minister for giving way. More than 100 organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association, have expressed their support for Lords amendment 29B. Does he agree that the only way to ensure that we recruit and retain the talented staff that our NHS and social care sector desperately need is through a long-term workforce plan in consultation with the experts in the field, such as health and care employers, unions and integrated care boards?
Edward Argar
That is exactly what we are doing through the work commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which is why Lords amendment 29B is unnecessary.
Edward Argar
I fear that I cannot, but my hon. Friend may catch me during my winding-up speech. I want to make progress, as about 10 Back-Bench colleagues wish to speak.
Finally, on the adult social care cap, the Government have announced our plan for a sustainable social care system. It is fair, affordable and designed to end the pain of unpredictable care costs by capping the amount anyone needs to pay at £86,000. Without clause 140 there would be a fundamental unfairness: two people living in different parts of the country, contributing the same amount, would progress towards the cap at different rates based on differences in the amount their local authority is paying. We are committed to levelling up and must ensure that people in different parts of the country are benefiting to the same extent, and our provisions support this. Amendments 80A to 80N also make crucial changes to support the operation of charging reform, as these changes were lost by the removal of clause 140 in the other place.
Lords amendments 80P and 80Q insert a regulation-making power to amend how
“costs accrued in meeting eligible needs”
is determined in section 15 of the Care Act 2014. However, if regulations were made using this power, they would result in anyone entering the care system under the age of 40 receiving free personal care up to that age. As local authority contributions would count towards the cap under these changes, a 35-year-old with average care costs would reach the cap and not have to pay anything towards the cost of their care, yet a person who enters care the day after their 40th birthday would need to contribute towards the £86,000 cap over their lifetime. We believe this is unfair. Our plan already includes a more generous means test that means more people will be eligible for state support towards the cost of care earlier, enabling them to keep more of their income.
The changes introduced in the other place also threaten the affordability of our reforms. Lords amendments 80, 80P and 80Q would clearly affect financial arrangements to be made by this House and, as such, have financial privilege. These new Lords amendments would cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year by 2027-28. Ultimately, this would mean we need to make the same level of savings elsewhere, making the system less generous for other users. I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that we believe our approach is still the right one, and I ask the House to disagree with the other place’s amendments.
Finally, I put on record my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) and the noble Baroness Morgan of Cotes for their constructive and positive engagement during the Bill’s passage on ways to strengthen co-operation between the UK Government, the UK Statistics Authority, the Office for National Statistics and the devolved Administrations, and for their passion for strengthening the Union. I am pleased we are taking forward that work, albeit outside this Bill. I am stimulated by their important work.
We have sought throughout the passage of the Bill to be pragmatic and to listen to this House and the other place in either accepting their amendments or addressing them in lieu. I hope the House recognises that this approach continues to characterise our work, save where we sadly cannot agree with the other place in respect of its amendments on both the workforce and social care caps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The problem we have is that this debate has to finish at 7.55 pm. This means that, after the shadow Minister has spoken, I will have to impose a time limit to get in a lot of Back Benchers. The time limit will start at four minutes.
I call the shadow Minister, Karin Smyth.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill has been significantly improved. It delivers changes to the 2012 legalisation the NHS called for. Some other issues have been addressed by ministerial assurances and many valuable new clauses have been added. I am pleased that much of what we argued for in the six weeks of the Bill Committee has finally been accepted. On two issues—the Secretary of State’s powers on reconfiguration, and procurement and modern slavery—the Lords have wrestled important concessions that we support. As a former senior NHS manager, I know that reconfiguration is necessary, important and often difficult; it is often wrongly associated purely with cuts and taking something away. We are interested in improving outcomes for people, and that sometimes requires difficult change. For two decades, a comprehensive process has existed, which includes local people, is informed by expert assessments and operates pretty well. Throughout Committee, and during numerous debates, I have heard no sound argument to change it, but the Government seemed hellbent on doing so, and it is only at the eleventh hour that they have finally agreed to some changes.
If I listened to the Minister correctly, he says that now the NHS will have to notify the Secretary of State when there is something notifiable. That is going to be as clear as mud for everybody, isn’t it? We look forward to the regulations. The point is that the Government’s initial plan inhibits improvement. If NHS managers and, in particular, clinical leaders know that the Secretary of State is hovering, they will be less likely to promote changes that may be clinically necessary but politically difficult. It appears now that the Secretary of State finally agrees and does not want this big pile on his desk, and although the amendment is far from perfect, it does enough for now. On the procurement issue, I commend the work of many people from across both these Houses and the excellent case that has been put forward. Labour has been pushing for measures such as these for many months, and I think the intentions of the Government appear to be aligned to a shared view of what is required.
However, there remain two substantial issues, workforce and the care cap, where I hope the Government, even at this late hour, will listen to reason. Many experts have spoken, and many ideas, alternatives and suggestions have been put forward, but we have had very little engagement from the Government. On these two matters, we speak for the stakeholders, experts and Members from all parties, who are united in opposing the Government’s proposals. Workforce planning is a huge issue in its own right, but it is also fundamental and cuts through everything we are talking about on health and social care. Chiefly, the problem is that unless we face up to the scale of the workforce challenge, the Government will not deliver the shorter waiting times that patients need. Until this Government break out of their straitjacket—unless somebody can make the Chancellor see reason—nothing is going to change for all our constituents. The Government should start today—otherwise patients will be left wondering why they are paying more and more in taxes but waiting longer for care.
Time precludes my repeating all the arguments. I could simply repeat what the Chair of the Select Committee said last time or I could offer the wise words of the previous chief executive of the NHS and more—who can add to the variety and strength of the evidence? The logic of this approach escapes me. Every MP knows that our family, friends and constituents are now in a cycle of long waits in pain and discomfort, with worry. All that is asked for in this Lords amendment is a proper report that sets out the system to address the likely staffing requirements—that is so obviously necessary. If this amendment falls, we, as legislators, have failed. If the Secretary of State will not show leadership, NHS England must step up and produce its own requirements and projections. Additionally, the Local Government Association could commission work across the country, in every local authority, on the needs for social care and public health staff. I suggest that every MP asks their own integrated care system and local authority what workforce requirements and projections they have, and how credible these plans are. Unless we do that, how can anyone have confidence in the delivery for the people we are elected to represent?
Finally, we come to the proposed changes to the care cap calculations. Those were snuck in at the last moment and were not subject to any scrutiny in our six weeks in the Bill Committee. They have not been discussed in any detail at all. The proposals are a less generous version of what was in the Care Act 2014 and this is a massive step backwards. Once again, I could read out a ring binder full of analysis and evidence provided by the legion of stakeholders, none of it complimentary. We hear the repeated claim, “This solves the problem of social care. It is fixed.” It simply is not. Let us leave aside the deeply insulting attitude that the care and support of people in need, who could live better more fulfilled lives, is a “problem” to solve; we should be celebrating the fact that people can live better, for many years longer, with multiple conditions, with decent support and care. We all know that to be true.
The proposals the Government have put forward do not deliver any more care; they just change who pays for it. Money will go to those with assets, and the less you have, the more they will take. The proposals will have no real impact for years, but we all know that people need help now. They will not improve the quality of care by anything like what is needed and will not stop those 15-minute visits. The proposals do nothing to assist working-age adults who have a disability. They do not stabilise the collapsing market for care home place provision. They do not shorten any wait for care or reduce any waiting list. They will have no impact on improving access to care for hundreds of thousands of people currently excluded. They do not address the issues around a care workforce with many vacancies and poor terms and conditions. They do nothing to address the catastrophe of the past decade of cuts to local government. This is not a solution to social care. This ill-thought-out idea should not have been pasted into the Bill. Some more informed Conservative Members have also recognised the unfair impact on the poorest, especially those in parts of the north; levelling up this certainly is not.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 29B. Even though I believe the Government will reject it today and this may be the last time this House can debate it, I will try to make my comments with the customary courtesy that the Minister for Health attributed to me just now, with his customary courtesy. He said that this amendment was unnecessary, but I wish to ask the House: what precisely is unnecessary about an amendment that simply requires independent, regular estimates of the numbers of doctors and nurses we should be training? What could drive the Government to want to vote down such a harmless amendment, not once, not twice, but, including today, three times? I will tell the House why the Government are going to vote this amendment down. They will do so because they know that any such independent estimate would conclude that we need to be training more doctors and nurses. Why on earth would we not want to train more doctors and nurses, if we looked objectively at the challenges facing the NHS today? We last debated this on the day the Ockenden report was published in Parliament. That report talked about more than 200 babies’ lives that would probably have been saved with better care. The key recommendation in that report was for 2,000 more midwives and 500 more obstetricians, and that would not have been necessary had this amendment been in place. We can put this right.
I immensely respect the work done by the Minister for Health and the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for their engagement, but I say to them, from the bottom of my heart, that not training enough doctors and nurses is a false economy. It costs patients’ lives, it costs taxpayers’ money, it demoralises the workforce and it lets down the people who are waiting for their NHS operation. The Health Minister’s argument is that we will have 50,000 more nurses by the end of this Parliament and we are training more doctors than ever, but today’s report by the King’s Fund shows that that is a hollow claim, because even though we are on track for our 50,000 nurses, the number of vacancies is still not going down. In other words, more nurses does not mean enough nurses, and we can never know what enough is unless we are honest enough to ask ourselves the hard questions.
The lesson of Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay, Southern Health and Telford is that the first step in dealing with poor care is to be honest about the issue. We now have in the NHS a workforce issue of enormous proportions, which is why Lords amendment 29 is supported by every NHS leader, every royal college, every health think-tank, every union and more than 100 NHS organisations in total. I am afraid that, by voting down a simple request for independent estimates of the number of doctors and nurses we should be training, the Government are actively choosing to sweep the problem under the carpet. I say to Ministers, who have listened to my arguments genuinely and in good faith, that NHS and care staff deserve better after two years of the pandemic, and the people waiting for their NHS operations deserve better, too.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Operational procurement is a devolved matter but, given our interest in trade policies, we welcome the progress on procurement to ensure that healthcare supply chains are not linked to modern slavery and human trafficking. We support UK Government amendment 48A in lieu of Lords amendment 48, and we also support Lords amendment 48B in lieu. It is perhaps worth reflecting on the fact that in Scotland half of all PPE is now produced locally and that the overall costs of pandemic procurement were a third less than those of the UK. Such measures can, then, be cost-effective and help to safeguard against global supply chain issues.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
I rise to support the compromise measure on reconfigurations and to ask the Government to take forward the work on UK-wide statistics with vigour and gusto.
First, on reconfigurations, it is right and reasonable that the largest organisation in the country, which is funded by taxpayers through the taxes that every single citizen pays, should be accountable to Ministers who are in turn accountable to this House. Although that principle has been accepted in the Bill across the board and in general terms, the other place has decided that it should not apply in the specific circumstances of reconfigurations. It is vital that when a reconfiguration happens, not only the clinical voices but the voice of the local community should be heard. The two need to go together. The best way to make happen any reconfiguration that is needed on clinical grounds is to engage the local community and get it onside. If we are to save lives through a reconfiguration, we can win the argument, but only if we engage and make the argument. In my experience, too often a reconfiguration was put on the table, perhaps for good clinical reasons but without enough local engagement, and in practice the process just ran into the sand.
I welcome the six-month delay—I hope the Secretary of State will work quicker than six months most of the time, but it is a good backstop; I welcome the de minimis threshold, because relatively small reconfigurations happen all the time; and I welcome the removal of some of the bureaucracy in the amendment. To my hon. Friend the Minister, who has done a magnificent job on the Bill right from the start, before it even came to this House—I thank all his officials for their service—I say: let us take this compromise but say clearly to the other place, “Thus far and no further.” The principle of democratic responsibility for the NHS and for winning the argument with the public about its local design is at the heart of the Bill and it must stand.
In the final minute I have in which to speak, let me make a point about statistics. Those on the Treasury Bench have decided not to include in the Bill measures on the UK-wide measurement of health services and on the interoperability of data in the four nations of the UK, but I put on the record the importance—I hope the Minister reiterates this—of getting UK-wide measurements. In Wales, it was decided to discontinue the measurement of some aspects, especially in respect of A&E performance. A suspicion was raised—I am sure this could not possibly have been true—that those measurements were discontinued so that unfavourable comparisons with England could no longer be made. If that were true, it would be an outrage. I very much hope that it is not, but we should put it right anyway and measure NHS service delivery throughout the UK on the same basis, so that comparisons can be made, so that we can learn about and improve services across all four nations, and so that accountability can properly apply to the four different Governments who run the four parts of the one NHS, which operates across this United Kingdom.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the Lords amendment on workforce—probably for the dozenth time during the Bill’s passage. I make no apologies for repetition because some things are worth repeating and the importance of our workforce can never be understated. Everything comes back to workforce: the grandest plans, strategy documents, reorganisations, integrations and configurations will all count for very little if the fundamental cog in the machine and the glue that holds the whole thing together—the workforce—is not a central part of those plans. The consistent failure to invest in the workforce and to provide a plan for it so that it is able to meet demand over a sustained period is at the root of many of the challenges that the NHS faces today. We should correct that.
On Friday night, a constituent contacted me as he suspected he had dislocated his hip and had been told that his situation did not warrant an ambulance. Eventually, he managed to get to A&E, but in the end he went home without receiving treatment because it was so busy that people were standing outside the department. That is just one example, but there are countless others like it—the frustrated constituents who can never speak to their GP; the many people left in agony because waiting lists are at record levels; those whose teeth rot away because they cannot get dental treatment; and those who receive no help for their mental health issues because they do not reach the threshold for intervention. Every one of those examples arises because, to a greater or lesser extent—I would say to a greater extent most of the time—there simply are not enough staff to meet the demand.
There is a pattern of disconnection in respect of the action required to meet the Government’s ambitions, let alone getting the NHS to meet its constitutional targets. Unless workforce is addressed in a meaningful way as part of all the plans and strategies issued, the Government are just fooling themselves that their plans are credible and deliverable. Even if the Government wish to fool themselves, they are not fooling anyone else. They are certainly not fooling us Members on the Opposition Benches or the 100 or so health and social care organisations that support what we are trying to achieve with the workforce amendment.
The most recent Department-commissioned NHS workforce strategy, the People Plan, did not include a forecast on staffing numbers. When asked about it, Baroness Harding, who authored the plan, said that the strategy did not include staff numbers not because
“the Government disagreed with the numbers”
but
“because we could not get approval to publish the document with any forecasts in it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2021; Vol. 816, c. 1814.]
Perhaps that means the Government do have figures but just do not want us to see them. If that is right, perhaps the Minister could let us in on the secret when he responds. If that is not right, will he tell us what other organisation with more than a million staff manages to operate successfully without accurate figures on workforce projection?
In addition to the obvious arguments about why we need accurate information on workforce requirements, it is important that we collect such information for existing staff, because they need hope that help is on the way. We need to show that those claps on a Thursday night were not an empty gesture and that there is a determination to do something about the persistent rota gaps that mean staff are both exhausted and demoralised. Just look at some of the challenges we face: 93,000 vacancies; a £6 billion annual spend on agency staff; staff working extra unpaid hours; and some 40% off with work-related stress at some point or other. With all those things conspiring together, it is little wonder that retention is an issue, so we need to give staff hope that we have an answer—that we have a plan. As the Select Committee report on workforce burnout said:
“The way that the NHS does workforce planning is at best opaque and at worst responsible for the unacceptable pressure on the current workforce which existed even before the pandemic.”
With so many challenges currently facing the NHS, why do we want to make it worse by refusing to accept the evidence before our eyes? It is no coincidence that NHS satisfaction ratings are reported to be at a 25-year low at the same time as record numbers of NHS staff say they would not recommend working at their own trust. Those issues are not disconnected in any way, which is why we need to support the workforce amendment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will speak briefly to Government amendment 48A, which is in lieu of amendment 48B. Essentially, it requires the health service to ensure that it does not use products made under forced or slave labour anywhere in the world. That is a big statement by the Health Department, and one that I think we all welcome—I have certainly campaigned on this issue for some time.
In the great sweep of this health legislation, on which there are agreements and disagreements across the board, that may not seem to be something that will directly affect our lives, but in truth it will resonate beyond our shores. It is already resonating among the Uyghur, who have found themselves under distinct pressure, with husbands often separated from wives and families broken apart for forced labour thousands of miles away from their homes. This measure will speak to them; it is, in a way, a sign that Governments in the free world are taking up this real cause and recognising that it is intolerable for us to turn a blind eye and buy equipment, clothing and so on simply because it is cheaper and helps our cost balance. I do not believe that it will in the end; the trade-off between cost and the human rights of those who have suffered so much under the heel of those totalitarian states is an abysmal one.
Child labour is used in rare-earth mines; when we use those rare-earth materials for the manufacture of our computers, we turn a blind eye to it. When slave labour is used in the Xinjiang region to produce the cotton and the cloth for our personal protective equipment, making it quicker and easier to get, we turn a blind eye to it. It is not just done there; it is done in many countries around the world because it is easier and cheaper, and we tolerate it. I therefore welcome that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Ministers have tabled the amendment. It will speak volumes to those who are oppressed. It will say to them, “The free world has not forgotten you.” I am certain that in due course the rest of this Government will do the same, and other Governments will then follow suit. I congratulate us for making the right decision.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I will speak to the workforce amendment and the amendment on the social care cap.
The Lords have compromised on the workforce amendment—they have now asked for projections every three years instead of every two, and they no longer require independent verification of the projections—so it is deeply disappointing that the Government have not moved to meet them halfway, especially when outside the Government there is so much cross-party consensus that the amendment is badly needed. I know from my constituency of St Albans, as I am sure many Members know from theirs, that our NHS and care staff are burnt out. They are understaffed and overworked. Those people, who continue to turn up every single day, need to know that the cavalry is coming, and without this workforce amendment, they simply will not.
There have been worrying reports that NHS trusts have been silenced when they have tried to talk about the numbers of staff that they need to recruit, so will the Minister address this question in his response: if the Government will not produce workforce planning numbers, will they at least commit to not interfere with or silence any part of the NHS or care sector that decides that it wants to produce its own workforce projections? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s assurances on that point.
When it comes to the social care cap, Ministers have stated time and again that their changes would save the Treasury £900 million a year by 2027-28, but that saving comes at the expense of people with fewer assets and savings, including those who will have been paying five years of increased national insurance contributions, which were put in place partly to fund these care reforms. The Government continue to say that that improves on the current situation, but they conveniently ignore that it is much worse than their original proposal. The social care cap provision does nothing to generate more care; it does nothing to give protections to unpaid carers, who are often on lower incomes but save the Government millions of pounds; and it does nothing to help the social care workforce. I know from my constituency that hospitality, the NHS and social care are all fighting for the same people, and nothing in the Bill will help to improve that situation.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am grateful to have a few minutes to say a few words on the cap on care costs and on workforce planning.
With regard to the care cap, it is important to congratulate the Government on tackling a problem—or attempting to defuse a ticking time bomb—that all their predecessors shied away from. However, there is concern that the proposals are a rushed tag-on to a Bill that was designed for a different purpose: the integration of health and social care and the setting up of integrated care systems. I accept that there is a clear correlation, but the legislation that addresses the problem of people being forced to sell their homes to pay for their care should have been considered and scrutinised separately and carefully, with the objective of putting in place a system that has political consensus and will stand the test of time. That is what the Dilnot proposals and the Care Act 2014 achieved, and they should be the foundation stone on which we build this new system.
My concerns are twofold. First, clause 140 is extremely unfair to those with limited assets and modest incomes. The changes may save the Government hundreds of millions of pounds, but they do so at the expense of those on low incomes and those who live in parts of the country where house values are lower, such as Lowestoft in my constituency. Secondly, there is a worry that working-age adults with disabilities will be unfairly penalised, hence the introduction by the other place of a provision to address it. I acknowledge the Government’s worries about the cost implication of that additional provision, but that iniquity needs to be addressed.
On workforce planning, there is a staffing crisis both in the NHS, where there are 110,000 full-time equivalent vacancies, and in social care, where there are another 100,000 vacancies, high staff turnover and very limited respite for unpaid and family carers. Those deficiencies cascade through the health and care system, creating bed-blocking in hospitals and impeding the efforts made to reduce waiting lists. There is an urgent need for strategic planning to address this crisis. There is concern that framework 15 is not working because of inadequacies in the collection of data, lack of assessment of workforce numbers, and unresponsiveness to societal shifts.
Since we last considered the issue last month, the other place has sought to address the Government’s concerns and, as we have heard, has made reasonable concessions. There is a crisis that must be addressed, and I hope that at this very late stage the Government will accept this reasonable amendment, so that we can get on with this much-needed work.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Amendment 29B goes much further than the Bill’s current provisions on workforce reporting, which are extremely weak. It would require the Government, at least once every three years, to lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of health, social care, and public health services in England. What could be more reasonable? One has to wonder why the Government do not support amendment 29B. Surely any Government who were committed to running the NHS as a public service would see these provisions as crucial.
The Royal College of Physicians has pointed out that clause 35
“will not set out how many health and social care staff are needed to meet demand”
and has stated that, without long-term projections, which amendment 29B would provide, there is no way to assess how changes in workforce trends, such as retirements or working part time, will impact the delivery of healthcare. The Royal College of General Practitioners has spoken of unsustainable pressures driving GPs out of the workforce and threatening to destabilise general practice.
Just a few weeks ago, the Royal College of Nursing said that nursing staff are exhausted and that staff shortages are undermining their efforts to give safe and effective care—a sentiment reflected by a nurse I met on bank holiday Monday. That is hugely concerning. As the RCN has said, there is a clear evidence base showing that staffing levels have a direct impact on the safety and quality of patient care. When I met members of the RCN last year, they made clear to me the increased stress levels that nurses are experiencing as a result of staff shortages and the impact that is having on the care they so desperately want to deliver.
According to the Health Foundation:
“In the next 25 years, the number of people older than 85 will double to 2.6 million”
in England, so demand for social care is increasing and we need to know that there will be enough doctors, nurses and social care workers to meet people’s needs. The “Strength in Numbers” campaign, a coalition of more than 100 health and care organisations, says that we must put
“measures to adopt a sustainable long-term approach to workforce planning on a statutory footing.”
Without credible, up-to-date numbers, the system cannot plan.
I support Lords amendment 29B. I urge the Government to think about those NHS staff who are working so hard and are so stretched by the amount of stress they are under because they do not have enough colleagues around them, and to listen to the clinicians who are calling on the Government in this regard.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS doctor. I welcome the Government’s concessions on modern slavery and procurement and on the reconfiguration of NHS services. However, I remain concerned about two issues: the care cap and independence in the staffing assessment process.
To touch briefly on the issue of the care cap, a number of years ago I took through this House the Care Act 2014, as a Minister in the coalition Government. We based that Act and the care cap on the Dilnot proposals. I continue to be concerned that the current proposals deviate from the Dilnot proposals, in that those with lower or more moderate net assets will be asked to pay disproportionately more than those with greater assets. That is something I find very difficult to accept. It deviates from the principles of the 2014 Act and the Dilnot proposals, and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will reconsider their position on it.
I rise in particular to speak in support of Lords amendment 29B and the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). It is undoubtedly the case that we cannot have safe staffing in the NHS if we do not have the right number of staff. We cannot meet the increasingly complex care needs of patients with not just one, two or three but sometimes four comorbid conditions if we do not have staff with the right skills and in the right numbers to meet those care needs.
We talk often of building new hospitals and of our programme of capital investment in hospitals, but unless we have the right numbers to staff those hospitals, we will not be able to deliver safe care. In every constituency represented in this Chamber, we recognise that there are staff shortages in the local NHS. We recognise particular challenges in the medical workforce among fully qualified GPs—over the past seven years the number of full-time equivalent GPs has fallen. We recognise challenges in the midwifery workforce, which were brought tragically to our attention by the Ockenden report, and we recognise challenges in areas such as intensive care and paediatrics and throughout the health service.
The problem with health workforce planning is that Governments see the NHS in electoral cycles, but workforce is much more complicated than that. From starting medical school to becoming a consultant it takes perhaps 15 years, and to become a fully qualified GP takes about 10 or 11 years. It is important that we have a genuine independence to the process of workforce planning. I have great faith in Health Education England and I am sure it will produce a good report and assessment, but unfortunately it will be doing so with one hand tied behind its back, because it must do so within the confines of the financial envelope in which it is working, and it lacks the genuine independence to say what the NHS really needs.
If we care about patients and about the future of the NHS and its needs, true independence in a report on workforce is required. That is in the best interests of patients, of the health and care workforce and of the future of our health service. I hope the Minister will reconsider.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
When I spoke on workforce issues on this Bill last time, I said I was prepared to support the Government’s position on the basis of what the Minister and the Secretary of State had said. The Whips do not need to worry too much, because that remains the case, but I feel a huge amount of sympathy for my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) and Lords amendment 29B. Fundamentally, if the Government are not prepared to accept what the House of Lords has proposed, they are making their relationship with NHS staff and those associated with the NHS somewhat more difficult.
I ask the Minister to ensure that he doubles down on the commitment he made previously to engage relentlessly, publicly and as extensively as possible with that workforce. If the Government do not do that, there will never be that sense that the cavalry is coming over the hill.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey was Secretary of State, we established a new medical school in Lincoln—a huge achievement of his, and one I continue to try to take as much credit for as possible. However, saying to doctors in my local constituency, who are working so hard at the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston and in Skegness, that we are recruiting more people locally who will be able to make a difference is a challenge, because they do not yet see it on the wards. Part of that, as has been said, is because it takes such a long time to train people and bring them to fruition.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
A number of us have been successfully lobbied by the Royal College of Nursing in our own constituencies, showing us the figures—a shortage of 250 nurses in our A&E at the hospital in Gloucester—and staff surveys showing that morale is not where it should be. Does he agree that those things are influencing why some of us are not happy with the Government’s position?
Matt Warman
I agree that the Government need to continue to address that issue in the way I have described, through more extensive engagement to try to demonstrate some of what is happening.
That brings me to my second point—I will try to stick to the original time limit—which is that these issues are about trust. We need trust with the NHS workforce. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) said, with reconfiguration it is very often the case, as it is in my constituency, that even though the data says we will save lives by moving a service from Boston to Lincoln or vice versa, we need to engage with local communities, because right now they simply do not believe that a service that is further away may yet save lives. That does not ring true, and often the data is not yet there.
I simply appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to deliver on what he said at the Dispatch Box about engaging with the profession, because that is essential to try to improve the morale that the pandemic has damaged so much. I also appeal to him to ensure that local NHS organisations engage with local people, because only that will win public support for the reconfiguration that is so essential for our NHS both locally and nationally.
Edward Argar
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), and indeed to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), with whom we spent many happy hours over many weeks in Bill Committee.
I also put on record my gratitude to the amazing Bill team in the Department, with whom it has been a pleasure and a privilege to work on this piece of legislation. They have done an amazing job.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), under whose leadership we saw the genesis of this Bill, and whom it was a pleasure to work with and work for over a long period of time.
On reconfigurations, and on tackling modern slavery and supply chains, I hope and believe that these measures attract support across the House, and therefore will not reprise the case for them here.
In respect of workforce planning, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and many others who have spoken in highlighting our gratitude to the NHS workforce and our recognition of the pressures they have faced, particularly over the past two to two and a half years, but also more broadly. That is why we have not only put in place the measures I outlined to deliver an assessment through Health Education England of the needs of the workforce and the framework for growing it, but rather than waiting for that, already put in place measures to continue to significantly increase the workforce.
Edward Argar
Yes—it is the only intervention I will take, but I promised my hon. Friend.
Steve Brine
When I visit the elective orthopaedics team at Royal Hampshire County Hospital in Winchester later this week, I suspect that they will not tell me that the workforce is not one of the things on their worry list, so it is regrettable that the Government cannot accept amendment 29B. They are obviously going to get their way and win the vote, but will the Minister and his team reflect on the argument that has been had between the two Houses over the past year and, in that spirit, take this issue forward? It is not going away, I need to have an answer for the team on Friday, and what I am hearing right now is not going to satisfy them.
Edward Argar
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that I always reflect carefully not just on what he says and what my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) says, but on what the other place, and other hon. and right hon. Members on either side of this House, say.
I hope I have provided the majority of colleagues with sufficient reassurance about the steps the Government are already taking and our commitment to ensuring that we have the right number of people working in the NHS, coupled with the increases in staffing that we have already delivered and continue to deliver. I hope that the House will again agree that the substantial work already being undertaken by the Government to improve workforce planning is leading to the improvements we all seek, and I therefore urge hon. Members to reject their lordships’ amendment.
We also ask that amendments 80, 80P and 80Q are rejected and amendments 80A to 80N are accepted in lieu. The cap on care costs clause is key to this Government ending unpredictable care costs for everyone by introducing a universal £86,000 cap. That must stand part of the Bill, alongside the necessary further amendments 80A to 80N, and we encourage hon. Members to back us on this.
This Bill is an important step forward in evolving our health and care system to meet future needs, and it comes from a Government who are clear in both their record and their future plans in their support for our NHS. I hope that the other place will heed the large majorities with which this House has already sent these measures back to it, and I hope that we will do so again this evening. We always listen to the other place, but we believe that this House has, on multiple occasions and hopefully again this evening, expressed a clear view of our position on these matters.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 29B in lieu.
Health and Care Bill
Tuesday 26th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Health and Care Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 150-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (26 Apr 2022)
21:49 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 204 - Motion A1 disagreed.
22:04 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 196 - Motion D1 disagreed.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 29B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 29C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, C and D. The amendments being considered today relate to the NHS workforce, reconfigurations, modern slavery risks in NHS supply chains and the adult social care cap.
I turn first to Amendment 29D. The unamended Clause 35 places a duty on the Secretary of State to report on workforce systems. Our report will increase transparency and enhance accountability by describing the workforce planning and supply system for healthcare workers, including those working in the NHS and public health alongside regulated healthcare professions working in social care and public health in England. The existing clause therefore already delivers, by and large, what Amendment 29D seeks to do.
I can confirm that we will be asking Health Education England and NHS England to assist in the preparation of the report. In addition, while the report will be published at a minimum of every five years, it can be published more frequently than that, if required. I can also confirm that, in the preparation of the initial report, we will also seek the views of key stakeholders. The report is in addition to the rest of our expansive work to improve workforce supply and planning, including the Health Education England strategic framework, which will be published in the coming weeks, and the NHS England long-term workforce strategy.
Moving to reconfigurations, I am very grateful for the constructive debates on these issues across both Houses, and in this place particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for their insightful and wise feedback on this power. The first set of changes we have proposed would mean that the NHS had to notify the Secretary of State only about the reconfiguration proposals deemed notifiable, which we will define through regulations. But we intend to align that definition with the existing duty on NHS commissioners to consult local authorities in the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013. Similarly, our amendment removes the requirement for commissioners and providers to inform Ministers of
“circumstances that are likely to result in the need for the reconfiguration of NHS services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/4/22; col. 522.]
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been clear that our intention is to use these powers only in respect of substantial reconfigurations. The vast majority of reconfigurations will be managed without any ministerial intervention. These amendments and our planned regulations reinforce that principle.
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has powers to call in any planning application. However, the stated policy for many years has been to be very selective about doing so, and Ministers will, in general, consider the use of call-in powers only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. I should like to put formally on the record that our intention is that the same principle applies here.
On the Secretary of State’s call-in power, concerns have been raised about patient safety. I want to be clear that these powers should never, and will never, prevent providers making urgent temporary changes where there is a clear and acute risk to the safety of patients or staff.
Secondly, our amendments give local authorities, NHS commissioners and anyone else the Secretary of State considers appropriate, a right to make representations to the Secretary of State where he or she has called for a proposal for consideration. We expect this to include any relevant provider. The Secretary of State will be required to publish a summary of representations he or she receives, and we will set out in statutory guidance further detail on how local bodies, including providers, will be engaged. In addition, we also want the CQC’s expertise to be taken into account where it is appropriate for relevant reconfigurations. We will therefore look to make clear, in guidance, where information provided by the CQC should be taken into account.
Thirdly, transparency is vital to ensure that these powers are always used by Ministers in the public interest. We are therefore requiring the Secretary of State to provide the reasons for his or her decisions and directions when he or she makes them.
Finally, we have heard throughout these debates that reconfiguration decisions must be made quickly to improve the quality of services received by patients. Our amendment requires that, once he or she has called in a reconfiguration proposal, the Secretary of State must make any decisions within six months. We believe that this set of changes answers many of the key concerns raised in Parliament and I therefore urge noble Lords to consider supporting these amendments.
I now turn to Amendment 48C, particularly on the issue of modern slavery. We clearly share the strength of feeling expressed in both Houses on ensuring that the NHS is in no way inadvertently linked to slavery and human trafficking through its supply chain. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment in the first round of ping-pong that creates a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a thorough review of NHS supply chains. Today, I can announce that we will go further than this. The Government’s further amendment in lieu will require the Secretary of State to make regulations with a view to eradicating the use in the NHS in England of goods or services that are tainted by slavery or human trafficking. The regulations can set out steps that the NHS should be taking to assess the level of risk associated with individual suppliers; the basis on which the NHS should exclude them from a tendering process; and what measures should be included in contracts. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Blencathra and also the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for their campaigning—in fact, their persistence—on this issue, and I welcome their support for the amendment. I will also continue, with other Ministers, to work closely with others across government to ensure that our measures to eradicate modern slavery in NHS supply chains are effective and targeted, and reflect best practice.
We must now turn to the issue of the adult social care cap. The Government have announced their plan for a sustainable social care system. It is fair and affordable, and designed to end the pain of unpredictable care costs by capping the amount anyone would need to pay at £86,000. The elected House has once again voted overwhelmingly in favour of our proposals, which are financially privileged—and I would remind the House of its proper role in considering matters that are financially privileged. On the issue of substance, this House will be aware that Governments of all parties, for many years, have considered social care but not implemented reforms due to concerns about the affordability of introducing a cap. I have said previously that reports have gathered dust on shelves but never actually been implemented. Now we have a real opportunity to grasp the nettle. If there are issues or unintended consequences, these will likely be found by the trailblazers, and we can then tweak the system to address any shortcomings. I ask noble Lords to not allow this opportunity once again to slip away.
The existing system is simply not good enough, and our reforms are a vast improvement. Our reforms ensure that more people are eligible for support with the costs of their care; that the amount they spend each week is reduced; and that they can retain more of their savings. At the moment, people get support with the costs of their care only once they have depleted their assets to under £23,250. We are increasing this fourfold, so that people with up to £100,000 in savings, who are currently paying all the costs of their care, will now be eligible for funding support from the state. Under the current system, only once you have depleted your assets to £14,250 do you no longer need to contribute from your assets. We are increasing this to £20,000. Most crucially, at the moment there is no cap. Our reforms mean that people will have more certainty and more peace of mind, and will be able to plan ahead, whatever part of the country they are in.
“(1) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every three years, lay a report before Parliament describing the system in place for assessing and meeting the workforce needs of the health, social care and public health services in England.
(2) NHS England and Health Education England must assist in the preparation of a report under this section.
(3) The organisations listed in subsection (2) must consult health and care employers, providers, trade unions, Royal Colleges, universities and any other persons deemed necessary for the preparation of this report, taking full account of workforce intelligence, evidence of trends in healthcare and demand for it, and workforce plans provided by local organisations and partners.””
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. My noble friend Lady Wheeler will speak to Motions D and D1 and I will focus my remarks on the issue of the health and social care workforce. However, before I do, I welcome the compromises reached on the reconfiguration of local services and on NHS procurement while avoiding modern slavery. I believe the constructive discussions that we have had have truly improved this Bill and I am grateful to noble Lords across the House and to the Minister for his efforts and commitment.
The importance of the workforce has been debated extensively, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House. Once again, I am arguing for the importance of implementing a proper forward-looking plan. That I am doing this even after yesterday’s proceedings in the other place conveys just how strongly we feel on this issue. Over 100 organisations of healthcare professionals, think tanks, practitioners and patients have supported our efforts. They continue to press us to make the point that, without mandated forecasts of staff numbers, meaningful workforce planning—something that every other efficient organisation undertakes—cannot take place. They continue to despair at the Government’s now repeated refusal to demonstrate proper commitment to safely staffing our hospitals and other healthcare settings.
We all know that there is desperate understaffing. The staff know it; they feel the pressure and they see the adverse outcomes. The patients know it, often falling into a cycle of long waits, in pain and discomfort, because of staff shortages. Resolving this is quite straightforward. We need a national staffing picture, otherwise how will we know whether we are training enough staff to meet the needs of the country? Yet the Government continue to refuse to commit to producing such an assessment. They say that the necessary work has already been done, or is going to be done, but we, and stakeholders, vehemently disagree, and it is hard to follow the Government’s logic.
If the Secretary of State will not show leadership then NHS England must step up and produce its own requirements and projections, or the Local Government Association could commission such work across the country by local authority. Some way, somehow, every integrated care system and local authority will have to quantify their future workforce requirements and projections and plan for how these will be met.
The Government’s current drafting leaves open some serious questions. We do not know whether the plan will cover health and social care workforces. What is the intended timeframe of the commissioned NHS England plan, and will it be recommissioned once this period expires? Can the Minister confirm that robust data on staff numbers in our healthcare workforces will be published and, if so, when? I would be grateful for any clarification that the Minister can provide.
I deeply regret that the Government have felt unable to meet with parliamentarians—the Opposition, other political parties or indeed any of our experienced Cross Bench Members—even to discuss this issue. This is an irregular and unwarranted response. I hold out hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may see good sense in planning for the workforce that we need, instead of leaving it to chance. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
Two noble Baronesses will be taking part remotely. I first call the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Motion D1, to be moved later, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. It attempts to salvage something of what we set out to achieve on Report. Noble Lords will remember that I was particularly keen to achieve a zero cap for working-age adults who have or who develop eligible care needs under the age of 40. This would enable them to save enough for an ordinary life, like other people.
Amendment 80S would allow regulations to decide how costs accrue under the Care Act, including local authority costs. Not to let them count is fundamentally unfair, adding years to the time it would take to reach the cap. The amendment ensures that the trailblazer pilots are assessed and reviewed by Parliament in the light of regional variations and the impact on younger disabled adults.
Disabled people are contributing to their care from benefits intended to cover the extra costs of disability. Four million disabled people in the UK are living in poverty and are particularly hard hit by the rising cost of living. Without some easing, they will remain trapped in poverty. The Minister has told us many times that the cap is proportionate and fair. He refers to the uprating of social care allowances, meaning the minimum income guarantee—what is left after being charged for care. In practical terms, it is minimal. To someone with the highest support needs and on the highest rate of disability benefits, it amounts to £4.55 a week. That barely keeps pace with the cost of living, let alone their extra disability costs, which are estimated at £583 per month. It is also far less than older people receive. Disabled people will be simply crushed by their rising debts.
If the Government’s proposals go through tonight, young disabled people will never participate in society as equal citizens, and those totally reliant on benefits will suffer even more financially—yet we know from the evidence that investing in social care to support disabled people improves their health, enhances their independence and reduces demand on welfare benefits.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, does not thwart the primacy of the elected House. Nobody says that the current system is acceptable, but these proposals from the Government are not the answer. The public are demanding better social care and support for all those who need it so that they can thrive as dignified human beings. The Government’s last-minute changes to their reforms, sprung on Parliament with no time for proper scrutiny, will not deliver the will of the people, who want investment in social care.
We must, and we will, continue our efforts to secure a better deal, especially for those young disabled people starting out in life, who simply want a life like anyone else. The least we can do tonight is support these reasonable and modest amendments, so that that can become a reality.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I start by thanking the Minister for the large number of meetings during the passage of this Bill in the Lords—with some exceptions, but I will return to those shortly. It has been, for the most part, a very constructive engagement that has taken a considerable amount of the Minister’s and his officials’ time. I believe that the constructive nature of the discussions means that this Bill will leave your Lordships’ House in a better state, and more workable in practice, than when it arrived.
I will speak on Motions C, D and D1 and will leave Motions A, A1 and B to my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I pay particular tribute to her for her dedicated work on the Front Bench, which I have been unable to fulfil because of the strict rules relating to remote contributions.
On Motion C on modern slavery, I particularly thank Ministers for listening to the concerns across all parties in both Houses. Motion C addresses many of the concerns that there were about the willingness of the Government to carry out a review in order to better understand the risk of slavery, human trafficking and modern slavery in the NHS supply chain. It is, of course, only a first step. Eradication of slavery and human trafficking in health service supply chains must remain the key objective, but this will give the Government the tools they need. The publication arrangements will be transparent, and Parliament will have a chance to scrutinise it. For these reasons, these Benches will not oppose Motion C.
I turn now to Motions D and D1 on the social care cap. I start by thanking the Minister for his letter—received this afternoon—addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, and copied to myself and others who have attended meetings with him on the social care cap, which provided more detail on the trailblazer programme. By the way, in any other environment they would be called “pilots”, but there we go. I am struggling to see what is new about the trailblazer programme in that letter, other than one extraordinary sentence which says:
“I would be happy to arrange a further meeting with you and the policy team if you would like to discuss this in more depth”.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell, and will confine my brief remarks to social care, which I have long worked on. Sadly, the measures in the Bill will not rise to the challenge as required to sort out the social care system in our country.
I accept and congratulate the Government on the concessions that they have made. I am delighted to see Motion C on modern slavery. However, as far as social care is concerned, I would like to understand from my noble friend, on workforce planning, whether private care homes and non-state care home staff will be assessed as to adequacy. At the moment, there are horrendous staff shortages, and the current immigration policy does not seem to include carers—an essential element of the workforce—because of the pay structures. If he could explain what the social care workforce elements of the Government’s proposals are for the non-state social care sector, I would be most grateful.
I am not planning to vote against the Government on Motion D1, but I am afraid that I cannot support them. I put on record that I agree with everything that has been said about the Government’s changes to the social care cap. I believe that the measures are regressive; they will damage the least well off—or the lower end of the middle range of people, shall we say. They may be better than the current system, but they are not a solution and are not satisfactory. We will end up having to revisit the support for social care. Having said that, and in view of the fact that this is financial privilege, I will not vote against the Government on Motion D1.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to offer Green support for both Motions A1 and D1. Motion D1 has already been very amply covered, most notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, so I will just address my remarks to Motion A1.
I know that many Members of your Lordships’ House feel as though we do not want to be political about things—I might have thoughts about that—but this is not a political amendment at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said, more than 100 of our major healthcare organisations have expressed support for this workforce planning approach. Just a couple of hours ago, and this addresses your Lordships’ House directly, the British Heart Foundation put out a press release saying that, without this amendment, it is
“unclear how ambitious targets laid out in the Elective Recovery Plan and other NHS delivery plans can be met.”
The chief executive said that
“the Government has missed an open goal by failing … to address the workforce shortage”.
In addition, just yesterday the King’s Fund put out a report saying that the Government—they can welcome this—are “on track” to meet their target of “50,000 extra nurses” by 2024. However, the King’s Fund points out that the level of vacancies is still the same as it was when that promise was made. Just plucking figures out of the air and going, “Hey, we’ve got this great figure”, is not enough; we need to plan for the future. That is why this amendment is absolutely crucial for our NHS.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to Motion A1. I will first thank my noble friend the Minister for his fantastically collaborative approach on the Bill. I am particularly delighted to see the Government’s proposals on reconfigurations, so I thank him very much for them.
On workforce, I fear that there is almost nothing more to be said. Throughout the passage of this Bill, at every stage in this House and across all sides, we have all been clear that if we do not resolve the workforce issues—the people issues in the NHS—everything else is for naught. Yet we come to end of this process and there have been no changes at all. It is with great sadness that I speak today because I feel that, despite the great work that has been done and all the best intentions, things will not improve. I would love to believe that I am wrong, that my noble friend the Minister is right and that the workforce elements of the Bill are sufficient, but I am afraid that the evidence of the last 20 years is that they are not.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 48C in lieu, and what an extraordinary amendment it is. The Government have accepted, for the first time, that they must make—and will make—regulations
“eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains”.
This is an extraordinary turnaround, and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, on it.
However, the real hero here is the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. In every relevant—or even vaguely relevant—Bill we have considered in this Parliament, he has sought to pass an amendment or new clause tackling genocide or slavery in Xinjiang province. Every time, his amendments have been rejected on the absurd notion that only an international court can decide on genocide. He has articulated again and again the terrible abuses of the Uighurs in China: forced labour camps, sterilisation of women—that is slow-motion genocide—systematic rape, murder and torture. He has called for us not to trade with any company making anything which emanated from such slave labour, either in China or anywhere else in the world. His persistence has paid off and, aided by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith in another place, the Government have now produced this amendment in lieu.
At this moment we have no idea what a change this will bring about. It may seem a small start now but I care to bet that in, say, 20 years’ time, historians will point to this amendment and the campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and say that it has changed world history. I will press my noble friend the Minister on the timescale here. I hope we will have the regulations on the statute book within about 12 months and will not have to engage in the formerly proposed and rather convoluted 18-month consultation system with everyone under the sun around the world. Indeed, the Secretary of State announced last week that he was banning CCTV cameras from Hikvision, a company with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party. I assume he did that without extensive consultation.
My noble friend the Minister probably cannot answer this, but I hope that the promised procurement Bill will have equally strong provisions. Indeed, it will not get through this House unless it mirrors what the Secretary of State has done here. There can be no back- sliding now.
In conclusion, and in addition to once again congratulating my noble friend Lord Alton, I wish to praise my right honourable friend Secretary of State Javid, who—if I may say so without being patronising—is turning out to be rather good. I tried amendments on single-sex provision in NHS hospitals and the Secretary of State has now urged NHS trusts to do it. I say to him, “Don’t urge them, Secretary of State—make them do it. You must re-write Annexe B and protect women.”
He has also rightly demanded a review of the consequences of children having their sex changed on the basis of inadequate evidence. As he points out, the zealots in the militant trans lobby who are marching children through the sex-change machine could be committing child abuse. That is the real conversion therapy that needs to be banned. It looks like we may have someone sensible in charge of the DHSC. The Motion moved by my noble friend tonight proves that and I commend it once again.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome government Amendment 48C. To see an amendment committing the National Health Service to the eradication—that word “eradication” is amazing in itself—of slavery and human trafficking in NHS supply chains is as welcome as it is remarkable. This becomes like a mutual admiration society, but I take this chance to thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra and pay tribute to him for the work he has undertaken to secure this amendment; we have become good friends in the course of this amendment and other fights on these issues as the years have gone by.
I also want to reference the work of the Bill team, who my noble friend and I met yesterday along with the Minister. I pay tribute to them for the work that they have done; they have gone an extra mile. I also thank the Minister himself and the noble Earl, for helping us with his advice in earlier stages; it was candid but helpful, and I appreciate that. I thank the Secretary of State, who has been referred to. There is no doubt that this is not just another issue as far as he is concerned; he is deeply committed to it. He does not want to be the Secretary of State presiding over a National Health Service accused of purchasing goods made by slave labour in places such as Xinjiang.
I also pay tribute to the charities and NGOs that have campaigned for this—not least the charity Arise, of which I am a trustee, and its chief executive Luke de Pulford. Serendipitously, it held a reception here attended by some noble Lords who are in the Chamber tonight, including government Ministers, a former Minister and other Members from all sides. The reception included speeches from Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Sarah Champion and Danny Kruger, underlining the bicameral, cross-party and no-party support for this amendment.
The Minister knows that I have two short questions for him about the amendment. One concerns a point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra about the timetable for laying the regulations and seeks his assurance that nothing is being done—such as further reviews or consultations—to kick this down the road. I do not believe that that is the case but I would love to hear it from the Dispatch Box. Secondly, the amendment gives power to the Secretary of State to assess the circumstances in which the amendment will be implemented. As the Minister knows, I would like an assurance that the reference to the word “appropriate” in the amendment could never be used to frustrate the decision of Parliament to achieve the central objective of the amendment; that is, to eradicate slavery from the supply chains.
May I also press the Minister on two other related issues? They relate to the purchase of goods from a state that was, after all, described by the Foreign Secretary herself, Elizabeth Truss, as one committing genocide. The Minister knows that the Government continue to use, in his words, commercial sensitivity in answering questions about the loss of UK taxpayers’ money on faulty PPE and addressing legitimate questions involving transparency and accountability. The Minister has confirmed to me—I quote him—that
“the Department’s Anti-Fraud Unit received referrals from varying sources on 37 contracts.”
As recently as 7 April, the Minister told me:
“The Department is committed to transparency and a total of funds recovered may be published in future.”
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us when we will get to a point when publication will be allowed.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I begin by welcoming Motion B, which puts in place government Amendments 30C to 30K, laid in another place. They relate to the Secretary of State’s role in major NHS reconfigurations and are a credit to the Minister, his ministerial team and the Bill team. They have listened to the strong arguments from across this House, led so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, who is unable to be with us tonight. I thank the Minister for agreeing—eventually—that the powers originally proposed in the Bill were excessive, disruptive and unnecessary.
Unfortunately, we have not had such a fruitful consensus on the matter of workforce planning. We do not agree with the Commons that our workforce amendment, Amendment 29B, was unnecessary because appropriate measures already appear in the Bill. If that were so, and if the sector had had confidence in the Government’s track record in planning for adequate and safe staffing levels in health and care services, we would not have had more than 100 organisations backing our earlier attempts, led so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to put in place a mandatory system for reviewing the available workforce and predicting what will be needed in future. However, here we are, with the Government having set their face firmly against any compromise on or serious discussion about the matter. One has to ask what the Government are afraid of.
Any effective workforce strategy must be based on reliable information, be regularly refreshed and have numbers in it. This House and the whole sector have no confidence that what the Government are proposing will do that. I understand that the Treasury has had a hand in the Secretary of State’s determination to just say no. Perhaps the Treasury is unwilling to foot the Bill, which will prove to be essential when all is revealed.
I put it to the Minister one last time that our proposal would be cost-effective. Staff shortages are a false economy. Missing staff are often replaced by very expensive locums and agency staff, and the stress of unsafe staffing levels causes valued staff to leave the service. Training and recruiting staff to replace them also costs money. High staff turnover is not an effective strategy for any business or service, and poor treatment for patients often has to be done again or leads to greater and more expensive needs further down the track. No efficient shopkeeper would fail to do a proper stocktake or take account of what people are buying and therefore what he needs to order to replenish his stock—but that is what the Government are doing if they fail to plan effectively for safe staffing. It is much more serious than empty shelves, because it is playing with people’s lives, as was recently demonstrated so clearly by the Ockenden report.
If the Government are determined not to carry out the reviews and consultations in Amendment 29D, I would like to ask the Minister whether they would be happy for some other organisation, such as NHS England, to do so and whether they will take note of the results of that investigation. Amendment 29D from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, in Motion A1, is not a silver bullet; it will not solve the current staffing crisis in the NHS and care services. But it would provide a strong foundation for future safe and cost-effective staffing, which would be to the benefit of the whole population. It is our duty to ask the Government to think again—again.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, in closing the debate before we hear from the Minister, I make no apology for concentrating on social care, on how the care cap is to be implemented, and on my Motion D1, which implores the Commons to think again on this vital issue. I thank noble Lords who have given their strong support to Motions A1 and D1.
I wish to reinforce the key point that, from the outset, social care and Parliament have been treated pretty shabbily as part of this Bill. It is essentially an NHS Bill. As we know, the social care cap and charging arrangements were added to the Bill in the Commons, with no notice and after the Bill had finalised its Committee stages, and were then pushed through, without any opportunity for full explanation, scrutiny or time to consider the impact on the hundreds of thousands of people who are desperately in need of social care and support and will not receive it under these proposals. We later also had the money-saving bombshell announcement of local authority contributions not being allowed to accrue against the care cap, which was designed to achieve savings on the Government’s original package—even before any form of scrutiny of the Bill had commenced—that will be at the expense of some of the country’s poorest and most vulnerable people.
As noble Lords have pointed out, in reality, we in the Lords Chamber have had little actual time to consider and debate these vital social care provisions, despite many hours and days being spent overall on a long and complex Bill. Worst of all, we had the blank refusal by the Government to discuss or address any of the concerns and issues expressed or put forward by noble Lords from all sides of the House, with their deep expertise and knowledge across social care, or the detailed and painstaking evidence and modelling work undertaken by key stakeholders, such as Age UK, Mencap, the Alzheimer’s Society, and the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust and Health Foundation expert think tanks. We have instead been told that Ministers have done their best to explain their proposals, but they have absolute red lines against making any changes whatever. Is this what must now pass for parliamentary dialogue, scrutiny and debate?
For the record, I will underline some of the key reasons why opposition to the Government’s proposal for the cap implementation is so clear and strong. The cap level and implementation strongly favour the better off and would bring almost nothing to the worst off. This is unfair and the opposite of levelling up. Older people and those with modest means all fare badly under the Government’s charging proposals.
Even the Government’s own impact assessment admits that only 10% of working-age disabled adult care users will benefit, that one in five older people will not see the benefits of the cap and that poorer care users are much more likely to die before they reach the cap than others with the same care needs. Among older people, those in the north-east, Yorkshire, Humber and the Midlands will be worse off. For dementia sufferers regionally, just 16% of people in the north-east and 19% in the east Midlands would hit the cap, compared with 29% in the south-east. The overall figure, as a result of disallowing local authority contributions towards the cap, is that only 21% of people living with dementia would reach it.
The mountain of evidence produced by stakeholders and think tanks shows that social care is not being fixed, as the Government continue to try to have us believe. The “nobody will have to sell their home” promise is firmly debunked, too, despite the Government desperately clinging on to it; it is a hollow and false claim. Somebody with assets of £100,000 will lose almost everything, while someone with assets of over £1 million will keep almost everything. How can this be the fair plan that the Minister insists it is?
The reality is that, as the Government holds to their solid red line, their arguments just do not stand up but get weaker by the minute. The Minister argues that his is the only affordable plan, but, if that is the case, why do the £90 million of savings have to be paid for by those who can least afford it, and why are there not better plans to protect those with fewest assets?
Local authority care contributions counting towards the cost are presented by the Government as unfair. Instead, they insist that setting the cap at the same level for everybody,
“no matter their age, where they live in the country or the nature of the care and support they need to draw on”,—[Official Report, 5/4/22; col. 1986.]
is the fairest system. Is that not also the opposite of how levelling up should work?
The argument that no one will be worse off than under the current system is just not borne out by the overwhelming evidence from the stakeholders and think tanks. The contention that the Government are reforming and changing the system where previous attempts have failed just is not true. There was cross-party agreement on the implementation of the Care Act after detailed scrutiny of the Dilnot proposals, and it was this Government who failed to implement it. I remind the House, as someone who was heavily involved in the scrutiny of that Bill, that there was no mention of the Care Act provisions being unaffordable when the Act and its implementation proposals were agreed in 2014.
On working-age adults, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has again forcefully underlined, the Government’s proposals will mean that they remain trapped in poverty. The Minister’s previous reference to the uprated social security benefits that they will receive instead under the minimum income guarantee completely missed the point of how social care needs have to be supported.
Ministers have doggedly stuck to their responses, without either acknowledging or addressing these clear counterarguments and evidence. My Motion again reinforces the key issues that we have tried all along to get the Government to respond to: the importance of implementing the care cap under the consensus provisions of the Care Act, and ensuring that local authority care costs are allowed to accrue towards the cap to avoid the huge unfairness that not doing so will cause to key groups in need of social care.
Finally, we want to make sure that the Government’s much-vaunted but little-explained trailblazer pilots are completed before regulations on the cap are agreed, as well as including the analysis of the impact on regional eligibility and the effect of the cap on working-age disabled adults under 40 with eligible care needs. Is this not both sensible and fairer to the key groups who stand to lose so much under the Government’s proposals? Why is this so difficult for the Government to agree to? I referred to “little-explained pilots”, but I did receive a letter three hours ago from the Minister, for which I thank him, setting out information about the pilots that in fact adds very little more than the DHSC press release in March and also shows that they will not be evaluating the key areas of impact that my Motion calls for.
I will also add that I have seen recent government claims in the media that deleting the social care cap arrangements in the Bill would jeopardise the whole Bill. I emphasise that that is not so. In their place we would instead have the rest of the Bill and the Care Act 2014 provisions, which would form the basis for moving forward quickly and implementing the cap in a much fairer and more inclusive way that would benefit many more people in desperate need of social care support.
I hope that even at this late stage the Government will listen, address the overwhelming concerns and evidence from all the stakeholders and experts on social care services and delivery and accept my Motion as the best way forward.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will turn to the issues as briefly and succinctly as I can.
On workforce planning, I hope I can assure noble Lords that we will engage with stakeholders on the preparation of the report, which will include the regulated workforce in health, social care and public health. I hope your Lordships also understand the work being undertaken by the Government, NHS England and Health Education England to improve workforce planning and to lead the improvements we all seek. This is why we think the amendment is unnecessary. I also remind noble Lords that at local level there is an incredible amount of local planning going on much closer to the ground.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, in opening this debate, the Minister said that Motion A by and large did the job that Motion A1 seeks to do. I beg to differ, and so do more than 100 key organisations that work day in, day out on health and social care. Unless we plan and prepare to have the right workforce in place, it will continue to be the case that we do not have the right workforce, so what is happening now will simply continue. We will not be sure of safe staffing levels, nor have the people in place to give the levels of service that mean patients do not have to continue to suffer long and painful waits.
I remain deeply disappointed that on workforce, a central pillar of how we run our health and social care services, the Government have refused to even discuss this matter. I ask the House to agree to Motion A1.
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30B and 108B, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 30C to 30K in lieu.
“(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a reconfiguration of NHS services is “notifiable” if it is of a description specified in regulations.”
“(3A) The Secretary of State must, before acting under sub-paragraph (2), give each of the following an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State in relation to the proposal—
(a) the NHS commissioning body,
(b) if the NHS commissioning body is an integrated care board, NHS England,
(c) each local authority (within the meaning of section 2B) to whose area the proposed reconfiguration of NHS services relates, and
(d) any other person that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
“(5) The Secretary of State must publish a summary of any representations made under sub-paragraph (3A).”
“(2) The Secretary of State must publish any direction under this paragraph, together with an explanation of the reasons for giving it.”
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 48C in lieu.
“Eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains
(1) The National Health Service Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 12ZB insert—
“12ZC Eradicating slavery and human trafficking in supply chains
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate with a view to eradicating the use in the health service in England of goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.
(2) The regulations may, in particular, include—
(a) provision in connection with the processes to be followed by public bodies in the procurement of goods or services for the purposes of the health service in England (including provision as to circumstances in which a supplier is excluded from consideration for the award of a contract);
(b) provision as to steps that must be taken by public bodies for assessing and addressing the risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place in relation to people involved in health service supply chains;
(c) provision as to matters for which provision must be made in contracts for goods or services entered into by public bodies for the purposes of the health service in England.
(3) In this section—
“health service supply chains” means supply chains for providing goods or services for the purposes of the health service in England;
“public body” means a body exercising functions of a public nature;
“slavery and human trafficking” has the meaning given by section 54(12) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;
“tainted”: goods or services are “tainted” by slavery and human trafficking if slavery and human trafficking takes place in relation to anyone involved in the supply chain for providing those goods or services.”
(3) In section 272 (orders, regulations, rules and directions), in subsection (6), after paragraph (zze), insert—
“(zzf) regulations under section 12ZC,”.”
Lord Kamall
That this House do not insist on Lords Amendment 80 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 80A to 80N in lieu; and do not insist on its Amendments 80P and 80Q instead of the words so left out of the Bill to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 80R.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Wheeler
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on Lords Amendment 80 in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement; do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 80A to 80N in lieu; and do not insist on its Amendments 80P and 80Q instead of the words so left out of the Bill to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 80R, and do propose Amendments 80S and 80T in lieu—
“Cap on care costs for charging purposes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Care Act 2014 as regards how “costs accrued in meeting eligible needs” for the purposes of section 15 of that Act are to be determined.
(2) The regulations must ensure that any costs incurred by any local authority to meet eligible needs are included within that determination.
(3) The regulations may not be made unless—
(a) an evaluation of the results of the Trailblazer pilot schemes has been completed, which takes account of regional eligibility and the effect of the care cap on disabled adults who have or have had eligible needs under the age of 40, and
(b) the Secretary of State has laid that evaluation before Parliament.”
“(ca) regulations under section (Cap on care costs for charging purposes);””
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, time is short. The Minister has once again failed to respond to the evidence and the concerns that have been so forcefully expressed throughout the passage of the Bill. I wish to move Motion D1 and test the opinion of the House.
Royal Assent
Thursday 28th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text